> 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
> reasoning.
> 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
> perform.
> ----
> 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 

Reply via email to