, November 22, 2013 9:11 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Belief vs Truth
On 11/22/2013 3:24 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno:
Brent's dichotomy - as you pointed out - about exist and true may
go deeper in my opinion:
If we THINK of something: it DOES exist indeed (in our mind
: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Belief vs Truth
On 11/22/2013 3:24 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno:
Brent's dichotomy - as you pointed out - about exist and true may
go deeper in my opinion:
If we THINK of something: it DOES exist indeed (in our mind) but
may not be true. I refrain
t; *Sent:* Friday, November 22, 2013 9:11 PM
>> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> *Subject:* Re: Belief vs Truth
>>
>> On 11/22/2013 3:24 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> Bruno:
>> Brent's dichotomy - as you pointed out - about exist and true may go
>> dee
erything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Belief vs Truth
>
> On 11/22/2013 3:24 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno:
> Brent's dichotomy - as you pointed out - about exist and true may go
> deeper in my opinion:
> If we *THINK *of something: it DOES *exist* indeed *(in our mi
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 1:14 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Belief vs Truth
On 23 Nov 2013, at 07:09, Chris de Morsella wrote:
From
On 23 Nov 2013, at 07:09, Chris de Morsella wrote:
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 9:11 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Belief vs Truth
On 11/22/2013 3:24 PM, John
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 9:11 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Belief vs Truth
On 11/22/2013 3:24 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno:
Brent's dichotomy - a
On 11/22/2013 3:24 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno:
Brent's dichotomy - as you pointed out - about exist and true may go deeper in
my opinion:
If we *_THINK _*of something: it DOES *_exist_* indeed */(in our mind)/* but may not be
true. I refrain from calling T R U E anything in our restsricted
On 23 Nov 2013, at 00:24, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno:
Brent's dichotomy - as you pointed out - about exist and true may
go deeper in my opinion:
If we THINK of something: it DOES exist indeed (in our mind) but may
not be true. I refrain from calling T R U E anything in our
restsricted (pa
Bruno:
Brent's dichotomy - as you pointed out - about exist and true may go
deeper in my opinion:
If we *THINK *of something: it DOES *exist* indeed *(in our mind)* but may
not be true. I refrain from calling T R U E anything in our restsricted
(partial) knowledge capability. "WE THINK IT IS TRU
On 21 Nov 2013, at 19:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/21/2013 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let´s go to a human level:
in evolutionary terms, I would say that truth is a belief
hardcoded by natural selection.
This is self-defeating or circular. You need the "truth" of natural
selection to mak
On 11/21/2013 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let´s go to a human level:
in evolutionary terms, I would say that truth is a belief hardcoded by natural
selection.
This is self-defeating or circular. You need the "truth" of natural selection to make
sense of it.
That seems to confound "truth"
On 21 Nov 2013, at 12:17, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Nov 2013, at 11:29, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
The material phenomena are events in the mind.
That is partially true in the comp theory. But mind and matter
emerges from the existence of [READ OR] absence of solution(s) to
Dioph
On 21 Nov 2013, at 11:29, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2013/11/21 Bruno Marchal
On 20 Nov 2013, at 21:57, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
To say that F = m . a or e= m c2 as truth it is necessary to
accept certain beliefs. Belief that at the next moment the laws
will not change for example.
2013/11/21 Bruno Marchal
>
> On 20 Nov 2013, at 21:57, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
> To say that F = m . a or e= m c2 as truth it is necessary to accept
> certain beliefs. Belief that at the next moment the laws will not change
> for example.
>
>
> e=mc^2 is an interesting theory (belief), or a
On 20 Nov 2013, at 21:57, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
To say that F = m . a or e= m c2 as truth it is necessary to
accept certain beliefs. Belief that at the next moment the laws will
not change for example.
e=mc^2 is an interesting theory (belief), or an interesting theorem in
an intere
To say that F = m . a or e= m c2 as truth it is necessary to accept
certain beliefs. Belief that at the next moment the laws will not change
for example.
Let´s go to a human level:
in evolutionary terms, I would say that truth is a belief hardcoded by
natural selection. Truth would say, is the
On 03 Jun 2013, at 01:41, Stephen Paul King wrote:
How do we integrate empirical data into Bp&p?
Technically, by restricting p to the "leaves of the UD*" (the true,
and thus provable, sigma_1 sentences).
Then to get the physics (the probability measure à-la-UDA), you can do
the same wit
On 03 Jun 2013, at 16:08, John Mikes wrote:
How about Tao?
JM
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Richard Ruquist
wrote:
I have to respond that in Judaism in the high holiday service there
is a prayer praising doubt.
I think that may be unique to Judaism?
Richard
I agree, the israelite (b
How about Tao?
JM
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> I have to respond that in Judaism in the high holiday service there is a
> prayer praising doubt.
> I think that may be unique to Judaism?
> Richard
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
How do we integrate empirical data into Bp&p?
On Saturday, June 1, 2013 3:41:56 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote:
>
> Russell wrote:
> *"...When it comes to Bp & p capturing the notion of knowledge, I can see it
> captures the notion of mathematical knowledge, ie true theorems, as opposed
> to true conject
I have to respond that in Judaism in the high holiday service there is a
prayer praising doubt.
I think that may be unique to Judaism?
Richard
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>
> Russell wrote:
> *"...When it comes to Bp & p capturing the notion of knowledge, I can see
Russell wrote:
"...When it comes to Bp & p capturing the notion of knowledge, I can
see it captures the notion of mathematical knowledge, ie true
theorems, as opposed to true conjectures, say, which aren't knowledge.
I can see your point, at least for arithmetic, but I am not sure that
Brent,
thanks for your clear ideas - not controversial to what I try to explain in
my poor wordings.
No proof is "valid", or "true". Applicable, maybe.
In our 'makebilieve' world-model many facets SEEM true in our terms of
explanation, i.e. using conventional science and wisdom. Mathematicians are
Russell wrote:
*"...When it comes to Bp & p capturing the notion of knowledge, I can see it
captures the notion of mathematical knowledge, ie true theorems, as opposed
to true conjectures, say, which aren't knowledge.
But I am vaguely sceptical it captures the notion of scientific knowledge,
which
On 31 May 2013, at 19:43, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/31/2013 10:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 May 2013, at 01:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/30/2013 3:43 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:04:13PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
You mean unprovable? I get confused because it seems tha
On 01/06/2013, at 3:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> All humans have many beliefs. A genuine scientist just know that those are
> beliefs, and not knowledge (even if they hope their belief to be true). So
> they will provides axioms/theories and derive from that, and compare with
> facts, in cas
On 5/31/2013 10:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 May 2013, at 01:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/30/2013 3:43 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:04:13PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
You mean unprovable? I get confused because it seems that you
sometimes use Bp to mean "proves p" and
On 31 May 2013, at 01:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/30/2013 3:43 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:04:13PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
You mean unprovable? I get confused because it seems that you
sometimes use Bp to mean "proves p" and sometimes "believes p"
To a mathematician,
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 04:19:53PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
> On 5/30/2013 3:43 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:04:13PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
> >>You mean unprovable? I get confused because it seems that you
> >>sometimes use Bp to mean "proves p" and sometimes "believes p
On 5/30/2013 3:43 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:04:13PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
You mean unprovable? I get confused because it seems that you
sometimes use Bp to mean "proves p" and sometimes "believes p"
To a mathematician, belief and proof are the same thing.
Not r
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:04:13PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
> You mean unprovable? I get confused because it seems that you
> sometimes use Bp to mean "proves p" and sometimes "believes p"
>
To a mathematician, belief and proof are the same thing. I believe in
this theorem because I can prove it.
32 matches
Mail list logo
