Re: Enlightenment

Extending the same reasoning, may be the eventual judgement and segregation in believer / non-believer may also be a necessary good in the larger interest or the bigger picture?!! Knowing that humans know very very little and perceive only a filtered fraction of the observable creation, what I have

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 6/18/2015 4:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 6/18/2015 1:10 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:51 PM, meekerdb This is gitting muddled. '2+2=4' is a tautology if the symbols are given their meaning by Peano's axioms or similar axiom set and rules of infe

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

meekerdb wrote: On 6/18/2015 1:10 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:51 PM, meekerdb > This is gitting muddled. '2+2=4' is a tautology if the symbols are given their meaning by Peano's axioms or similar axiom set and rules of inference. If the symbols are interprete

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 6/18/2015 1:10 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:51 PM, meekerdb > wrote: > This is gitting muddled. '2+2=4' is a tautology if the symbols are given their meaning by Peano's axioms or similar axiom set and rules of inference. If the

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

Bruno wrote: Do you assume a physical reality, or are you agnostic on this question? I do believe in a natural or physical reality, but I am agnostic if it needs to be assume and thus involved primitive element, or if what we take as a physical universe is a (collective) experience of numbers tha

Re: Enlightenment

Hard to explain to someone deeply anchored in a 'firm belief' of something else. I wanted to stress that whatever we deem 'good' or 'bad' may be just pertinent to a momentary view at our interest(s). IOW: maybe the weapons for mass destruction etc. are necessary 'good' for those factors keeping us

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: > This is gitting muddled. '2+2=4' is a tautology if the symbols are > given their meaning by Peano's axioms or similar axiom set and rules of > inference. If the symbols are interpreted as the size of specific physical > sets, e.g. my example o

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 6/18/2015 10:07 AM, John Clark wrote: > If in Helsinki you predict "I will see both W and M", BOTH reconstituted persons will have to write "I was wrong: I definitely see only one city". If the word "I" is just an abbreviation for "Bruno Marchal" in the above then the replacement

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 6/18/2015 8:35 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 Bruce Kellett > wrote: > '2+2=4' is a tautology by virtue of the meanings of the terms involved. Yes, and E=MC^2 is a tautology too as is every correct mathematical equation. For this reason 2+

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

Before responding to Bruno Marchal's post John Clark would like to say that it's amazing how much sloppy thinking and elementary logical errors can be swept under the rug by the simplest shortest words like "you" and "I"; therefore John Clark requests that when Bruno Marchal rebuts this post Brun

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 Bruce Kellett wrote: > '2+2=4' is a tautology by virtue of the meanings of the terms involved. Yes, and E=MC^2 is a tautology too as is every correct mathematical equation. For this reason 2+2=5 is NOT a tautology. John K Clark -- You received this message because you

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 17 Jun 2015, at 18:26, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thursday, June 18, 2015, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>> "You" are the person reading this sentence >> OK, but then it would be meaningless to talk about what "you" will do tomorrow because "y

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 17 Jun 2015, at 18:14, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> We're talking about multiple (probably infinite) copying and branching, so who the hell is "you"? > All of them are you, I agree, and so the conclusion is logically inescapable, "you" will see Mo

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 17 Jun 2015, at 17:56, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>> "You" are the person reading this sentence >> OK, but then it would be meaningless to talk about what "you" will do tomorrow because "you" will not be reading that sentence tomorrow. So if S

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 17 Jun 2015, at 22:11, John Mikes wrote: Bruno: to describe what OTHERS did does not mean (in my vocabulary) that "I KNOW (agree?) the same domain as it was handled. I 'know' (or may know) the efforts to derive science by human scientists. Does NATURE have regularities indeed? or our scient

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 18 Jun 2015, at 01:39, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Jun 2015, at 03:29, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 12 June 2015 at 17:40, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> Arithmetic is, after all, only an axiomatic system. We can make up an indefinite n