Re: truth
Dear John, Dear Bruno, think about it as absolute truth: Isn't 1+1 not 2, but 11? If 11 is a notation for 2, then it is the *same* absolute truth, just written with non standard notation. If 11 denotes eleven (1*10 + 1), as it usually does, then it is an absolute falsity, which contradicts directly what we have already agree on since a long time, notably the law of addition: x + 0 = x x + successor(y) = successor(x+y) OK? Bruno On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hello John, On 24 Jun 2012, at 21:43, John Mikes wrote: Bruno: Doesn't it emerge in this respect WHAT truth? or rather WHOSE truth? is there an accepted authority to verify an absolute truth judgeable from a different belief system? I don't think such authority exists. We can only agree on hypotheses, about such truth, concerning some domain of investigation. We can also agree on the existence or non existence of facts confirming some truth concerning some reality. But we can bet such truth exists, even if we cannot believe it or know it for sure. Examples: - Few people doubt that 1+1=2 is an absolute truth, when 1 and 2 are used as the usual name for the standard natural numbers, and + represents the standard addition operation. Likewise for the whole elementary (first order) arithmetic. - We usually don't doubt the mundane informations. So, 'Obama is the actual president of the US' can reasonably be assumed as absolute. I mean, with actual, that Obama is the actual president of the US in our reality is the absolute truth. Not the proposition Obama is the actual president of the US which might be false in the universe next door. Most theoretical truth are absolute, thanks to their conditional shapes. For example the existence of parallel universes in the theoretical framework of QM-without-collapse is absolute, accepting some reasonable definition of what is a universe (a set of events closed for interaction, for example). This is absolute as it is a theorem in QM-without-collapse (or of comp). Of course the proposition parallel universes exist is not absolute at all. Bruno On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Jun 2012, at 09:47, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 22.06.2012 08:03 Stephen P. King said the following: On 6/22/2012 1:50 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: I have many questions. One is what if truth were malleable? -- HI Brian, If it was malleable, how would we detect the modifications? If our standards of truth varied, how could we tell? This reminds me of the debate between Leibniz and Newton regarding the notion of absolute space. If one assumes the correspondence theory of truth, then the question would be if a reality were malleable. Right. Which leads to the question; what does Brian mean by truth is malleable? Would this entail that arithmetical truth is malleable? What would it mean that the truth of 17 is prime is malleable. It looks like we need a more solid truth than arithmetic in which we can make sense of the malleability of the truth in arithmetic, but I cannot see anything more solid than elementary arithmetic. Some truth can be malleable in some operational sense, but this will be only metaphorical. For example the truth that cannabis is far more safe than alcohol, appears to be quite malleable, but this is just because special interest exploits the lack of education in logic. People driven by power are used to mistreat truth, but it is just errors or lies. I guess Brian's question is more metaphysical, but then in which non malleable context can we make sense of metaphysically malleable truth? Perhaps Brian should elaborate on what he means by truth is malleable? It seems to me that such an idea is similar to complete relativism, which defeats itself by not allowing that very idea to be relativized. 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 . -- 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 . 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
Re: Autonomy?
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: comp allows self-duplication. That is the key point. OK. If you really had complete information then you could make 2 predictions: 1) I Bruno Marchal will write in my diary I Bruno Marchal am now in Washington and only Washington .2) I Bruno Marchal will write in my diary I Bruno Marchal am now in Moscow and only Moscow. That's better. But still ignore the first/third person distinction. I don't know what you're talking about. John K Clark, a third party outside observer who also has complete information about the proceedings, makes the exact same predictions that Bruno Marchal, the first person, does about what he will write in his diary. And events will prove that both are correct. Both predictions will turn out to be 100% correct; Not from the first person point of view, I don't know what you're talking about. The first person or second person or third person or the 99'th person can all be shown the entries from both diaries proving that the predictions made by Bruno Marchal and John K Clark were indeed 100% correct about what Bruno Marchal will write. the question was bearing on I, not BrunoMarchal, which refers to a third person description. [...] You don't need to define it [I] to get the point that the proba on the localisation on the future sense of self is 1/2. So you can't define I or even give a example of I that remains true for more than a second, and you believe as I do that you are free to add subtract multiply and divide I by any arbitrary integer; and yet you still think assigning a probability to such a vague constantly shifting uncountable specter means something so concrete you can give it a probability that means something. I don't. You say the probability of something to do with the non-defined ephemeral thing called I is 1/2, but to me the meaning would be just as great (or as little) if you had assigned a negative probability to it of -1/2, or a imaginary probability of 1/2i; I have no idea what to do with any of these probability figures including yours of 1/2, I don't see how I could make use of any of them in any way. You ignore again the 1-3 distinction that I made precise. I don't know what you're talking about. You admit you can't define I and so although both the Washington and Moscow man use the word I without hesitation when referring to themselves you can't know if one or both or neither really deserves to have that title, and yet you still assign a probability of 1/2 to something that is supposed to have something to do with I, although it's unclear exactly what. That sure does not sound very precise to me! John K Clark -- 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.
Re: Autonomy?
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I think the claim that, It's either determined or random. is misleading. Thoughts and actions may be determined in the sense of constrained to a fairly narrow probability distribution, and yet random. it is a deterministic certainty that a coin flip will never turn into an ostrich and will always produce a heads or a tails, but if it came up tails it did so for a reason or it did not do so for a reason. And you may have inherited the risk taking gene so it is determined that you like to take dangerous adventurous vacations; there is a reason you have that personality trait, but you may have picked climbing Mt. Everest rather than the Matterhorn for no reason at all, it was random. But what does the free will noise have to do with any of this? John K Clark -- 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.
Re: Autonomy?
On 6/28/2012 9:31 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I think the claim that, It's either determined or random. is misleading. Thoughts and actions may be determined in the sense of constrained to a fairly narrow probability distribution, and yet random. it is a deterministic certainty that a coin flip will never turn into an ostrich and will always produce a heads or a tails, but if it came up tails it did so for a reason or it did not do so for a reason. And you may have inherited the risk taking gene so it is determined that you like to take dangerous adventurous vacations; there is a reason you have that personality trait, but you may have picked climbing Mt. Everest rather than the Matterhorn for no reason at all, it was random. But what does the free will noise have to do with any of this? I explains why people think, I could have done otherwise. They could, due to random events in their brain/environment, but causal efficacy of those random events (e.g. choosing Everest vs Matterhorn) is narrowly constrained by who they are. So even though their choice is 'random' it still may satisfy the social/legal concept of their responsibility. Brent -- 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.
Re: truth
Brent: I am the 3rd kind of the two: think not in binary, just in plain peasant logic, when 1 and 1 make 11, nothing more. So Bruno's absolute truth may have even more relatives. John On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:36 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/27/2012 2:26 PM, John Mikes wrote: Dear Bruno, think about it as absolute truth: Isn't 1+1 not 2, but 11? Respectfully John Naah! It's 10. Brent There are 10 kinds of people; those who think in binary and those who don't. -- 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. -- 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.
Re: truth
What I was wondering, and I know this is ill-formed, is if in different parallels, different things are absolutely true. Things like 2+2=17. It may be completely impractical to imagine such parallels since there is presumably zero overlap and no means of travel to there. The basic premise is that an omnipotent being has the ability to fool computers into thinking various things are true. On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:46 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Brent: I am the 3rd kind of the two: think not in binary, just in plain peasant logic, when 1 and 1 make 11, nothing more. So Bruno's absolute truth may have even more relatives. John On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:36 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/27/2012 2:26 PM, John Mikes wrote: Dear Bruno, think about it as absolute truth: Isn't 1+1 not 2, but 11? Respectfully John Naah! It's 10. Brent There are 10 kinds of people; those who think in binary and those who don't. -- 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. -- 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. -- 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.
Re: truth
On 6/28/2012 12:46 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent: I am the 3rd kind of the two: think not in binary, just in plain peasant logic, when 1 and 1 make 11, nothing more. So Bruno's absolute truth may have even more relatives. John Or less facetiously, (The father of Kirsten)+(The father of Gennifer)=(One, me) and (one raindrop)+(one raindrop)=(one raindrop). So whether successor(x)=(x+1) depends on the applicability of arithmetic to your model. Brent -- 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.
Re: truth
On 6/28/2012 1:06 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote: What I was wondering, and I know this is ill-formed, is if in different parallels, different things are absolutely true. Things like 2+2=17. It may be completely impractical to imagine such parallels since there is presumably zero overlap and no means of travel to there. The basic premise is that an omnipotent being has the ability to fool computers into thinking various things are true. It doesn't take an omnipotent being to do that - unless you think Rush Limbaugh is omnipotent. Brent -- 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.
Re: truth
What I meant is an omnipotent being being able to manipulate what is actually, absolutely true (so in a parallel 2+2 might actually be 17). Not manipulate the perception of truth. On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/28/2012 1:06 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote: What I was wondering, and I know this is ill-formed, is if in different parallels, different things are absolutely true. Things like 2+2=17. It may be completely impractical to imagine such parallels since there is presumably zero overlap and no means of travel to there. The basic premise is that an omnipotent being has the ability to fool computers into thinking various things are true. It doesn't take an omnipotent being to do that - unless you think Rush Limbaugh is omnipotent. Brent -- 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. -- 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.
