On 13 Jul 2010, at 12:49, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jul 2010, at 20:27, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 7/12/2010 6:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think we can use reason to defeat reason.
What machines can do is to use reason to go beyond reason, and
find some non provable or non rational truth.
What do you mean by a non-rational truth? A statement that is true
but unprovable or a statement for which there is no evidence or is
contrary to the preponderance of evidence, i.e. no reason to
believe it true? I can understand using reason and experience to
find statements that are true but unprovable (either axiomatically
or empirically. But if we find a non-rational truth doesn't that
mean finding some evidence for it and hence making it a rational
truth?
By non rational I mean either (according to the context) just non
provable.
Sorry: just read "By non rational I mean just non provable".
I was thinking of some nuances, but then I realize it would be more
confusing than enlightening. I always use words in the most general
sense, and I reason from that. Only when distinction have a role, I do
introduce them. This is the essence of axiomatic thinking.
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-l...@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.
