On 12 Oct 2011, at 21:43, benjayk wrote:

Bruno Marchal wrote:

You might say "cannot be captured entirely", but anyone has the right
to suggest hypotheses and reasoning in any field. Questions makes
always sense.
I think you might attribute to me pretensions that I do not have.
If you just ask questions, OK. But even if you don't want to do more, you do more. You claim for example often that no one yet showed the invalidity of your reasoning (implying it is valid), making people belief that there is
some truth in it.

It is the difference between between proving A ==> B, and arguing for the truth of A.
A proof is verifiable by any good willing people.
A truth is in general not verifiable at all.

Here I have a problem because you lack some familiarity with those kind of things.

If you are really humble, just don't make any statements about whether you
reasoning is valid or not.

I don't defend any truth but I am still offering a reasoning to you. If you find it invalid it is your task to find the flaw. That's is by definition of reasoning.

One problem I do have, is that I am tempted to use the formal arithmetical version(AUDA) to invalidate some flaws people believe to have found. Usually they use intuition on machine which is invalidated by non completely trivial discovery in computer science.

You really don't know, maybe the criticism of
many different people is actually valid and you just don't recognize it.

No. I usually debunk them, and usually people get the point. There are exception as I have discover that some people just are not familiar with what is a reasoning.

Making assertions that you admit are not provable, or defensable through reason is actually more humble than that. That's why I don't like it as much if you say,"just say "no'", as you pretty much take away the fundament of
any discussion.

But you were just saying "no", but still arguing that comp has to be nonsense. I am not defending the truth of comp at all, but I do debunk invalid argument against comp, like I do debunk invalid argument for the truth of comp. That's my job.

If you don't want to discuss, that's fine, but then it is
more wise to not say anything at all and not discuss while not wanting to
discuss the real issue at hand.

You seem to be the one who want to discuss and you question the validity of the reasoning. But some time I feel them as being only emotional, and this means something about you, not about any point in the discussion. I am happy you find Terren's post worth, and it is a good point for you that you are aware of your emotional factor.

Maybe the reasoning and COMP are not clearly seperable, as the reasoning
supposes COMP to be true.

*All* reasoning suppose their premise true for the sake of the reasoning.

A common technic to prove that A entails B consists in supposing A and getting B from that. This does not prove that A is true, it proves only that IF A is true then B is true.

In many-world terms it means that in all words were A is true, B is also true. It means there is no world in which A is true and B is not true. But it does not mean that A is true in all world.

A common technic to prove that A is false, for example, will consists in assuming A and getting a contradiction from it (like 0 = 1), and then deducing NOT A, from that, despite the reasoning worked by supposing A to be true.

So the validity of a reasoning is completely independent of the true or falsity of the premise.

If you prove that A entails B, you also prove that (NOT B) entails (NOT A), for example.


PS I might comment other paragraph, but I am unfortunately very busy, so I will limit to answer only one paragraph which I might find more important, or summing up others.


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