> > > Just as an example, he says most philosophers > > would agree that > > []A->A, where []A is interpreted as knowing A. This > > is clearly a > > different meaning of the word "to know" that we use > > here in > > Australia. > Provided that A is not a simple artificial construct, meaning: it is a complicity (called generally a complexity), it cannot be "known" in its entirety. So the [] for knowing is a deficiency rather than an addition. The fact of knowing is added, but the [knowledge of A] is less than A (at least by the Aristotelian part of "more".) 'Most' philosophers have yet to learn about complexities. John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "http://pages.prodigy.net/jamikes"
- The role of logic, & planning ... Marchal
- Re: The role of logic, & planning ... George Levy
- Re: The role of logic, & planning ... Russell Standish
- Re: The role of logic, & planning ... George Levy
- Re: The role of logic, & planning ..... Russell Standish
- Re: The role of logic, & planni... Hal Ruhl
- Re: The role of logic, & planni... rwas rwas
- Belief & Knowledge Brent Meeker
- Re: Belief & Knowledge Scott D. Yelich
- Re: Belief & Knowledge rwas rwas
- Re: The role of logic, & pl... jamikes
- Re: The role of logic, & planning ..... jamikes
- Re: The role of logic, & planni... Scott D. Yelich
- Re: The role of logic, & planning ... Marchal
- Re: The role of logic, & planning ... Marchal
- Re: The role of logic, & planning ... Russell Standish
- Re: The role of logic, & planning ... Marchal
- Re: The role of logic, & planning ... Marchal
- Re: The role of logic, & planning ... Marchal
- Re: The role of logic, & planning ... Marchal
- Re: The role of logic, & planning ... Russell Standish