Bruno and Mirek,
 concerning Theateticus vs. Theaeteticus:
 in my strange linguistic background I make a difference betwee ai and ae -
the spelling in Greek and Latin of the name. As far as I know, nobody knows
for sure how did the 'ancient' Greeks pronounce their ai - maybe as the flat
'e' like in German "lehr" while the 'e' pronounciation might have been
clsoer to (between) 'make' and 'peck' - the reason why the Romans
transcribed it by their *ONE letter* *"ae",* (lehr) and not as English would
read: *'a'+'ee'*. The spelling you gave points to this latter. The Latin
'ae' is not TWO separate letters (a+e), it is a twin, as marked in the Wiki
..."*Theætetus"... **and not Theaetetus *
which looked strange to me from the beginning  .
*(I wonder if the e-mail reproduces the (ae) one sign? look up in Wiki's
Theaetetus Dialogue (in the title with the wrong spelling) the 1st line
brings the merged-together double 'æ'.) *
*English spelling always does a job on classical words, the Greek 'oi' has
been transcribed into Latin sometimes as 'oe' and pronounced as in "girl"
(oeuvre) while many think it was a sound like what the pigs say: as "oy".
then comes America, with it's Phoenix (pron: feenix).... *
I don't think the Romans were much better off, centuries after and a world
apart from the ancient (classical for them) Greeks.
And who knows today if the great orator was Tzitzero or Kikero to turn later
into Tchitchero?
*"The Old Man" did quite a job on us at the tower of Babel. *
*[[ - I am enjoying your 'other' post where you spelled out my own
vocabulary as indeed thinking functions as relations, lately not as a static
description, but also the interchanging factor - ]]*

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <> wrote:

>  On 02 Aug 2009, at 23:20, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
>  I am in a good mood and a bit picky :-) Do you know how many entries
>  google gave me upon entering
>  Theaetetical -marchal -bruno
> Well 144?
> Good way to find my papers on that. The pages refer quickly to this
> list or the FOR list.
> I am sorry for the delay, I've just got back from my vacation.
> Hmm. The above written search should not return any references to your
> papers/letters as the minus sign in front of your name asks for an
> exclusion.
> Given that it works as supposed google then gives only 1 hit in my
> location (Sweden). That hit is a translation of the word "Theaetetical"
> into some eastern characters. Thus, I end up with zero meaningful hits
> and a feeling that you might be the only one using this word.
> That makes me insists a little bit more (in a very polite way) that,
> occasionally, your work is
> "difficult to read unless one is willing to undertake long
>  discussions, clarifications and position adjustments."
> I am writing this in a reference to your complains that sometimes you
> have troubles to get enough relevant feedback to your work.
> Come on Mirek: "Theaetetical" is an adjective I have forged from
> "Theatetus".
> "Theatetus" gives 195.000 results on Google.
> "Theatetus" wiki 4310.
> By "theatetical notion of knowledge", I mean the "well known" attempts to
> define "knowledge" by Theaetetus in Plato's Theaetetus. The most known
> definition is "truye justified belief", that Bill taylor just mentionned on
> the FOR list recently as:
> "This old crock should have been given a decent burial long ago."
> I guess I will have to make a comment ...
> My work is, without doubt, very difficult to read because it crosses three
> or four fields: "mathematical logic", "philosophy of mind" and "computer
> science";  + quantum mechanics to evaluate the plausibility of the derived
> computationalist physics. This does not help in an epoch of
> hyper-specialization.
> I am also using a deductive approach in the philosophy of mind. I am
> apparently the first to *postulate* "mechanism".  Most philosophers of mind
> accept mechanism as the only rational theory, or reject it with some
> passion. Few, if any, use it as an hypothesis, in a deductive strategy. Then
> mathematical logic is virtually unknown, except by mathematical logicians,
> who, for historical reasons, do not want to come back to the earlier
> philosophical motivations: they want to be accepted as pure mathematicians.
> Except the philosophical logicians, who in majority criticized classical
> logic, and see philosphy as a mean to criticize classical philosophy.
> Mathematicians are so used to classical philosophy, that they consider it as
> science, and hate to be remind that this is still a philosophical.
> I have no feedback for purely contingent reason related to facts which have
> nothing to do with the startling feature of the conclusion of the reasoning.
> Up to now, I heard continuously about critics on an imaginary work I have
> never done. The price of the best PhD thesis that I got in France has
> eventually only spread those rumor from Brussels to elsewhere.
> All real scientist who have studied my work and have accepted to meet me,
> or to write a real report on it, have understood it. True, some took a
> rather long time to understand, but that is normal: the subject matter is
> very complex, and still taboo, especially for the atheists, and other
> religious-based thinkers. But when they study it, they quickly discover that
> I use the scientific method, that is I am just asking a question, what is
> wrong with the following reasoning? ... The reasoning is decomposed in
> "easy" steps, so people accepting (for personal belief or for the sake of
> the argument) the hypotheses and wanting to reject the conclusion have a way
> to put their fingers on some problems.
> UDA has been judged to obvious and simple in Brussels, and that is why I
> have augmented the thesis with the AUDA, which unfortunately is considered
> as ... too much simple for logicians, and too much difficult for non
> logicians. But AUDA is not needed at all to understand the simple and clear
> result: if we are digitalisable machine, the laws of physics emerge from a
> statistics on computations, in a verifiable way (quantitatively and
> qualitatively). The result is very simple and clear: the reasoning which
> leads to that result is much more subtle and difficult.
> I am not at all pretending that reasoning is correct. Science progress when
> people do errors, but we have to find them, and sometimes, if we don't find
> them, we have to accept momentarily the conclusion, perhaps with the hope an
> error will be find later. But the attitude of a (tiny but influencing) part
> of the community consists in hiding the reasoning, or deforming it
> completely. This can't help.
> Some people, even here recently (see 1Z's post) and recently on the FOR
> list, attributes me a curious theory, where they confuse the conclusion with
> the postulate (which deprives the work of *any* meaning). But the theory I
> am studying is the old "mechanist theory", in its modern digital version,
> and nothing else. So, if they have a genuine interest in the subject, we
> would begin to learn something if they can criticize some point in the
> reasoning, instead of ignoring it, or attributing it statements without ever
> referring to a relevant piece of text. Of course they can't point on such
> text, given that such information exists only in their mind. They repeat
> rumors, and have clearly not take time to read the papers.
> The fact that the result would contradict the current paradigm does not
> help, of course, but is not, yet, the source of the problem.
>  I let those interested to meditate on two questions (N is {0, 1, 2, 3,
> 4, ...}):
> 1) What is common between the set of all subsets of a set with n
> elements, and the set of all finite sequences of "0" and "1" of length
> n.
> 2) What is common between the set of all subsets of N, and the set of
> all infinite sequences of "0" and "1".
> Just some (finite and infinite) bread for surviving the day :)
> I am going to catch up with the thread ...
> Welcome back Mirek. Feel free to ask for any clarification, position
> adjustments, question, at any level ...Do you understand what is the comp
> hypothesis?
> Bruno
> >

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to