Isn't logical inconsistency = insanity? (Depends how we formulate the state
of being "sane".)
Simplicity in my vocabulary of the 'totality-view' means mainly to "cut" our
model of observation narrower and narrower to eliminate more and more from
the "rest of the world" (which only would complicate things) from our chosen
topic of the actual interest in our observational field  (our topical
model).
Occam's razor is a classic in such simplification.
John M

On 8/18/08, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 18 Aug 2008, at 03:45, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> > Sorry.  I quite agree with you.  I regard logic and mathematics as our
> > inventions - not restrictions on the world, but restrictions we
> > place on how we
> > think and talk about the world.  We can change them as in para-
> > consistent logics.
>
>
>
>
> I think it depends of the domain of inquiry or application.
> Para-consistent logic can be interesting for the laws and in natural
> language mind processing, but hardly in elementary computer science or
> number theory.
>
> Then recall that any universal machine, enough good in the art of
> remaining correct during introspection, discovers eventually at least
> 8 non classical logics (the arithmetical hypostases) most of them
> being near "paraconsistency" (by Godel's consistency of inconsistency)
> making the most sane machine always very near insanity.
> And so easily falling down.
>
>
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to