On 11 Sep 2008, at 19:06, Brent Meeker wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >> 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. That is a magical move, unless you put some infinities perhaps. Selection among an infinity of environment would explain a little more, yet it is not enough. > > >> >> 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. Caterorial logician and algebraist would differ with you on this. Again I don't think it is enough, but at least category theory gives a frame for the notion of reductive meaning, that is, when meaning is given by a faithful embedding of some unknown into something we already know "meaningfully". 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
