Re: ​Movie argument

2017-05-18 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
So which is the Boss, John, Mathematics, somehow at the 'base; of the universe, or is physics the top dog from the 1st split second? This seems to break down much discussion here, with this question. -Original Message- From: John Clark To: everything-list

Re: Question about physical supervenience

2017-05-18 Thread Russell Standish
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 08:42:22AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:> > > On 16 May 2017, at 10:20, Russell Standish wrote: > > >On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 09:47:14AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> > >>On 16 May 2017, at 04:44, Russell Standish wrote: > >> > >>>On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:41:04AM -0700,

Re: Question about physical supervenience

2017-05-18 Thread Brent Meeker
On 5/18/2017 2:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 May 2017, at 20:42, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/17/2017 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Exactly. I might try to add some possible mathematical precision, but I need to think a bit on this. Later. Up to now, the B of Bp & p is interpreted by

Re: ​Movie argument

2017-05-18 Thread John Clark
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​>>​ >> And John Clark could have told them both that long long ago except for >> the fact that before the duplication the W man and the M man did not exist. > > > ​> ​ > If this suppresses the first person

Re: Question about physical supervenience

2017-05-18 Thread David Nyman
On 18 May 2017 at 14:56, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 18 May 2017, at 14:31, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 17 May 2017 at 19:37, Brent Meeker wrote: > >> >> >> On 5/17/2017 2:35 AM, David Nyman wrote: >> >>> The problem comes only if you attempt to

Re: Question about physical supervenience

2017-05-18 Thread David Nyman
On 17 May 2017 at 19:37, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 5/17/2017 2:35 AM, David Nyman wrote: > >> The problem comes only if you attempt to "reverse interpret" these >> transformations, in the computationalist framework,​ *as computation per >> se* and hence, by assumption,

Re: Paradox and supervenience (was Question about physical supervenience)

2017-05-18 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 18 May 2017, at 01:15, John Clark wrote: On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​A model is the math version of a reality. ​A model could be accurate ​or inaccurate.​ This makes no sense with the technical sense of model by the logician.

Re: Question about physical supervenience

2017-05-18 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 17 May 2017, at 23:16, David Nyman wrote: On 17 May 2017 at 19:49, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/17/2017 5:08 AM, David Nyman wrote: As a (very) rough and partial analogy, if I am on deck, and you are observing me from aloft, I can grasp that you are in a position to

Re: Question about physical supervenience

2017-05-18 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 17 May 2017, at 20:49, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/17/2017 5:08 AM, David Nyman wrote: As a (very) rough and partial analogy, if I am on deck, and you are observing me from aloft, I can grasp that you are in a position to command an entire domain of such personally "unprovable" facts

Re: Question about physical supervenience

2017-05-18 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 17 May 2017, at 20:42, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/17/2017 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Exactly. I might try to add some possible mathematical precision, but I need to think a bit on this. Later. Up to now, the B of Bp & p is interpreted by its computational rendering, but "B" is really

Re: ​Movie argument

2017-05-18 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 17 May 2017, at 18:18, John Clark wrote: On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​​The information they "just got" is that the man who saw M became the M man and the many who saw W became the W man,​ ​and I could have correctly predicted that