Bruno and Mirek, concerning Theateticus vs. Theaeteticus: in my strange linguistic background I make a difference betwee ai and ae - the spelling in Greek and Latin of the name. As far as I know, nobody knows for sure how did the 'ancient' Greeks pronounce their ai - maybe as the flat 'e' like in German "lehr" while the 'e' pronounciation might have been clsoer to (between) 'make' and 'peck' - the reason why the Romans transcribed it by their *ONE letter* *"ae",* (lehr) and not as English would read: *'a'+'ee'*. The spelling you gave points to this latter. The Latin 'ae' is not TWO separate letters (a+e), it is a twin, as marked in the Wiki article ..."*Theætetus"... **and not Theaetetus * which looked strange to me from the beginning . *(I wonder if the e-mail reproduces the (ae) one sign? look up in Wiki's Theaetetus Dialogue (in the title with the wrong spelling) the 1st line brings the merged-together double 'æ'.) * *** *English spelling always does a job on classical words, the Greek 'oi' has been transcribed into Latin sometimes as 'oe' and pronounced as in "girl" (oeuvre) while many think it was a sound like what the pigs say: as "oy". then comes America, with it's Phoenix (pron: feenix).... * I don't think the Romans were much better off, centuries after and a world apart from the ancient (classical for them) Greeks. And who knows today if the great orator was Tzitzero or Kikero to turn later into Tchitchero? *** *"The Old Man" did quite a job on us at the tower of Babel. * *** *[[ - I am enjoying your 'other' post where you spelled out my own vocabulary as indeed thinking functions as relations, lately not as a static description, but also the interchanging factor - ]]* ** *John*
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 02 Aug 2009, at 23:20, Mirek Dobsicek wrote: > > > > I am in a good mood and a bit picky :-) Do you know how many entries > > google gave me upon entering > > Theaetetical -marchal -bruno > > > > Well 144? > > > Good way to find my papers on that. The pages refer quickly to this > > list or the FOR list. > > > I am sorry for the delay, I've just got back from my vacation. > > Hmm. The above written search should not return any references to your > papers/letters as the minus sign in front of your name asks for an > exclusion. > > Given that it works as supposed google then gives only 1 hit in my > location (Sweden). That hit is a translation of the word "Theaetetical" > into some eastern characters. Thus, I end up with zero meaningful hits > and a feeling that you might be the only one using this word. > > That makes me insists a little bit more (in a very polite way) that, > occasionally, your work is > "difficult to read unless one is willing to undertake long > discussions, clarifications and position adjustments." > > I am writing this in a reference to your complains that sometimes you > have troubles to get enough relevant feedback to your work. > > > > > Come on Mirek: "Theaetetical" is an adjective I have forged from > "Theatetus". > "Theatetus" gives 195.000 results on Google. > "Theatetus" wiki 4310. > > By "theatetical notion of knowledge", I mean the "well known" attempts to > define "knowledge" by Theaetetus in Plato's Theaetetus. The most known > definition is "truye justified belief", that Bill taylor just mentionned on > the FOR list recently as: > "This old crock should have been given a decent burial long ago." > I guess I will have to make a comment ... > > > My work is, without doubt, very difficult to read because it crosses three > or four fields: "mathematical logic", "philosophy of mind" and "computer > science"; + quantum mechanics to evaluate the plausibility of the derived > computationalist physics. This does not help in an epoch of > hyper-specialization. > I am also using a deductive approach in the philosophy of mind. I am > apparently the first to *postulate* "mechanism". Most philosophers of mind > accept mechanism as the only rational theory, or reject it with some > passion. Few, if any, use it as an hypothesis, in a deductive strategy. Then > mathematical logic is virtually unknown, except by mathematical logicians, > who, for historical reasons, do not want to come back to the earlier > philosophical motivations: they want to be accepted as pure mathematicians. > Except the philosophical logicians, who in majority criticized classical > logic, and see philosphy as a mean to criticize classical philosophy. > Mathematicians are so used to classical philosophy, that they consider it as > science, and hate to be remind that this is still a philosophical. > > I have no feedback for purely contingent reason related to facts which have > nothing to do with the startling feature of the conclusion of the reasoning. > Up to now, I heard continuously about critics on an imaginary work I have > never done. The price of the best PhD thesis that I got in France has > eventually only spread those rumor from Brussels to elsewhere. > All real scientist who have studied my work and have accepted to meet me, > or to write a real report on it, have understood it. True, some took a > rather long time to understand, but that is normal: the subject matter is > very complex, and still taboo, especially for the atheists, and other > religious-based thinkers. But when they study it, they quickly discover that > I use the scientific method, that is I am just asking a question, what is > wrong with the following reasoning? ... The reasoning is decomposed in > "easy" steps, so people accepting (for personal belief or for the sake of > the argument) the hypotheses and wanting to reject the conclusion have a way > to put their fingers on some problems. > > UDA has been judged to obvious and simple in Brussels, and that is why I > have augmented the thesis with the AUDA, which unfortunately is considered > as ... too much simple for logicians, and too much difficult for non > logicians. But AUDA is not needed at all to understand the simple and clear > result: if we are digitalisable machine, the laws of physics emerge from a > statistics on computations, in a verifiable way (quantitatively and > qualitatively). The result is very simple and clear: the reasoning which > leads to that result is much more subtle and difficult. > > I am not at all pretending that reasoning is correct. Science progress when > people do errors, but we have to find them, and sometimes, if we don't find > them, we have to accept momentarily the conclusion, perhaps with the hope an > error will be find later. But the attitude of a (tiny but influencing) part > of the community consists in hiding the reasoning, or deforming it > completely. This can't help. > > Some people, even here recently (see 1Z's post) and recently on the FOR > list, attributes me a curious theory, where they confuse the conclusion with > the postulate (which deprives the work of *any* meaning). But the theory I > am studying is the old "mechanist theory", in its modern digital version, > and nothing else. So, if they have a genuine interest in the subject, we > would begin to learn something if they can criticize some point in the > reasoning, instead of ignoring it, or attributing it statements without ever > referring to a relevant piece of text. Of course they can't point on such > text, given that such information exists only in their mind. They repeat > rumors, and have clearly not take time to read the papers. > > The fact that the result would contradict the current paradigm does not > help, of course, but is not, yet, the source of the problem. > > > > > I let those interested to meditate on two questions (N is {0, 1, 2, 3, > > 4, ...}): > > > 1) What is common between the set of all subsets of a set with n > > elements, and the set of all finite sequences of "0" and "1" of length > > n. > > 2) What is common between the set of all subsets of N, and the set of > > all infinite sequences of "0" and "1". > > > Just some (finite and infinite) bread for surviving the day :) > > > I am going to catch up with the thread ... > > > Welcome back Mirek. Feel free to ask for any clarification, position > adjustments, question, at any level ...Do you understand what is the comp > hypothesis? > > Bruno > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---