On 20 Jan 2014, at 18:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/20/2014 12:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 22:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But why should that imply *existence*.
It does not. Unless we believe in the axioms, which is the case
for elementary arithmetic.
But what does "believe in the axioms" mean. Do we really believe
we can *always* add one more? I find it doubtful. It's just a
good model for most countable things. So I can believe the axioms
imply the theorems and that "17 is prime" is a theorem, but
I don't think that commits me to any existence in the normal sense
of "THAT exists".
Because you are chosing the physicalist ostensive definition of
what exists, like Aristotelians, but you beg the question here. The
point is that, in that case, you should not say "yes" to the doctor.
Why not. The doctor is going install a physical prosthetic. As
you've agreed before, it will not be *exactly* like me - but I'm not
exactly the same from day to day anyway.
But you overlook the UDA here. The UDA is the explanation why if you
say yes to the doctor "qua computatio", the physical must be recovered
from arithmetic, in some special way.
You can always add magic of course. This can be used for any theory of
physics.
I think your critics can be sum up by the belief that step 8 is non
valid. But step 8 talks about "reality", so it is not purely logical,
and step 8 just shows how ad hoc that move is. It is made equivalent
to the way creationist reason, except it is done for the creation
instead of the creator.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
