> > Just as an example, he says most philosophers
> > would agree that
> > []A->A, where []A is interpreted as knowing A. This
> > is clearly a
> > different meaning of the word "to know" that we use
> > here in
> > Australia.
Provided that A is not a simple artificial construct, meaning: it is a
(called generally a complexity), it cannot be "known" in its entirety. So
the [] for knowing is a deficiency rather than an addition. The fact of
knowing is added, but the [knowledge of A] is less than A (at least by the
Aristotelian part of "more".)
'Most' philosophers have yet to learn about complexities.
John Mikes

Reply via email to