|Abstract||I analyze here Benacerraf's criticism of Thomson arguments on the impossibility of w-supertasks. Although Benacerraf's criticism is well founded, his analysis of Thomson's lamp is incomplete. In fact, it is possible to consider a new line of argument, which Benacerraf only incidentally considered, based on the functioning laws of the lamp. This argument leads to a contradictory result that compromises the formal consistency of the w-ordering involved in all w-supertasks.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Terry F. Godlove (2011). Hanna, Kantian Non-Conceptualism, and Benacerraf's Dilemma. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19 (3):447 - 464.
Crispin Wright (1995). Intuitionists Are Not (Turing) Machines. Philosophia Mathematica 3 (1):86-102.
Dale Jacquette (2006). Applied Mathematics in the Sciences. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 6 (2):237-267.
J. P. Laraudogoitia (2006). A Look at the Staccato Run. Synthese 148 (2):433 - 441.
Mark Balaguer (1995). A Platonist Epistemology. Synthese 103 (3):303 - 325.
William H. Hanson (1971). Mechanism and Godel's Theorem. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 22 (February):9-16.
Paul Benacerraf (1962). Tasks, Super-Tasks, and the Modern Eleatics. Journal of Philosophy 59 (24):765-784.
John R. Lucas (1968). Satan Stultified: A Rejoinder to Paul Benacerraf. The Monist 52 (1):145-58.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #99,430 of 548,999 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,327 of 548,999 )
How can I increase my downloads?