On 7/21/2012 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. And it is here that "conventional physics" has a problem, for to
relate observations with perceptions they rely on the physical
supervenience thesis, which does no more work when comp is assumed.
It is only a problem in that the explanation is incomplet
Not at all. Step 8 makes clear the explanation is *inconsistent* with
the weak Occam razor. It makes matter into a god of the gap, actually
into an aristotelian God having no job. It is an epinoumenon, like
Physics takes the perception as given and doesn't (yet) try to
explain how this perception is realized by the physics of a brain -
or even whether it can be. It just takes the perceptions as data.
+ a bet that such data can be explained in a theory, but this used
implicitly, all the time, the physical supervenience thesis. This can
no more work with comp, as shown explicitly by UDA-8. We can come back
on this if you missed something there.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at