On 5/1/2019 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I am not sure I understand. By definition, the substitution level take into
account all what is relevant.
But definitions don't call the definidum into existence.??
Indeed. But I did not use a definition to claim any truth (of existence, or
else). Mechanism assumes that you have a brain, that computer exists
physically, that doctors exist, etc.
It does not assume that the physical existence is primary, though, and
eventually, the reasoning shows that the physical existence (which is never
doubted) is not primary.
By definition God is omnipotent.??
By*some* definition.
But that doesn't mean there's an omnipotent being.
On the contrary indeed. Nothing is omnipotent. Omnipotence and omniscience are
two inconsistent notions, even when taken in isolation.
I am not sure what was your point here Brent?
You wrote, "By definition, the substitution level take into account all what is
relevant." My point is that Holevo's theorem entails that there is lower bound on
the incompleteness of the substitution; so it is not at all clear that there is a
substitution level that takes into account all that is relevant. Simply saying there is
a definition of the term doesn't mean it refers.
Brent
--
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.
