On 23/04/2017 8:52 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
It's you who's begging the question, first define what is a computation with physics first, without relying on abstract mathematical notion.
A computation with physics is what is happening in the computer I am currently working on. I can describe this in mathematical notation if you wish, but the process is not the notation. Any process that takes input and produces output is a computation. All physical objects do this. And physical objects do not know any mathematics.
Bruce
Le 23 avr. 2017 12:45 PM, "Bruce Kellett" <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> a écrit :On 23/04/2017 6:53 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:Le 23 avr. 2017 10:32, "Bruce Kellett" <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> a écrit : But that does not prove that the computation does not run on a physical computer. I take JC's point to be that your assumption of the primacy of the abstract computation is unprovable. We at least have experience of physical computers, and not of non-physical computers. (Whatever yousay to the contrary,You're making an ontological commitment and closing any discussion on it...All I am asking for is a demonstration of the contradiction that you all claim exists between computationalism and physicalism -- a contradiction that does not simply depend on a definition of computationalism that explicitly states "physicalism is false". In other words, where is the contradiction? A demonstration that does not just beg the question. Bruce
-- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
