[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On Sep 10, 6:13 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Knowledge is usually defined as true belief that is casually connected to the >> facts that make it true. That has nothing to do with work (free energy? >> computational steps?). You can certainly do a lot of work and end up with a >> false belief. > > The 'Bit and The Pendulum' (Tom Siegfried) is a good popular book > discussing the difference between Shannon information and knowledge. > > Bayesian is no doubt very useful and powerful, but the trouble with > Bayesianism is when it starts to become a sort of 'substitute > religion' and you have people claiming it's got all the answers to > reasoning. > > It doesn't. It really only deals with *prediction sequences*; you can > only assign a meaningful probabilities to something which if there is > something being predicted , something you can observe in the future. > That's as far as Bayesianisms can get you. There is no way to go from > mere prediction sequences to assessing the *meaning* (semantics) of > information, no matter what clever manipulations the Bayesianism > perform. > > ---- > > I think we are due for yet another extension to logic, one which will > contain Bayesianism as a special case.
But logic is also the manipulation of sequences of propositions. No matter how clever, you still need to something else to supply meaning. I think meaning only arises in relation to action within an environment. > > I think Bruno had it right, it's all Category Theory- and make the > next big leap forward in logic, we need to start using the concepts > from Category Theory and apply them to logic, to develop a new logic > capable of going beyond Bayesianism and dealing with the semantics of > information. But how? Listen to this: > > <b>Given two categories C and D a functor F from C to D can be thought > of as an *analogy* between C and D, because F has to map objects of C > to objects of D and arrows of C to arrows of D in such a way that the > compositional structure of the two categories is preserved.</b> No meaning there either. Brent > > And therein lies the big clue suggesting that the concepts from > category theory can be used to develop a new logic of analogies. > > And there I shall leave you for now. See you around the galaxy :D > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
