On 09 Jan 2014, at 05:55, meekerdb wrote:
Bruno writes Bp & p, where "Bp" ambiguously means "Proves
p" (Beweisbar?) and "Believes p".
What is ambiguous? I said that I limit the interview to Platonist
*correct* machine, believing in arithmetic or in recursively
enumerable extension of ari
On 08 Jan 2014, at 23:11, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno and Brent:
did you agree whether "TRUE BELIEF" means in your sentences
1. one's belief that is TRUE, (not likely),
It is that one. "Bp & p" means that p is believed (by some machine)
and that it is the case that p.
or
2. the TRUTH tha
Bruno writes Bp & p, where "Bp" ambiguously means "Proves p" (Beweisbar?) and "Believes
p". "Believes p and P" is then a belief that is "true". I put scare quotes around "true"
because I think it just means "is a consequence of some (Peano's) axioms", which is not
necessarily the same as "expre
Bruno and Brent:
did you agree whether *"TRUE BELIEF*" means in your sentences
1. one's belief that is TRUE, (not likely), or
2. the TRUTH that one believes in it (a maybe)?
(none of the two may be 'true').
JM
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 31 Dec 2013, at 21:09
On 31 Dec 2013, at 21:09, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/31/2013 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
only rules to extract knowledge from assumed beliefs.
?
I answered "no" to your question. Knowledge is not extracted in any
way from belief (assumed or not). knowledge *is* belief, when or in
the world
On 12/31/2013 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
only rules to extract knowledge from assumed beliefs.
?
I answered "no" to your question. Knowledge is not extracted in any way from belief
(assumed or not). knowledge *is* belief, when or in the world those beliefs are true,
but this you can never
inal" thing. I
think we can always thing of a "final" theory. What we can never do it
is to know it is final. But this we will never know, at least in
normal state of consciousness but probably in all state of
consciousness in which communication can make sense.
What would be li
Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
In response to the discussion of the possibility of a "Final
Theory" I'm starting a new topic on the Nature of Truth since this
is an important and separate issue from previous discussions.
1, it is impossible to directly know the external fund
a
"Final" Theory.
John Mikes
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 6:39 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> All,
>
> In response to the discussion of the possibility of a "Final Theory" I'm
> starting a new topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an important and
> separate i
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:21 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 31 December 2013 08:20, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
> multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Alberto G. Corona
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To summarize, there is no possible pure knowledge, only rules to extract
>>> knowledge f
gt;
>>>> On 30 Dec 2013, at 15:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2013/12/30 Bruno Marchal
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:39, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>>
25, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/12/30 Bruno Marchal
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:39, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> In resp
On 31 December 2013 08:20, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>> To summarize, there is no possible pure knowledge, only rules to extract
>> knowledge from assumed beliefs. Thanks. But I already knew so.
>>
>> But i the realm of reality,
>
On 12/30/2013 3:39 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
In response to the discussion of the possibility of a "Final Theory" I'm starting a new
topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an important and separate issue from previous
discussions.
1, it is impossible to directly kn
;
>
> 2013/12/30 Bruno Marchal
>
>>
>> On 30 Dec 2013, at 15:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/30 Bruno Marchal
>>
>>>
>>> On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:39, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>>
>>> All,
&g
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2013/12/30 Bruno Marchal
>
>>
>> On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:39, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>>
>>> In response to the discussion of the possibility of a "Final Theory" I'm
>>> starting a new to
On 30 Dec 2013, at 15:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2013/12/30 Bruno Marchal
On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:39, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
In response to the discussion of the possibility of a "Final Theory"
I'm starting a new topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an
2013/12/30 Bruno Marchal
>
> On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:39, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> All,
>>
>> In response to the discussion of the possibility of a "Final Theory" I'm
>> starting a new topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an important an
On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:39, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
In response to the discussion of the possibility of a "Final Theory"
I'm starting a new topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an
important and separate issue from previous discussions.
1, it is impossible to di
All,
In response to the discussion of the possibility of a "Final Theory" I'm
starting a new topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an important and
separate issue from previous discussions.
1, it is impossible to directly know the external fundamental reality, we
know e
20 matches
Mail list logo
