--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > John, > > Le 03-févr.-06, à 23:45, John M a écrit : > > > --- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just compare past systems of 'logic' - say back to > > 3000 years, about "the same nature (world)" and > >you can agree that ALL OF THEM cannot be true. > > I agree. I would say HALF of them are true. My point > is that we can test it. > Bruno, You missed my point: whatever you want to test is still WITHIN the - I condone - HALF which you deem true. But it is perfectly circular: you test our human
logic/understanding within human logic/understanding. The caveman 200,000 years ago used the same (?) for establishing our mental ways with a lot less empirical cognitive inventory for use. And we still don't know all (understatement). Ignorance without knowing what we don't know - unstructurably. SNIP > > > ignorance about what? > > about ourselves and the rest. Already about numbers. > > > > We have to know "about it" to > > structure it. Could Columbus ever 'structure' the No-American West-Coast region when he thought he is in Asia? > > Bruno: > And it is very hard to do so, but in our west, there > was an Old School > discussing the point from Pythagoras to the late > neoplatonist. I think > the peak is Plotinus. But in the east: same > discussions with different > words. > Today, we have the math for listening to machines > and angels, belonging > to vast lattices of angels (non-machines). Beautiful. > > > > Solipsism can be humiliating: "I cannot be > right".<G> > > #rd person is not denied in my position: it is > just > > represented by MY 1st person interpretation of it, > so > > while "there is" a 3rd person "truth" it emerges > in us > > as our 1st person understanding. > > > No problem with that. We can start from the first > person as well. In > some of its presentation Plotinus follows that path. > Technically it is > less simple. Albert Visser got the logic of > intutionistic provability, > and its corresponding version of the Loeb truth. > But you know I am a Platonist , and then classical > logic is more easy > to handle. Anyway, we get all "hypostases". > Incompleteness leads > naturally to many different points of view, even > with "Truth" limited > to the truth of proposition about numbers. Bruno, I don't believe you are a Platonist. You may accept some (side?)lines of Platonistic ways, but you are ~3 millennia past Platonism, I think even past Loebianism. You are a BrunoMarchalist. > > Bruno > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > John M >
