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)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Hanna, Kantian Non-Conceptualism, and Benacerraf's Dilemma.Terry F. Godlove - 2011 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19 (3):447 - 464.
Intuitionists Are Not (Turing) Machines.Crispin Wright - 1995 - Philosophia Mathematica 3 (1):86-102.
Mechanism and Godel's Theorem.William H. Hanson - 1971 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 22 (February):9-16.
What is the Benacerraf Problem?Justin Clarke-Doane - 2017 - In Fabrice Pataut (ed.), New Perspectives on the Philosophy of Paul Benacerraf: Truth, Objects, Infinity.
Tasks, Super-Tasks, and the Modern Eleatics.Paul Benacerraf - 1962 - Journal of Philosophy 59 (24):765-784.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads37 ( #139,130 of 2,169,095 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #345,850 of 2,169,095 )
How can I increase my downloads?