On 1 Sep, 16:55, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 01 Sep 2009, at 17:46, Flammarion wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1 Sep, 16:32, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> >> On 01 Sep 2009, at 16:32, Flammarion wrote:
>
> >>> On 1 Sep, 15:00, David Nyman <david.ny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 1 Sep, 13:08, Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> That is the point. I should say that my starting position
> >>>>>> before encountering Bruno's views was against the tenability of
> >>>>>> CTM on
> >>>>>> the basis of any consistent notion of physical process. Bruno
> >>>>>> hasn't
> >>>>>> yet persuaded me that an explicitly non-computational theory of
> >>>>>> mind
> >>>>>> on some such basis is actually untenable. But he has awakened me
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> the reverse realisation that a non-materialist world-view can
> >>>>>> tenably
> >>>>>> be founded on CTM
>
> >>>>> coupled with Platonism.
>
> >>>> With respect, Peter, you continue to miss the point. What Bruno
> >>>> has
> >>>> demonstrated is that CTM as a mind-body theory (which is what UDA-8
> >>>> shows it must be) makes no ontological commitment *by its very
> >>>> virtuality*. Or rather, any such commitment is shown to be
> >>>> vacuous.
>
> >>> There's got to be somehting at the bottom of the stack. Bruno
> >>> wants to substitue matetr with Platonia as the substrate.
> >>> If there is nothing at the bottom
> >>> of the stack, there are no virtualisations running higher up.
>
> >>>> Consequently under CTM, one is committed to RITSIAR=virtual, not
> >>>> RITSIAR=platonic.
>
> >>> CTM only suggests that I *could* be virtualised. Alternatively
> >>> I could be running on the metal. I do wish you guys would undertand
> >>> that
> >>> Possible X => actually X
> >>> is a fallacy.
>
> >> So you have a problem with the indexical approach of time, and space.
>
> > i don't know what you mean by that.
>
> The indexical approach of time is that now, is any moment as see as
> from that moment point of view. Similar ideas have been used by
> Galilee, Everett, Einstein, and there is a modern movement in
> philosophy of physics which vindicates a more general use, like the
> one I am using where actuality is possibility or consistency "as seen
> from inside". All block universe approaches are based on that idea.
> See for example:
I don't see what that has to do with the possible=>actual fallacy
> Now, Time, and Quantum Mechanics, edited by Michel Bitbol and Eva
> Ruhnau, Frontière, Paris, 1994.
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
