On 12 Oct 2011, at 21:43, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
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
your reasoning (implying it is valid), making people belief that
You might say "cannot be captured entirely", but anyone has the right
to suggest hypotheses and reasoning in any field. Questions makes
I think you might attribute to me pretensions that I do not have.
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
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
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
reason is actually more humble than that. That's why I don't like it
if you say,"just say "no'", as you pretty much take away the
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
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
supposes COMP to be true.
*All* reasoning suppose their premise true for the sake of the
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at