> Come on Mirek: "Theaetetical" is an adjective I have forged from
> "Theatetus".
> "Theatetus" gives 195.000 results on Google.
> "Theatetus" wiki 4310.

Of course, after all you reference the dialogue Theaetetus in your
papers thus one can easily match the word Theaetetical agains it.
Let me quickly summarize the experience I had with "theatetical notion
of knowledge" while reading one of your papers for the first time.

Maybe I am an ignorant, then shame on me, but I have not read the
Theaetetus. So I took a look at the Wikipedia and read

 "In this dialogue, Socrates and Theaetetus discuss three definitions of
knowledge: knowledge as nothing but perception, knowledge as true
judgment, and, finally, knowledge as a true judgment with an account.
Each of these definitions are shown to be unsatisfactory."

Hmm that really helps .., I told to myself and continued with reading.
With an uneasy feeling of stepping into the water I eventually settled
down to conclusion that you likely mean something as "true justified
I really wished you wrote it more straightforwardly without turning your
readers quite unnecessarily down to the Theaetetus and inventing new
words such as "Theaetetical".

Anyway, I'd like to stop discussing this issue :-) since my only point
was to give you a hint why I said that it is not easy to read your

> Feel free to ask for any clarification, position
> adjustments, question, at any level ...Do you understand what is the
> comp hypothesis? 

Let us see if I get it right. Your comp hypothesis is
1) I'm a machine,
2) Each possible computation is Turing-computable,
3) Natural numbers and their relations do exist.

This should not be confused with other quite common comp hypothesis that
the universe is a big computer. This hypothesis entails the existence of
a physical computer.

Ad 1) I take the position that "I" is only a convenient temporary
pointer to a part of universe. The pointer "Socrates' thoughts" is of
the same quality.

Ad 2) Breath taking. While 1) and 3) are assumptions of the kind "OK,
let's think for a while that ...", 2) has the status of a thesis. I
don't have any firm position on what could an objective reality be (and
without a justification I tend to think it is inaccessible to us), but
if there is any objective reality, 2) could be a statement about it.

Ad 3) If natural numbers and their relations are the only entities which
do exist then me, you, everything is a recipe of a Turing-computable number.

OK, that is it. This is how I understand to your starting assumptions.


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

Reply via email to