Re: Can we ever know truth?

According to Stathis Papaioannou: >Why would you not include the well-known fact that driving at high >speed is more likely to kill someone as "evidence"? If the driver >honestly did not know this, say due to having an intellectual >disability, then he would have dimminished responsibility for the

Re: Can we ever know truth?

According to Brent Meeker: > I don't think that's a good example of "not considering the evidence". > Ignorance is a relative term - he didn't know a child was about to run out in > the street, but he (and most people) know there are children in residential > areas and that they may run out in

Re: Quantum Mysteries

Norman Samish wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Brent, you say, ". . . It seems to me that an information theoretic > analysis should be able to place a lower bound on how small a > probability can be and not be zero

Re: Platonism vs Realism WAS: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Peter Jones writes (quoting Bruno Marchal): > > >>>Frankly I don't think so. Set platonism can be considered as a bold >>>assumption, but number platonism, as I said you need a sophisticated >>>form of finitism to doubt it. I recall it is just the belief that the >>>

Re: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Brent Meeker writes: > > >>>Empirical science is universe-specific: eg., any culture, no matter how >>>bizarre its psychology compared to ours, would work out that sodium >>>reacts exothermically with water in a universe similar to our own, but >>>not in a univer

RE: Dual-Aspect Science ooops

> I don't think there is a problem with science, but only with some > scientist (and alas with those who are often more refer too in > popularization). > > Actually I don't believe in any scientific field. I believe only in > scientific attitude, which is almost just modesty, along with > curiosi

RE: Dual-Aspect Science

> I don't think there is a problem with science, but only with some > scientist (and alas with those who are often more refer too in > popularization). > > Actually I don't believe in any scientific field. I believe only in > scientific attitude, which is almost just modesty, along with > curiosi

Re: The anti-roadmap - an alternative 'Theology'

- Original Message - From: "David Nyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Everything List" Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 8:16 PM Subject: Re: The anti-roadmap - an alternative 'Theology' Dave, thanks fir the friendly and decent words. It was not questionable that you did not 'attack' comp as

Re: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

Bruno: is your " I do indeed find plausible that the number six is perfect,..." an argument? I asked about the "sixness" of six, without counting or quantizing. I honor your opinion, but it is no evidence. 6 is so nice round, VI is not. > If you want, numbers are what makes any counting possibl

RE: Platonism vs Realism WAS: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

Peter Jones writes: > A claim about truth as opposed to existence cannot > support the conclusion that matter does not actually exist. It can if you can show that the mental does not supervene on the physical. This is far from a generally accepted fact, but there but I am not yet aware of conv

RE: Dual-Aspect Science

> > Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: > > Hi, > > A lot of the dialog below is a mismatch of ideas which indicates that I > > have underestimated the degree of difficulty to be expected in getting > the > If they are different substructures within a further (different) > structure, they are also unifie

Re: The anti-roadmap - an alternative 'Theology'

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Thanks for taking the trouble to express your thoughts at such length. I won't say too much now, as I have to leave shortly to meet a long lost relative - from Hungary! However, I just want to make sure it's clear, both for you and the list, that: > > "Comp is fals

RE: Platonism vs Realism WAS: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

Peter Jones writes (quoting Bruno Marchal): > > Frankly I don't think so. Set platonism can be considered as a bold > > assumption, but number platonism, as I said you need a sophisticated > > form of finitism to doubt it. I recall it is just the belief that the > > propositions of elementary ari

RE: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

Brent Meeker writes: > > Empirical science is universe-specific: eg., any culture, no matter how > > bizarre its psychology compared to ours, would work out that sodium > > reacts exothermically with water in a universe similar to our own, but > > not in a universe where physical laws and fun

RE: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

Bruno Marchal writes: > There is no authoritative argument in math. There are fashion, > prejudice, stubbornness and many human things like that, but nobody > serious in math will believe something because the boss said so. Interesting: this marks mathematics as different from just about eve

Re: The anti-roadmap - an alternative 'Theology'

David, your post has wits. Yet it reminded me of 'atheism' which starts from the "belief" it is supposed to deny. I am not an atheist, because I do not know what to deny: what do people 'think' to call "god"? My question to comp was (and I think it is different from your position): Let me "IN" int

Re: Platonism vs Realism WAS: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

Bruno Marchal wrote: > Le 17-août-06, à 16:41, 1Z a écrit : > > > Arithemtical Platonism is the belief that mathematical > > structures *exist* independently of you, > > not just that they are true independently of you. > > What is the difference between ""the proposition "it exists a prime > num

Re: Rép : ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

Le 17-août-06, à 17:30, 1Z a écrit : > The argument has to assume the necessary existence of the UD. > (If it is possible that the UD doesn't exist, it is possible > that physics is emerging from semething else) > It is difficult to see what would entail that except Platonism. I agree, but I p

Re: Platonism vs Realism WAS: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

Le 17-août-06, à 16:41, 1Z a écrit : > Arithemtical Platonism is the belief that mathematical > structures *exist* independently of you, > not just that they are true independently of you. What is the difference between ""the proposition "it exists a prime number" is true independently of me",

Re: Rép : ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> Note that if you understand the whole UDA, you should realize that the > >> price of assuming a physical universe (and wanting it to be related > >> with our experiences *and* our experiments) is to postulate that you > >> (and us, if you are not solipsistic) are not tu

Re: Dual-Aspect Science

Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: > Hi, > A lot of the dialog below is a mismatch of ideas which indicates that I > have underestimated the degree of difficulty to be expected in getting the > idea of hierarchical structures across. Nevetheless.. > > >> I think you are assuming a separateness of struct

Re: Platonism vs Realism WAS: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

Bruno Marchal wrote: > Le 17-août-06, à 00:14, complexitystudies a écrit : > > > > >> Again we are discussing the arithmetical realism (which I just > >> assume). > > > > A bold assumption, if I may say so. > > > Frankly I don't think so. Set platonism can be considered as a bold > assumption, bu

Re: Dual-Aspect Science

Le 17-août-06, à 00:17, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit : > I'm after a real practical > outcome. A recognition that science is mis-structured and we have to > change. And sooner rather than later! > I don't think there is a problem with science, but only with some scientist (and alas with those

Re: Platonism vs Realism WAS: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

Le 17-août-06, à 00:14, complexitystudies a écrit : > >> Again we are discussing the arithmetical realism (which I just >> assume). > > A bold assumption, if I may say so. Frankly I don't think so. Set platonism can be considered as a bold assumption, but number platonism, as I said you need

The anti-roadmap - an alternative 'Theology'

"Comp is false". Let's see where *that* leads. I'm erecting this as a signpost to indicate a direction, and I would beg the list's indulgence in helping me to look in this direction, rather than confining its comments to the ramshackle construction of the signpost itself. My hope is that you will

Re: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

Le 16-août-06, à 22:54, John M a écrit : > >> But "2" is just another notation for "xx". > > Why is "x" 'just another notation for "2"? or > why is "xx" not (just) a notation of 3? Mathematician have all the right! As a mathematician you are free to name the number two as you want. *polite* m

Rép : ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

Brent Meeker wrote: > But the only reason for axiomatizing a physical theory is to see if it > has some > hidden inconsistency. I don't think so. Except Bunge, I don't know about physicist attempt to axiomatize physics. Physical theories are always to fuzzy as to be formalised. But they rely

Re: ROADMAP (SHORT)

Le 16-août-06, à 18:04, David Nyman a écrit : > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> The self-reference logics are born from the goal of escaping circular >> difficulties. > > I think here I may have experienced a 'blinding flash' in terms of your > project. If, as I've said, I begin from self-reference

Re: ROADMAP (SHORT)

Le 16-août-06, à 18:36, Tom Caylor a écrit : > I noticed that you slipped in "infinity" ("infinite collection of > computations") into your roadmap (even the short roadmap). In the > "technical" posts, if I remember right, you said that at some point we > were leaving the constructionist realm.