On 7/14/2012 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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!
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.
OK, so does the converse hold? Predictability eliminates
responsibility? That sentence looks very wrong....
Right. Predictability is irrelevant to the social concept of
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
Knowledge of our ignorance. Numbers intrinsic knowledge of their own
"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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at