Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 20 Dec 2012, at 17:53, meekerdb wrote: On 12/20/2012 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: People agree that 2+2=4 because it is a simple truth which follow from simple definition. But that makes it conditional on the definition (axioms). Trivially. Usually we prefer not see a definition as a condition, but logically you can do that. We prefer to say that 17 is prime, instead of if p-(q-p), if (p-(q- r))-(p-q) -(p-r)), if ..., and if s(x) is different from 0 for all x, and if x = y when s(x) = s(y), and if if x + 0 = x, and if x +s(y) = s(x+y), and if x * 0 = 0, and ..., and ... then 17 is prime. We assume we are OK on the prerequisite. And it is not such a simple truth. Two raindrops plus two raindrops makes one big raindrop. Raindrop and clouds are bad model for what we mean by natural numbers. Come on. You could demolish Einstein special relativity with remark like that. --Mister Einstein, we member of the jury are not convinced by your thesis. There is a definite lack of rigor. Clearly E = mc^2 will not work with 2 interpreted by 2 raindrops. FAIL. One bridge teams plus one bridge teams equals three bridge teams. The simplicity of the truth comes from abstracting away all the particulars of reality. So people are agreeing about words and definitions and meanings - but not about facts. That is why I am a theoretician. Notably. I say that if comp is true, then physics is given by this theory. Facts confirms, but I let to talented experimenters to decide or refute it in fine. 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.
Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/21/2012 7:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Come on. You could demolish Einstein special relativity with remark like that. --Mister Einstein, we member of the jury are not convinced by your thesis. There is a definite lack of rigor. Clearly E = mc^2 will not work with 2 interpreted by 2 raindrops. FAIL. No, because GR comes with an interpretation and that has been tested. And in fact the 2 is irrelevant. c is just a scale factor from the way we defined units and physicist commonly set it to 1. 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 18 Dec 2012, at 22:12, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/18/2012 3:28 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/18/2012 10:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/18/2012 12:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2012 11:51 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. What do you mean ? that provable true is truer ? No, just that there must be propositions we judge to be true that aren't provable. Brent -- Hi Brent, How do we defend such propositions we judge to be true that aren't provable from claims of subjectivity? Of course being provable does eliminate subjectivity - it just pushes it back to the axioms. Generally what we mean by objective is that there is almost universal subjective agreement, e.g. given any number x there is a successor of x not equal to x. So if there is some proposition of arithmetic that everyone agrees must be true, then it's as 'objective' as the axioms and as 'objective' as anything proven from the axioms even though it is not provable from them. Brent Hi Brent, You have written the magic words! ... if there is some proposition of arithmetic that everyone agrees must be true. This is exactly what I am talking about with my banter about truth obtaining from agreements between mutually communicating observers. We remove the subjectivity of the individual by spreading it out over many individuals. When we have many individuals in agreement, the disagreement by one of them is inconsequential. This is the laws of large numbers at work. ;-) OK for politics, but not for science. That would be worst than solipsism, that would be nationalism, that is collective solipsism. In science all argument per authority are invalid, and to invoke majority would be the best way to kill the possibility of progress. history shows that in science, very often, those who are right are a minority for some period, which is normal in front of the unknown. We have many entities that are available to agree that 2+2=4 (for all sizes of 2 and 4 that we can find), People agree that 2+2=4 because it is a simple truth which follow from simple definition. 2^90 entities at least! Every particle that exist in our universe that can hold a bit of data and all possible combinations of them that agree on some laws of physics. If we take this finite number to be infinite then things change; we are not able to take about measures that are relative to agreements in populations of entities and must be capable of comprehending that simple fact. Granting ourselves imaginary powers of omniscience or to some imaginary Platonic proxy does not change anything when we are considering the degeneracy of the very idea of a measure in the case of infinities. Measure theory has been invented to define measure on all kinds of sets, especially infinite one. (Riemann measure, Lebesgues, etc.). Bruno -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 . 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.
Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 19 Dec 2012, at 20:18, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/19/2012 2:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am trying to see if we can use the way that towers of theories are allowed by the incompleteness theorems... This is studied in recursion theory. Turing shows that incompleteness continue to all effective transfinite tower, on the constructive ordinals. Dear Bruno, Yes, but we can see relative completeness between neighboring levels of the tower, no? Statement in Theory A that cannot be proven in A can be proven to be true in theory B that includes and extends beyond theory A, no? That is why they are towers, yes. But even the union of tower remains incomplete, unless the extension are done in an effective way, in which case we build more models than theories in the usual sense. Bruno -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 . 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.
Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 19 Dec 2012, at 20:30, meekerdb wrote: On 12/19/2012 8:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb and Stephen, If information is stored in quantum form, I can't see why the number of particles in the universe can be a limiting fsactor. Information has to be instantiated in matter (unless you're a Platonist like Bruno). No particles, no excited field modes - no information. You mean: unless you are a mechanist. Platonism in the greek sense is a consequence. And arithmetical realism is what you need to understand the mathematical notion of computation, Church thesis, etc. Not mathematical platonism. Bruno Also there are ways of storing information holographically, so size gets a bit ambiguous. The holographic principle says that the information that can be instantiated in spherical must be less than the area of the bounding surface in Planck units. So there's a definite bound. If we looks at the average information density in the universe (which is dominated by low energy photons from the CMB) and ask at what radius does the spherical volume times the density equal the holographic limit for that volume based on the surface area we find it is on the order of the Hubble radius, i.e. the radius at which things are receding at light speed. This suggests the expansion rate of the universe and and gravity are entropic phenomena. Brent [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 16:44:29 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 12/18/2012 1:12 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: We have many entities that are available to agree that 2+2=4 (for all sizes of 2 and 4 that we can find), 2^90 entities at least! Every particle that exist in our universe that can hold a bit of data and all possible combinations of them that agree on some laws of physics. I've only been able to communicate with a few of what I call 'human beings'. All those particle are inferences that I and the other 'human beings' have put in our model of the world to explain the 'facts' on which we have intersubjectively agreed. In our model, the particles don't have opinions. In fact the whole idea of particle is something which has very few properties and hence is completely understandable (wouldn't be much point in making a theory out of pieces you don't understand). Brent No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/5969 - Release Date: 12/18/12 -- 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-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 . 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.
Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/20/2012 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: People agree that 2+2=4 because it is a simple truth which follow from simple definition. But that makes it conditional on the definition (axioms). And it is not such a simple truth. Two raindrops plus two raindrops makes one big raindrop. One bridge teams plus one bridge teams equals three bridge teams. The simplicity of the truth comes from abstracting away all the particulars of reality. So people are agreeing about words and definitions and meanings - but not about facts. 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: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
Hi meekerdb Can be is not the same as is. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-19, 14:30:29 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 12/19/2012 8:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb and Stephen, If information is stored in quantum form, I can't see why the number of particles in the universe can be a limiting fsactor. Information has to be instantiated in matter (unless you're a Platonist like Bruno). No particles, no excited field modes - no information. Also there are ways of storing information holographically, so size gets a bit ambiguous. The holographic principle says that the information that can be instantiated in spherical must be less than the area of the bounding surface in Planck units. So there's a definite bound. If we looks at the average information density in the universe (which is dominated by low energy photons from the CMB) and ask at what radius does the spherical volume times the density equal the holographic limit for that volume based on the surface area we find it is on the order of the Hubble radius, i.e. the radius at which things are receding at light speed. This suggests the expansion rate of the universe and and gravity are entropic phenomena. Brent [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 16:44:29 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 12/18/2012 1:12 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: We have many entities that are available to agree that 2+2=4 (for all sizes of 2 and 4 that we can find), 2^90 entities at least! Every particle that exist in our universe that can hold a bit of data and all possible combinations of them that agree on some laws of physics. I've only been able to communicate with a few of what I call 'human beings'. All those particle are inferences that I and the other 'human beings' have put in our model of the world to explain the 'facts' on which we have intersubjectively agreed. In our model, the particles don't have opinions. In fact the whole idea of particle is something which has very few properties and hence is completely understandable (wouldn't be much point in making a theory out of pieces you don't understand). Brent No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/5969 - Release Date: 12/18/12 -- 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/20/2012 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Dec 2012, at 22:12, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/18/2012 3:28 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/18/2012 10:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/18/2012 12:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2012 11:51 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. What do you mean ? that provable true is truer ? No, just that there must be propositions we judge to be true that aren't provable. Brent -- Hi Brent, How do we defend such propositions we judge to be true that aren't provable from claims of subjectivity? Of course being provable does eliminate subjectivity - it just pushes it back to the axioms. Generally what we mean by objective is that there is almost universal subjective agreement, e.g. given any number x there is a successor of x not equal to x. So if there is some proposition of arithmetic that everyone agrees must be true, then it's as 'objective' as the axioms and as 'objective' as anything proven from the axioms even though it is not provable from them. Brent Hi Brent, You have written the magic words! ... if there is some proposition of arithmetic that everyone agrees must be true. This is exactly what I am talking about with my banter about truth obtaining from agreements between mutually communicating observers. We remove the subjectivity of the individual by spreading it out over many individuals. When we have many individuals in agreement, the disagreement by one of them is inconsequential. This is the laws of large numbers at work. ;-) OK for politics, but not for science. That would be worst than solipsism, that would be nationalism, that is collective solipsism. Dear Bruno, Could you stop with your anthropocentric bias for once in your life? Everyone, as I used the word, about is not just human beings. Yes, it is collective solipsism. It has a name: Multisolipsism. It is we we consider all entities that are capable of being defined as having a 1p and that are capable of communication with each other. This includes, for instance, every electron, every quark, every proton, every atom, every molecule, every animal, every planet, every solar system, every galaxy, ... any entity capable of having a 1p and that their individual 1p includes aspects that are bisimilar to aspects of the 1p of others. What you need to understand is that the mereology of the systems that can have a 1p cannot be confined to a unique partition of some irreducible set of primitives in a regular or well founded way. You need to understand the statistical implication of non-well foundedness! The nationalist allegiance here, to use your strange metaphor, would be to the Reality that all of them - the entities with 1p - participate in. Did you notice the huge number of entities that have to be considered, in my discussion with LizR? As it stands, we need to consider at least 10^23 entities just to take into account smallish phenomena at our human level, because that is the average number of entities that are at our level of substitution as an ensemble of equivalence. This is well known in chemistry and engineering... In science all argument per authority are invalid, and to invoke majority would be the best way to kill the possibility of progress. history shows that in science, very often, those who are right are a minority for some period, which is normal in front of the unknown. Rubbish, you are being a hypocrite, invoking that truth from authority crap. I am a minority of one here. So my minority status beats your minority status every day all day. Do we really need to go there and act like children? You really should take a class on statistic taught by an engineer and not a cloistered academic mathematician. I am merely trying to make the principles of COMP useful to an engineer, because, as I have been explaining to LizR, I see a use for comp. We have many entities that are available to agree that 2+2=4 (for all sizes of 2 and 4 that we can find), People agree that 2+2=4 because it is a simple truth which follow from simple definition. Sure, and those people don't notice that the universe is not everything that I can see with my eyes, touch with my hands, hear with my ears, smell with my nose, etc. The universe is far far more than we can distinguish at our level of substitution which is a function of our very coarse measurements. I am considering way more than people. I am considering any and every entity with a 1p. If you believe that only people have a 1p, then well 2^90 entities at least! Every particle that exist in our universe that can hold a bit of data and all possible combinations of them that agree on some laws of physics. If we take this finite number to be infinite then things change; we are not able to take about measures that are relative to agreements in populations
Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/20/2012 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Dec 2012, at 20:18, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/19/2012 2:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am trying to see if we can use the way that towers of theories are allowed by the incompleteness theorems... This is studied in recursion theory. Turing shows that incompleteness continue to all effective transfinite tower, on the constructive ordinals. Dear Bruno, Yes, but we can see relative completeness between neighboring levels of the tower, no? Statement in Theory A that cannot be proven in A can be proven to be true in theory B that includes and extends beyond theory A, no? That is why they are towers, yes. But even the union of tower remains incomplete, unless the extension are done in an effective way, in which case we build more models than theories in the usual sense. Bruno Dear Bruno, At some level, do models and theories converge? -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
Hi meekerdb and Stephen, If information is stored in quantum form, I can't see why the number of particles in the universe can be a limiting fsactor. Also there are ways of storing information holographically, so size gets a bit ambiguous. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 16:44:29 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 12/18/2012 1:12 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: We have many entities that are available to agree that 2+2=4 (for all sizes of 2 and 4 that we can find), 2^90 entities at least! Every particle that exist in our universe that can hold a bit of data and all possible combinations of them that agree on some laws of physics. I've only been able to communicate with a few of what I call 'human beings'. All those particle are inferences that I and the other 'human beings' have put in our model of the world to explain the 'facts' on which we have intersubjectively agreed. In our model, the particles don't have opinions. In fact the whole idea of particle is something which has very few properties and hence is completely understandable (wouldn't be much point in making a theory out of pieces you don't understand). 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: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
The holographic information capacity of the universe is 10^120, known as the Lloyd limit. On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi meekerdb and Stephen, If information is stored in quantum form, I can't see why the number of particles in the universe can be a limiting fsactor. Also there are ways of storing information holographically, so size gets a bit ambiguous. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 16:44:29 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 12/18/2012 1:12 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: We have many entities that are available to agree that 2+2=4 (for all sizes of 2 and 4 that we can find), 2^90 entities at least! Every particle that exist in our universe that can hold a bit of data and all possible combinations of them that agree on some laws of physics. I've only been able to communicate with a few of what I call 'human beings'. All those particle are inferences that I and the other 'human beings' have put in our model of the world to explain the 'facts' on which we have intersubjectively agreed. In our model, the particles don't have opinions. In fact the whole idea of particle is something which has very few properties and hence is completely understandable (wouldn't be much point in making a theory out of pieces you don't understand). 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.
Re: Re: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
Hi Richard Ruquist That's the usual response, but why does information have to be associated with extended objects ? One could store such information mentally. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-19, 11:47:55 Subject: Re: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object The holographic information capacity of the universe is 10^120, known as the Lloyd limit. On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi meekerdb and Stephen, If information is stored in quantum form, I can't see why the number of particles in the universe can be a limiting fsactor. Also there are ways of storing information holographically, so size gets a bit ambiguous. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 16:44:29 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 12/18/2012 1:12 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: We have many entities that are available to agree that 2+2=4 (for all sizes of 2 and 4 that we can find), 2^90 entities at least! Every particle that exist in our universe that can hold a bit of data and all possible combinations of them that agree on some laws of physics. I've only been able to communicate with a few of what I call 'human beings'. All those particle are inferences that I and the other 'human beings' have put in our model of the world to explain the 'facts' on which we have intersubjectively agreed. In our model, the particles don't have opinions. In fact the whole idea of particle is something which has very few properties and hence is completely understandable (wouldn't be much point in making a theory out of pieces you don't understand). 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. -- 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 17 Dec 2012, at 22:31, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2012 1:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ISTM that consistency is the fact that you can't have contradiction. In some logics you're allowed to have contradictions, but the rules of inference don't permit you to prove everything from a contradiction. I think they are then called 'para-consistent'. But that can have some uses in natural language studies, but be misleading in the ideal case needed fro physics. In particular it is important to understand that PA + PA is inconsistent is a consistent theory. Indeed if from PA + PA is inconsistent you can get a contradiction in PA, then you have prove correctly, by absurdum, the consistency of PA in PA, violating the second incompleteness theorem. Dt - ~BDt is equivalent with Dt - DBf. Bruno Incompletness that you can't prove every proposition. No, incompleteness is you can't prove every true proposition. Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. 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 . 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.
Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 18 Dec 2012, at 01:50, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/17/2012 4:31 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2012 1:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ISTM that consistency is the fact that you can't have contradiction. In some logics you're allowed to have contradictions, but the rules of inference don't permit you to prove everything from a contradiction. I think they are then called 'para-consistent'. Incompletness that you can't prove every proposition. No, incompleteness is you can't prove every true proposition. Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. Brent Is there a logic that does not recognize a proposition to be true or false unless there is an accessible proof for it? Accessible is hard for me to define canonically, but one could think of it as being able to build a model (via constructive or none constructive means) of the proposition with a theory (or some extension thereof) that includes the proposition. I am trying to see if we can use the way that towers of theories are allowed by the incompleteness theorems... This is studied in recursion theory. Turing shows that incompleteness continue to all effective transfinite tower, on the constructive ordinals. Bruno -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 . 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.
Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/19/2012 2:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am trying to see if we can use the way that towers of theories are allowed by the incompleteness theorems... This is studied in recursion theory. Turing shows that incompleteness continue to all effective transfinite tower, on the constructive ordinals. Dear Bruno, Yes, but we can see relative completeness between neighboring levels of the tower, no? Statement in Theory A that cannot be proven in A can be proven to be true in theory B that includes and extends beyond theory A, no? -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
I tried to identify the meaning of axiom and found a funny solution: as it looks, AXIOM is an unprovable idea underlining a theory otherwise non-provable. In most cases: an unjustified statement, that, however, DOES work in the contest of the particular theory it is serving. Better definitions?? John M On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:50 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/17/2012 11:53 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Is there a logic that does not recognize a proposition to be true or false unless there is an accessible proof for it? Accessible is hard for me to define canonically, but one could think of it as being able to build a model (via constructive or none constructive means) of the proposition with a theory (or some extension thereof) that includes the proposition. If you include the proposition as an axiom, then it is trivially true, but you don't work anymore in the same theory as the one without that proposition as axiom. Quentin It seems like just defining a new predicate accessible which means provable or disprovable which you attach to propositions. Then it doesn't need be an axiom and it still allows an excluded middle. 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.
Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/19/2012 8:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb and Stephen, If information is stored in quantum form, I can't see why the number of particles in the universe can be a limiting fsactor. Information has to be instantiated in matter (unless you're a Platonist like Bruno). No particles, no excited field modes - no information. Also there are ways of storing information holographically, so size gets a bit ambiguous. The holographic principle says that the information that can be instantiated in spherical must be less than the area of the bounding surface in Planck units. So there's a definite bound. If we looks at the average information density in the universe (which is dominated by low energy photons from the CMB) and ask at what radius does the spherical volume times the density equal the holographic limit for that volume based on the surface area we find it is on the order of the Hubble radius, i.e. the radius at which things are receding at light speed. This suggests the expansion rate of the universe and and gravity are entropic phenomena. Brent Brent, Perhaps you or somebody can help me out. I always believed that the Hubble radius was much larger than the age of the universe times the speed of light. To my surprise the Wiki-Hubble Volume says that the age is 13,7 Byrs as expected , but that the Hubble radius divided by the speed of light is 13.9 Byrs, which is rather close. Does that mean that in 200 Myrs (minus 380,000 years) the Cosmic Microwave Background will disappear outside the Hubble bubble and that 400 Myrs later the now detected light from the first stars will also disappear, even though the universe right now is many times larger than 13.7 billion light-years? And if information can be instantaneous as has been suggested here, shouldn't we use the present size of the universe holographically. I think that's where the Penrose limit of 10^124 comes from whereas the Lloyd limit of 10^120 is based on the age of the universe. Richard [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 16:44:29 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 12/18/2012 1:12 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: We have many entities that are available to agree that 2+2=4 (for all sizes of 2 and 4 that we can find), 2^90 entities at least! Every particle that exist in our universe that can hold a bit of data and all possible combinations of them that agree on some laws of physics. I've only been able to communicate with a few of what I call 'human beings'. All those particle are inferences that I and the other 'human beings' have put in our model of the world to explain the 'facts' on which we have intersubjectively agreed. In our model, the particles don't have opinions. In fact the whole idea of particle is something which has very few properties and hence is completely understandable (wouldn't be much point in making a theory out of pieces you don't understand). Brent No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/5969 - Release Date: 12/18/12 -- 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/19/2012 11:58 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/19/2012 8:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb and Stephen, If information is stored in quantum form, I can't see why the number of particles in the universe can be a limiting fsactor. Information has to be instantiated in matter (unless you're a Platonist like Bruno). No particles, no excited field modes - no information. Also there are ways of storing information holographically, so size gets a bit ambiguous. The holographic principle says that the information that can be instantiated in spherical must be less than the area of the bounding surface in Planck units. So there's a definite bound. If we looks at the average information density in the universe (which is dominated by low energy photons from the CMB) and ask at what radius does the spherical volume times the density equal the holographic limit for that volume based on the surface area we find it is on the order of the Hubble radius, i.e. the radius at which things are receding at light speed. This suggests the expansion rate of the universe and and gravity are entropic phenomena. Brent Brent, Perhaps you or somebody can help me out. I always believed that the Hubble radius was much larger than the age of the universe times the speed of light. To my surprise the Wiki-Hubble Volume says that the age is 13,7 Byrs as expected , but that the Hubble radius divided by the speed of light is 13.9 Byrs, which is rather close. They would be the same except that the expansion rate has not been constant (it has been slightly increasing). Does that mean that in 200 Myrs (minus 380,000 years) the Cosmic Microwave Background will disappear outside the Hubble bubble and that 400 Myrs later the now detected light from the first stars will also disappear, even though the universe right now is many times larger than 13.7 billion light-years? I don't understand the significance of 200Myrs? The CMB isn't going to disappear, ever. It's just going to be more and more redshifted by the expansion of the universe. There's an excellent tutorial on these questions by Ned Wright at UCLA http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm And if information can be instantaneous as has been suggested here, shouldn't we use the present size of the universe holographically. I think that's where the Penrose limit of 10^124 comes from whereas the Lloyd limit of 10^120 is based on the age of the universe. I don't know where 10^124 comes from, but 10^120 is what I get for the holographic limit. 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 17 Dec 2012, at 22:02, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2012 11:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/16/2012 2:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it. Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond words, even the ultimate 3p truth. What would it mean to 'define truth'? We can define 'true' as a property of sentence that indicates a fact. That's the best definition of some useful local truth. But when doing metaphysics, you have to replace facts by facts in some model/reality. OK. But then it's True relative to the model. and it's not necessarily The Truth. Indeed. But for arithmetic (or Turing equivalent), The Truth = true in the standard model (learned in high school). But I'm not sure how to conceive of defining mathematical 'true'. It is the object of model theory. You always need to add more axiom in a theory to handle its model. You cannot define the notion of truth-about-set in ZF, but you can define truth-about-set in ZF in the theory ZF +kappa (existence of inaccessible cardinals). PA can define all the notion of truth for the formula with a bounded restriction of the quantification. So what is that definition? It is long and has to be defined by induction on the complexity of formula. Like ExP(x) is true if it exists a n such that P(n), etc. Does it just mean consistent with a set of axioms, No. That means only having a model. true in some reality. But for arithmetic true means satisfied by the usual structure (N, +, *). i.e. not provably false? How is not provably false different from 'satisfied by the usual structure'? Can you give an example? Well the most famous example is provable 0=1. This is not provably false (as PA cannot prove ~Bf), but is false in the standard model. That just consistent. I would think it was incompleteness. Consistency means not being able to prove every proposition. or ~Bf But in a consistent system there can be propositions that are neither provable nor disprovable. Are those true? Some are, some are not. Bf is not provable and false. Dt is not provable and true. All arithmetical interpretation of any formula of G* minus G are true but not provable. Their negations are false and not provable. Bruno Brent True entails consistency, but consistency does not entail truth. Bruno -- 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 . 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.
Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
Congrats to the perfect definition. Add to it (my) agnostic position that we know only part of everything and nobody will talk truth. To Brent: about FACTS? the facts we see(?) are similarly only model related (partially understood). JM On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/17/2012 11:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/16/2012 2:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it. Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond words, even the ultimate 3p truth. What would it mean to 'define truth'? We can define 'true' as a property of sentence that indicates a fact. That's the best definition of some useful local truth. But when doing metaphysics, you have to replace facts by facts in some model/reality. OK. But then it's True relative to the model. and it's not necessarily The Truth. But I'm not sure how to conceive of defining mathematical 'true'. It is the object of model theory. You always need to add more axiom in a theory to handle its model. You cannot define the notion of truth-about-set in ZF, but you can define truth-about-set in ZF in the theory ZF +kappa (existence of inaccessible cardinals). PA can define all the notion of truth for the formula with a bounded restriction of the quantification. So what is that definition? Does it just mean consistent with a set of axioms, No. That means only having a model. true in some reality. But for arithmetic true means satisfied by the usual structure (N, +, *). i.e. not provably false? How is not provably false different from 'satisfied by the usual structure'? Can you give an example? That just consistent. I would think it was incompleteness. Consistency means not being able to prove every proposition. But in a consistent system there can be propositions that are neither provable nor disprovable. Are those true? Brent True entails consistency, but consistency does not entail truth. Bruno -- 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/17/2012 11:53 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Is there a logic that does not recognize a proposition to be true or false unless there is an accessible proof for it? Accessible is hard for me to define canonically, but one could think of it as being able to build a model (via constructive or none constructive means) of the proposition with a theory (or some extension thereof) that includes the proposition. If you include the proposition as an axiom, then it is trivially true, but you don't work anymore in the same theory as the one without that proposition as axiom. Quentin It seems like just defining a new predicate accessible which means provable or disprovable which you attach to propositions. Then it doesn't need be an axiom and it still allows an excluded middle. 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/17/2012 11:51 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. What do you mean ? that provable true is truer ? No, just that there must be propositions we judge to be true that aren't provable. 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/18/2012 12:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2012 11:51 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. What do you mean ? that provable true is truer ? No, just that there must be propositions we judge to be true that aren't provable. Brent -- Hi Brent, How do we defend such propositions we judge to be true that aren't provable from claims of subjectivity? -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/18/2012 8:47 AM, John Mikes wrote: To Brent: about FACTS? the facts we see(?) are similarly only model related (partially understood). That's true. Being a 'fact' is a matter of degree and in practice all 'facts' are theory laden. Even a fact like, I am experiencing seeing a chair. assumes you are sane enough to correctly introspect and formulate your experience in that sentence. But that said, some things are much more fact-like than others and have much less theory attached than others. In terms science I just use 'fact' to mean those direct observations that almost everyone can agree on, aka 'data'. 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/18/2012 10:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/18/2012 12:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2012 11:51 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. What do you mean ? that provable true is truer ? No, just that there must be propositions we judge to be true that aren't provable. Brent -- Hi Brent, How do we defend such propositions we judge to be true that aren't provable from claims of subjectivity? Of course being provable does eliminate subjectivity - it just pushes it back to the axioms. Generally what we mean by objective is that there is almost universal subjective agreement, e.g. given any number x there is a successor of x not equal to x. So if there is some proposition of arithmetic that everyone agrees must be true, then it's as 'objective' as the axioms and as 'objective' as anything proven from the axioms even though it is not provable from them. 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/18/2012 3:28 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/18/2012 10:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/18/2012 12:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2012 11:51 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. What do you mean ? that provable true is truer ? No, just that there must be propositions we judge to be true that aren't provable. Brent -- Hi Brent, How do we defend such propositions we judge to be true that aren't provable from claims of subjectivity? Of course being provable does eliminate subjectivity - it just pushes it back to the axioms. Generally what we mean by objective is that there is almost universal subjective agreement, e.g. given any number x there is a successor of x not equal to x. So if there is some proposition of arithmetic that everyone agrees must be true, then it's as 'objective' as the axioms and as 'objective' as anything proven from the axioms even though it is not provable from them. Brent Hi Brent, You have written the magic words! ... if there is some proposition of arithmetic that everyone agrees must be true. This is exactly what I am talking about with my banter about truth obtaining from agreements between mutually communicating observers. We remove the subjectivity of the individual by spreading it out over many individuals. When we have many individuals in agreement, the disagreement by one of them is inconsequential. This is the laws of large numbers at work. ;-) We have many entities that are available to agree that 2+2=4 (for all sizes of 2 and 4 that we can find), 2^90 entities at least! Every particle that exist in our universe that can hold a bit of data and all possible combinations of them that agree on some laws of physics. If we take this finite number to be infinite then things change; we are not able to take about measures that are relative to agreements in populations of entities and must be capable of comprehending that simple fact. Granting ourselves imaginary powers of omniscience or to some imaginary Platonic proxy does not change anything when we are considering the degeneracy of the very idea of a measure in the case of infinities. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/16/2012 2:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it. Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond words, even the ultimate 3p truth. What would it mean to 'define truth'? We can define 'true' as a property of sentence that indicates a fact. That's the best definition of some useful local truth. But when doing metaphysics, you have to replace facts by facts in some model/reality. But I'm not sure how to conceive of defining mathematical 'true'. It is the object of model theory. You always need to add more axiom in a theory to handle its model. You cannot define the notion of truth- about-set in ZF, but you can define truth-about-set in ZF in the theory ZF +kappa (existence of inaccessible cardinals). PA can define all the notion of truth for the formula with a bounded restriction of the quantification. Does it just mean consistent with a set of axioms, No. That means only having a model. true in some reality. But for arithmetic true means satisfied by the usual structure (N, +, *). i.e. not provably false? That just consistent. True entails consistency, but consistency does not entail truth. 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.
Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/17/2012 11:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/16/2012 2:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it. Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond words, even the ultimate 3p truth. What would it mean to 'define truth'? We can define 'true' as a property of sentence that indicates a fact. That's the best definition of some useful local truth. But when doing metaphysics, you have to replace facts by facts in some model/reality. OK. But then it's True relative to the model. and it's not necessarily The Truth. But I'm not sure how to conceive of defining mathematical 'true'. It is the object of model theory. You always need to add more axiom in a theory to handle its model. You cannot define the notion of truth-about-set in ZF, but you can define truth-about-set in ZF in the theory ZF +kappa (existence of inaccessible cardinals). PA can define all the notion of truth for the formula with a bounded restriction of the quantification. So what is that definition? Does it just mean consistent with a set of axioms, No. That means only having a model. true in some reality. But for arithmetic true means satisfied by the usual structure (N, +, *). i.e. not provably false? How is not provably false different from 'satisfied by the usual structure'? Can you give an example? That just consistent. I would think it was incompleteness. Consistency means not being able to prove every proposition. But in a consistent system there can be propositions that are neither provable nor disprovable. Are those true? Brent True entails consistency, but consistency does not entail truth. Bruno -- 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
2012/12/17 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 12/17/2012 11:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/16/2012 2:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it. Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond words, even the ultimate 3p truth. What would it mean to 'define truth'? We can define 'true' as a property of sentence that indicates a fact. That's the best definition of some useful local truth. But when doing metaphysics, you have to replace facts by facts in some model/reality. OK. But then it's True relative to the model. and it's not necessarily The Truth. But I'm not sure how to conceive of defining mathematical 'true'. It is the object of model theory. You always need to add more axiom in a theory to handle its model. You cannot define the notion of truth-about-set in ZF, but you can define truth-about-set in ZF in the theory ZF +kappa (existence of inaccessible cardinals). PA can define all the notion of truth for the formula with a bounded restriction of the quantification. So what is that definition? Does it just mean consistent with a set of axioms, No. That means only having a model. true in some reality. But for arithmetic true means satisfied by the usual structure (N, +, *). i.e. not provably false? How is not provably false different from 'satisfied by the usual structure'? Can you give an example? That just consistent. I would think it was incompleteness. Consistency means not being able to prove every proposition. But in a consistent system there can be propositions that are neither provable nor disprovable. Are those true? Brent ISTM that consistency is the fact that you can't have contradiction. Incompletness that you can't prove every proposition. Quentin True entails consistency, but consistency does not entail truth. Bruno -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/17/2012 1:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ISTM that consistency is the fact that you can't have contradiction. In some logics you're allowed to have contradictions, but the rules of inference don't permit you to prove everything from a contradiction. I think they are then called 'para-consistent'. Incompletness that you can't prove every proposition. No, incompleteness is you can't prove every true proposition. Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/17/2012 4:31 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2012 1:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ISTM that consistency is the fact that you can't have contradiction. In some logics you're allowed to have contradictions, but the rules of inference don't permit you to prove everything from a contradiction. I think they are then called 'para-consistent'. Incompletness that you can't prove every proposition. No, incompleteness is you can't prove every true proposition. Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. Brent Is there a logic that does not recognize a proposition to be true or false unless there is an accessible proof for it? Accessible is hard for me to define canonically, but one could think of it as being able to build a model (via constructive or none constructive means) of the proposition with a theory (or some extension thereof) that includes the proposition. I am trying to see if we can use the way that towers of theories are allowed by the incompleteness theorems... -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
2012/12/18 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 12/17/2012 4:31 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2012 1:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ISTM that consistency is the fact that you can't have contradiction. In some logics you're allowed to have contradictions, but the rules of inference don't permit you to prove everything from a contradiction. I think they are then called 'para-consistent'. Incompletness that you can't prove every proposition. No, incompleteness is you can't prove every true proposition. Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. Brent Is there a logic that does not recognize a proposition to be true or false unless there is an accessible proof for it? Accessible is hard for me to define canonically, but one could think of it as being able to build a model (via constructive or none constructive means) of the proposition with a theory (or some extension thereof) that includes the proposition. If you include the proposition as an axiom, then it is trivially true, but you don't work anymore in the same theory as the one without that proposition as axiom. Quentin I am trying to see if we can use the way that towers of theories are allowed by the incompleteness theorems... -- Onward! Stephen -- 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.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 14 Dec 2012, at 13:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal 1) If there is an ultimate truth, the only one we can understand is in words. With the CTM that might make sense, but a priori this is not obvious. 2) Words are man-made objects. No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it. Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond words, even the ultimate 3p truth. 3) Therefore the only truth we can understand is a man-made object. That does not follow. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/14/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-13, 12:46:56 Subject: Re: the truth of science and the truth of religion On 13 Dec 2012, at 14:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal As an aside, my resistance to the idea that there is only one truth comes from partisans claiming that their idea of truth is the only one. Those are the bastards we have to fight. That there is one truth is only a bet on universality. But a faith in such a truth can only be given by the right for any individual to question any currently proposed truth, in metaphysics, and the most rigorous defense of liberty of thought and expression. The unique truth is the one we search, not the found anyone could say I got it (except perhaps a philosopher but then he deserves the bad reputation). Publicly we can only propose theory, which really means question. For example, atheists claim that God cannot exist because that existence is scientifically unproveable. I don't think atheist are that dumb. The non existence of God is also not scientifically provable. Our own consciousness, which few doubt the existence, is, in many theory, non scientifically provable. That the sun will rise tomorrow is also non scientifically provable out of theory. The atheists believe in the God Matter, (a primary physical universe) and they believe that there are no other Gods. I agree. Instead, as a Christian, I believe that the Word is the truth that God has revealed of himself, which is also a definition of Jesus. Hmm... I should try wine but my experience is that I got liver problem with the legal drugs. I might imagine here a parabolic description of the Dx =xx trick. But that dioes not mean that spiritual truth can explain evolution or the Big Bang. I beg to differ on this. So I have no conflicts with science as long as I keep in mind what kind of truth is referred to. There is one truth. Let us search it. In the theory of chakras truth is the chakra near the vocal chords, meaning that truth is in words. Or communicable truth is in words, but the heart knows many truths solipsistically that cannot be accurately be communicable or proveable. The heart knows a lot! But there are many path to truth, many many paths. they should not be confused with the truth. You would not be glad if the pilot of the plane told you that as he want to be fair, just and objective, he will let the passengers drive the plane. Truth is a queen which win all the wars, without any army, even without words. But no bodies at all can ever say to *know* it. Every bodies can propose a theory, which is only a question. That being the case, and if the Kingdom of God is within us, the One can provide us individually with personal truths, such as my identity or memory, Correct, but even this is no proof, as the Devil can do the same. which I suggest are only true for me, There is a sense in which if they are really true for you, that truth is true for God, and so for everyone even if they cannot know it. giving another branch of the necessary truths besides those of logic. Logic is poor, but with the numbers (and +, and *), you get already the universal mess. God get lost but perhaps his Mother cares. Which would be the wordless truths of Goodness and of Beauty. Plausibly. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/13/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-13, 04:54:23 Subject: Re: truth vs reality On 12 Dec 2012, at 19:54, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I hate to be a spoiler, but, being a pragmatist and nominalist, to me, the word truth is a stumbling block and a red herring. To me, the One contains many types of truth, differing according to their definitions. Well, all the hypostases comes from the one, so this makes sense. To me, the word real would be a better one, and to a follower of Leibniz such as I am, only each
Re: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
Hi Bruno Marchal Arithmetic truth ? Perhaps to a mathematician, and it might be useful along the way, but as a pragmatist, and a human being, I submit that the only truth that we can use is one whose meaning we correctly understand. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 05:31:15 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 14 Dec 2012, at 13:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal 1) If there is an ultimate truth, the only one we can understand is in words. With the CTM that might make sense, but a priori this is not obvious. 2) Words are man-made objects. No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it. Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond words, even the ultimate 3p truth. 3) Therefore the only truth we can understand is a man-made object. That does not follow. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/14/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-13, 12:46:56 Subject: Re: the truth of science and the truth of religion On 13 Dec 2012, at 14:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal As an aside, my resistance to the idea that there is only one truth comes from partisans claiming that their idea of truth is the only one. Those are the bastards we have to fight. That there is one truth is only a bet on universality. But a faith in such a truth can only be given by the right for any individual to question any currently proposed truth, in metaphysics, and the most rigorous defense of liberty of thought and expression. The unique truth is the one we search, not the found anyone could say I got it (except perhaps a philosopher but then he deserves the bad reputation). Publicly we can only propose theory, which really means question. For example, atheists claim that God cannot exist because that existence is scientifically unproveable. I don't think atheist are that dumb. The non existence of God is also not scientifically provable. Our own consciousness, which few doubt the existence, is, in many theory, non scientifically provable. That the sun will rise tomorrow is also non scientifically provable out of theory. The atheists believe in the God Matter, (a primary physical universe) and they believe that there are no other Gods. I agree. Instead, as a Christian, I believe that the Word is the truth that God has revealed of himself, which is also a definition of Jesus. Hmm... I should try wine but my experience is that I got liver problem with the legal drugs. I might imagine here a parabolic description of the Dx =xx trick. But that dioes not mean that spiritual truth can explain evolution or the Big Bang. I beg to differ on this. So I have no conflicts with science as long as I keep in mind what kind of truth is referred to. There is one truth. Let us search it. In the theory of chakras truth is the chakra near the vocal chords, meaning that truth is in words. Or communicable truth is in words, but the heart knows many truths solipsistically that cannot be accurately be communicable or proveable. The heart knows a lot! But there are many path to truth, many many paths. they should not be confused with the truth. You would not be glad if the pilot of the plane told you that as he want to be fair, just and objective, he will let the passengers drive the plane. Truth is a queen which win all the wars, without any army, even without words. But no bodies at all can ever say to *know* it. Every bodies can propose a theory, which is only a question. That being the case, and if the Kingdom of God is within us, the One can provide us individually with personal truths, such as my identity or memory, Correct, but even this is no proof, as the Devil can do the same. which I suggest are only true for me, There is a sense in which if they are really true for you, that truth is true for God, and so for everyone even if they cannot know it. giving another branch of the necessary truths besides those of logic. Logic is poor, but with the numbers (and +, and *), you get already the universal mess. God get lost but perhaps his Mother cares. Which would be the wordless truths of Goodness and of Beauty. Plausibly. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/13/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content
Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 16 Dec 2012, at 14:54, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Arithmetic truth ? Perhaps to a mathematician, and it might be useful along the way, but as a pragmatist, and a human being, I submit that the only truth that we can use is one whose meaning we correctly understand. OK? Then it is only on arithmetic that all scientists clearly agree on, and would say without anxiousness, we can correctly understand. Beyond arithmetic philosophy/theology begins. With the CTM, that beyond arithmetic is an inside arithmetic view of the numbers, which cannot avoid it if they want to grasp themselves. (a bit like Riemann needed the complex numbers to study the distribution of the primes natural numbers). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 05:31:15 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 14 Dec 2012, at 13:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal 1) If there is an ultimate truth, the only one we can understand is in words. With the CTM that might make sense, but a priori this is not obvious. 2) Words are man-made objects. No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it. Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond words, even the ultimate 3p truth. 3) Therefore the only truth we can understand is a man-made object. That does not follow. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/14/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-13, 12:46:56 Subject: Re: the truth of science and the truth of religion On 13 Dec 2012, at 14:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal As an aside, my resistance to the idea that there is only one truth comes from partisans claiming that their idea of truth is the only one. Those are the bastards we have to fight. That there is one truth is only a bet on universality. But a faith in such a truth can only be given by the right for any individual to question any currently proposed truth, in metaphysics, and the most rigorous defense of liberty of thought and expression. The unique truth is the one we search, not the found anyone could say I got it (except perhaps a philosopher but then he deserves the bad reputation). Publicly we can only propose theory, which really means question. For example, atheists claim that God cannot exist because that existence is scientifically unproveable. I don't think atheist are that dumb. The non existence of God is also not scientifically provable. Our own consciousness, which few doubt the existence, is, in many theory, non scientifically provable. That the sun will rise tomorrow is also non scientifically provable out of theory. The atheists believe in the God Matter, (a primary physical universe) and they believe that there are no other Gods. I agree. Instead, as a Christian, I believe that the Word is the truth that God has revealed of himself, which is also a definition of Jesus. Hmm... I should try wine but my experience is that I got liver problem with the legal drugs. I might imagine here a parabolic description of the Dx =xx trick. But that dioes not mean that spiritual truth can explain evolution or the Big Bang. I beg to differ on this. So I have no conflicts with science as long as I keep in mind what kind of truth is referred to. There is one truth. Let us search it. In the theory of chakras truth is the chakra near the vocal chords, meaning that truth is in words. Or communicable truth is in words, but the heart knows many truths solipsistically that cannot be accurately be communicable or proveable. The heart knows a lot! But there are many path to truth, many many paths. they should not be confused with the truth. You would not be glad if the pilot of the plane told you that as he want to be fair, just and objective, he will let the passengers drive the plane. Truth is a queen which win all the wars, without any army, even without words. But no bodies at all can ever say to *know* it. Every bodies can propose a theory, which is only a question. That being the case, and if the Kingdom of God is within us, the One can provide us individually with personal truths, such as my identity or memory, Correct, but even this is no proof, as the Devil can do the same. which I suggest are only true for me, There is a sense in which if they are really true for you, that truth is true for God, and so for everyone even
Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/16/2012 2:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it. Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond words, even the ultimate 3p truth. What would it mean to 'define truth'? We can define 'true' as a property of sentence that indicates a fact. But I'm not sure how to conceive of defining mathematical 'true'. Does it just mean consistent with a set of axioms, i.e. not provably false? 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.
