> A further example is:
> S1 = "The fall of the Roman empire is due to Christianity".
> S2 = "The fall of the Roman empire is due to lead poisoning".
> I'm not sure whether S1 or S2 is "more" true. But the question is how can
> you define the meaning of the NTV associated with S1 or S2? If we can't,
> why not just leave these statements as non-numerical?
>
> YKY
If you cannot tell the difference, of course you can assign them the
same value. However, very often we state both S1 and S2 as "possible",
but when are forced to make a choice, can still say that S1 is "more
likely".
Pei
YKY is advocating the post-modern viewpoint that knowledge is
context-dependent, and true-false assignments and numeric value
judgements are both extremely problematic. Pei is pointing out the
commonsense, classicist position, and also the refutation of the
post-modern tradition, that some ways of building bridges make bridges
that stay standing, and other ways make bridges that fall down.
I think that the task of "completing the Modernist project", and
uniting the many important observations of both enlightment and
post-modernist thinking, has fallen to AI; we MUST resolve these two
viewpoints before we can create an AGI.
- Phil
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
