On 21 Oct 2013, at 23:51, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno wrote
Not when doing science. (pseudo-science and pseudo-religion only).
Science as applied to the so far learned fraction of the infinite
complexity? If there ever was a 'pseudo-science' - that is one (I
mean the conventional pretension used for those "ALMOST" perfect
technicalities Brent was mentioning to me.) Our 'model' (science?)
is constantly growing. So: NEWER arguments are emerging and older
ones are rejected.
Yes. All the time. Good point. I don't think I said anything
contradicting that.
I appreciate your parallel between science and religion.
I consider that science can and should be applied in all domains. The
idea that science should not be applied in some domain is the same
idea that cannabis should be schedule one. It is an idea used for
stopping doing research by people who desire exploit the credulity of
their fellows.
Our world is a fractional model so far cleared to the capabilities
of the human mentality.
That is our mental world, but we can bet there is something else, and
try theories on that.
Are you thinking of SCIENCE (all caps) of the infinite Universal M.,
not reachable presently for us weak-minded humans?
Science is an attitude. Be it human, or more general universal
machine. It NEVER pretend to get truth, just enough clarity to be
refutable if false.
You still need some notion of possible truth, without which
'agnosticism" lost his meaning. This can lead to instrumentalism.
*
You will need a theory with more forms of absolute to develop the
idea that 17 is prime is a human logic relative idea.
Agnosticism - for me - is not a philosophical theorem: it is just
marking our ignorance about 'all of it' except for the few we
already "GOT" and adjusted to the meek capabilities of the
developing human mind. I am also at a loss how I would driven
towards 'instrumentalism'. In my (virgin?) agnosticism I even leave
open what kind of content could be - and HOW - intertwined in the
(unknowable) infinite complexity, which has SOME influence upon -
how we visualize at all our 'model-world content'.
Absolutes are scientific/religious belief items we try to hold on
to. Possible truth is our figment.
OK. That was unclear.
About "17"? I am no mathematician, so a fantasy of math-systems is
free to me. I figure a dynamic number-world flipping between series
of its own integers, like the base of 'your' arithmetic and another
one like expressable as
1.7, 3.4, 5.1... in which 17 is a "tenfold" of the first one, not a
prime. This would be with all the 'primes' in our primitive number-
world. Flip-flop. (Just musing!)
Not so incredible for an Infinite Universal Machine. (I have
imagination).
But then you talk no more on what mathematicians called "17".
As someone showed, just with the complex number, 17 becomes
factorizable, and so 17 is not a complex prime number.
But mathematician have made clear the notion of structure to avoid
that kind of fuzziness about the concept.
When I say 17 is prime, I am using the concept of natural number. 17
is the number s(s(s...(0)))...) with 17 "s", or the number of I"" in
"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII" (assuming no typo!)
As for now I am not (yet?) asking for a patent on this system.
OK :)
Have a good Halloween
Happy Halloween John!
Bruno
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
On 20 Oct 2013, at 21:03, John Mikes wrote:
Brent: I like to write insted of "we know" - "we THINK we know" and
it goes further: Bruno's "provable' - in many cases - applies
evidences (to 'prove') from conventional science (reductionist
figments) we still THINK we know.
Not when doing science. (pseudo-science and pseudo-religion only).
I don't think I use the term "T R U E" at all - in my agnosticism.
You still need some notion of possible truth, without which
'agnosticism" lost his meaning. This can lead to instrumentalism.
You had a remark lately to remind me that our 'imperfect' worldview
resulted in many many practical achievements so far. I did not
respond the missing adjective "almost" - meaning the many failures
and mishaps such achievements are involved with. We approach the
practical usability.
Another chapter includes math - the result of certain HUMAN logic -
in which 17 is defined as a 'prime'. A different logic may devise a
different math with different number-concept in which the
equivalent of 17 is NOT a prime.
You will need a theory with more forms of absolute to develop the
idea that 17 is prime is a human logic relative idea.
Bruno
I find it a mathematically impressed concept that the 'world' is
describable by numbers (arithmetic series) and not vice versa.
Nobody showed me so far a natural occurrence where arithmetic
connotations were detectable by non-arithmetic trains of thought.
JohnM
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 6:16 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
wrote:
On 10/19/2013 3:08 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 08:17:17PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Oct 2013, at 11:51, Russell Standish wrote:
I understand Bp can be read as "I can prove p", and "Bp&p" as
"I know
p". But in the case, the difference between Bp and Bp&p is
entirely in
the verb, the pronoun "I" stays the same, AFAICT.
Correct. Only the perspective change. "Bp" is "Toto proves p", said
by Toto.
"Bp & p" is "Toto proves p" and p is true, as said by Toto (or not),
and the math shows that this behaves like a knowledge opertaor (but
not arithmetical predicate).
It's the same Toto in both cases... What's the point?
The difference is crucial. Bp obeys to the logic G, which does not
define a knower as we don't have Bp -> p.
At best, it defines a rational believer, or science. Not knowledge.
But differentiating W from M, is knowledge, even non communicable
knowledge. You can't explain to another, that you are the one in
Washington, as for the other, you are also in Moscow. Knowledge
logic invite us to define the first person by the knower. He is the
only one who can know that his pain is not fake, for example.
You've hinted at fixed points being relevant here for the concept of
I.
So to have an 'I', you need the statement []p->p to be a theorem?
and Bp&p as "he knows p", so the person order of
the pronoun is also not relevant.
Yes, you can read that in that way, but you get only the 3-view of
the 1-view.
Let us define [o]p by Bp & p
I am just pointing on the difference between B([o]p) and [o]([o]p).
???
B([o]p) is the statement made by the ideal rationalist believer (B)
on a first person point of view ([o]). Here [o]p can be seen as an
abbreviation for Bp & p.
In English, the first statement is that I believe I know something,
and the second is that I know I know somthing.
[o]([o]p is the first person statement ([o]) on a first person point
of view ([o]).
So, according to you, knowledge is a first person point of view. What
I still get stuck on is that we may know many things, but the only
things we can know we know are essentially private things things,
such
as the fact that we are conscious, or what the colour red seems like
to us.
Bruno seems to equate "know" with "provable and true". So we know
that 17 is prime. In fact we *know* infinitely many theorems that
are provable, but which no one will ever prove - which seems like a
strange meaning of "know".
Brent
Are these all things you would say satisfy the proposition [o]([o]p)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
