On 7/14/2012 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 14 Jul 2012, at 06:16, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 7/13/2012 11:51 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/13/2012 7:31 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Does unpredictability that you have mentioned in another message will help in this respect? If yes, how?

If you're asking whether unpredictability eliminates responsibility, the answer is no.

Hi Brent,

OK, so does the converse hold? Predictability eliminates responsibility? That sentence looks very wrong....

Right. Predictability is irrelevant to the social concept of responsibility.


OK, so what is relevant? What action is the determinant of a given quantity of responsibility? Knowledge? No, that can't be because that involves predictability. So, I am at a loose. Please enlighten me.

Knowledge of our ignorance. Numbers intrinsic knowledge of their own relative ignorance.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>

So then we can think of numbers as "quantities of relative ignorance"? That is much better than the "ghosts of departed quantities" that Newton had! But how does this answer my question of responsibility? You are talking to a different question and assuming a measure exists where one cannot be defined. The absence of a property is the complement of the property, no? This is where we cannot avoid some form of set theory and it is exactly where we get into trouble!



"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

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