[FOM] Counterfactuals in relative computability theory

[Timothy Y. Chow]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2016, Richard Heck wrote:
> The problem is that it ignores the possibility of a "squeezing argument" 
> of the type pioneered by Kreisel.

I don't agree.  All the squeezing argument says is that if you have a 
concept C, and you are willing to affirm that any set C' that faithfully 
represents C must contain a certain precisely defined set S and must also 
be contained in some other precisely defined set T, then you can prove 
some things about C' that then imply some things about C.  But it's only 
the part of argument that involves C' alone that is *mathematical*.  To 
arrive at an assertion about C, you have to affirm some kind of 
relationship between the informal concept C and the mathematically precise 
concept of "any set between S and T."  This part of the "proof" is not 
mathematical.

Tim