It's you who's begging the question, first define what is a computation with physics first, without relying on abstract mathematical notion.
Le 23 avr. 2017 12:45 PM, "Bruce Kellett" <[email protected]> a écrit : > On 23/04/2017 6:53 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Le 23 avr. 2017 10:32, "Bruce Kellett" <[email protected]> a > écrit : > > But that does not prove that the computation does not run on a physical > computer. I take JC's point to be that your assumption of the primacy of > the abstract computation is unprovable. We at least have experience of > physical computers, and not of non-physical computers. (Whatever you say to > the contrary, > > > You're making an ontological commitment and closing any discussion on > it... > > > All I am asking for is a demonstration of the contradiction that you all > claim exists between computationalism and physicalism -- a contradiction > that does not simply depend on a definition of computationalism that > explicitly states "physicalism is false". In other words, where is the > contradiction? A demonstration that does not just beg the question. > > Bruce > > -- > 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
