(This is a belated response to Jürgen Schmidhuber's post at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_thread/thread/ceae8b5488e1ae7d/bf9ee6a75c36b97c?lnk=gst&q=Schmidhuber&rnum=13#
)
Hi Jürgen,
Very belated thanks for taking the time to send all these detailed and
constructive comme
Sorry Bruno, no disrespect, I meant to type "Hi Bruno".
George
George Levy wrote:
> Ho Bruno
>
> Sorry, I have been unclear with myself and with you. I have been
> lumping together the assumption of an "objective physical world" and
> an "objective platonic world". So you are right, I do reject
Ho Bruno
Sorry, I have been unclear with myself and with you. I have been lumping
together the assumption of an "objective physical world" and an
"objective platonic world". So you are right, I do reject the objective
physical world, but why stop there? Is there a need for an objective
platoni
Hi George,
I think that we agree on the main line. Note that I never have
pretended that the conjunction of comp and weak materialism (the
doctrine which asserts the existence of primary matter) gives a
contradiction. What the filmed-graph and/or Maudlin shows is that comp
makes materialism
e
4 matches
Mail list logo
