[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sep 10, 6:13 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Knowledge is usually defined as true belief that is casually connected to the
>> facts that make it true. That has nothing to do with work (free energy?
>> computational steps?). You can certainly do a lot of work and end up with a
>> false belief.
> The 'Bit and The Pendulum' (Tom Siegfried) is a good popular book
> discussing the difference between Shannon information and knowledge.
> Bayesian is no doubt very useful and powerful, but the trouble with
> Bayesianism is when it starts to become a sort of 'substitute
> religion' and you have people claiming it's got all the answers to
> It doesn't. It really only deals with *prediction sequences*; you can
> only assign a meaningful probabilities to something which if there is
> something being predicted , something you can observe in the future.
> That's as far as Bayesianisms can get you. There is no way to go from
> mere prediction sequences to assessing the *meaning* (semantics) of
> information, no matter what clever manipulations the Bayesianism
> I think we are due for yet another extension to logic, one which will
> contain Bayesianism as a special case.
But logic is also the manipulation of sequences of propositions. No matter how
clever, you still need to something else to supply meaning. I think meaning
only arises in relation to action within an environment.
> I think Bruno had it right, it's all Category Theory- and make the
> next big leap forward in logic, we need to start using the concepts
> from Category Theory and apply them to logic, to develop a new logic
> capable of going beyond Bayesianism and dealing with the semantics of
> information. But how? Listen to this:
> <b>Given two categories C and D a functor F from C to D can be thought
> of as an *analogy* between C and D, because F has to map objects of C
> to objects of D and arrows of C to arrows of D in such a way that the
> compositional structure of the two categories is preserved.</b>
No meaning there either.
> And therein lies the big clue suggesting that the concepts from
> category theory can be used to develop a new logic of analogies.
> And there I shall leave you for now. See you around the galaxy :D
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