One more question: can or should p be the observer? George George Levy wrote:
> Hi Bruno, > > I am reopening an old thread ( more than a year old) which I found > very intriguing. It leads to some startling conclusions. > > Le 05-août-06, à 02:07, George Levy a écrit : > > Bruno Marchal wrote:I think that if you want to > > make the first person primitive, given that neither you nor me can > really define it, you will need at least to axiomatize it in some > way. > Here is my question. Do you agree that a first person is a knower, > and > in that case, are you willing to accept the traditional axioms for > knowing. That is: > > 1) If p is knowable then p is true; > 2) If p is knowable then it is knowable that p is knowable; > 3) if it is knowable that p entails q, then if p is knowable then > q is > knowable > > (+ some logical rules). > > Bruno, what or who do you mean by "it" in statements 2) and 3). In > addition, what do you mean by "is knowable", "is true" and "entails"? > Are "is knowable", "is true" and "entails" absolute or do they have > meaning only with respect to a particular observer? Can these terms be > relative to an observer? If they can, how would you rephrase these > statements? > > George > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
