On 23/04/2017 8:52 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
It's you who's begging the question, first define what is a computation with physics first, without relying on abstract mathematical notion.
A computation with physics is what is happening in the computer I am currently working on. I can describe this in mathematical notation if you wish, but the process is not the notation. Any process that takes input and produces output is a computation. All physical objects do this. And physical objects do not know any mathematics.
Bruce
Le 23 avr. 2017 12:45 PM, "Bruce Kellett" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :On 23/04/2017 6:53 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:Le 23 avr. 2017 10:32, "Bruce Kellett" <[email protected] <mailto:[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 yousay 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.
