On 1/21/2014 2:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
I don't see that you've explained what question I begged. Just because I define things
ostensively does not entail that reject explanations of their existence - if that's what
you are implying.
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.
But that seems me an example of the misplaced concrete. I have a lot more confidence in
the physical functionality of a well tested artificial neuron than I have in the UDA. So
I may well say "yes" to the doctor without accepting arithmetical realism, the
mathematical definition of "exists", or the running of a UD.
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.
I am suspicious that it only proves that a "zero-physics" simulation is possible in a
different world where the physics is simulated too. In other words it's conclusion is
only valid if the scope is made arbitrarily large and the MG, in effect, becomes a
different world.
Brent
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/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
--
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.
--
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.
