Re: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to a timless Platonia

Hi John, Le 30-sept.-06, à 21:45, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > Whatever we 'concentrate on' for comprehensibility, is *our* way of > doing. > Within our HUMAN comprehension. We cannot concentrate on things we > cannot > comprehend. I don't understand. We do research because there are thin

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

Le 02-oct.-06, à 18:03, markpeaty a écrit : > > I hope you will excuse my butting in here, but I was passing through on > a different mission > and became disturbed by reading some earlier posts of this thread. You are welcome. > > My 2 cents worth: > I tend to think that David Nyman has the

Re: Maudlin's argument

Le 03-oct.-06, à 06:56, George Levy a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote in explaining Maudlin's argument: "For any given precise running computation associated to some inner experience, you can modify the device in such a way that the amount of physical activity involved is arbitrarily low, and even n

Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)

Bruno, I looked on the web but could not find Maudlin's paper. So I just go by what you are saying. I still stand by the spirit of what I said but I admit to be misleading in stating that Maudlin himself is part of the machine. It is not Maudlin, but Maudlin's proxy or demon, the Klaras whic