On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 02:06:37PM +0000, David Nyman wrote: > > I must admit it hasn't been entirely clear to me why you decided that the > MGA can go through without addressing the counterfactuals, especially since > Maudlin felt he had to address them in his alternative formulation. I > appreciate that Maudlin proceeds by trivialising the amount of activity > involved in the computation whereas MGA relies on evacuating the notion of > physical computation itself, but does the latter approach obviate the need > to account for any possible counterfactual activity? >
If the counterfactuals are physical (Multiverse situation), then we are automatically in a robust universe (for which the reversal is already addressed by step 7). If the universe is not robust, then the counterfactuals are not physical, and so if physical supervenience were true, the counterfactuals are irrelevent to supervenience. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
