David Nyman wrote: > Brent Meeker wrote: > > > But it's still a model, one based on arithmetic rather than matter, and the > > only way to > judge whether it is a good model to see how it > > corresponds with "mere appearance"; just > like we test QM, general > > relativity, and every other theory. It *might* be the really real > > > model - but so might any other model that fits all the data. > > Yes, of course, Brent - hence my comments later on in my post. But in > fact, comp implies that the normal physics model can't 'fit all the > data', if we include (as we must) the 1-person pov itself in 'the > data'.
Computationalism doesn't imply that. a conflict between computationalism and physicalism would be be astonshing and highly significant. A conflict between physicalsim and Platonism is much less so. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
