On 21 May 2014, at 21:50, [email protected] wrote:
On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 7:20:27 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 May 2014, at 15:28, [email protected] wrote:
But now that you tell us that you believe that comp is false, I am
not so astonished. You still miss a real opportunity to refute
comp, at the same time.
No. I don't have to say comp is false. I'm saying that the
assumption is not carrying much knowledge. It would be like in 1700
someone proposing the universe was made of the same matter. It'd be
true, we know that now. So small and large theories came out that
started with that assumption alone, and came up with streams of
logic...leading to dreams and gods and whatever. And there'd be guys
in your role and guys in my role, and in my role they'd be saying "I
don't think it's wrong, I just think the initial assumption is not
carrying much knowledge. And the guy in your role would be saying
"ah...so you do assume not-matter"
But if you believe this, then you have to believe that something is
wrong in the UD Argument, as it shows that comp is a very strong
hypothesis, leading to the reversal physics/machine's psychology, or
machine's theology. What step is wrong? Are you OK with step 3 (where
John Clark miss the use of the 1p/3p distinction if you have follow
the thread), or is it step 8?
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/d/optout.
