On 18 Aug 2012, at 17:08, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
This is probably just my ignorance of what comp is, but there seems to
be a discrepancy between comp, which fits with Plato or Platonism,
and real life, which actually fits more with Aristotle. Plato is
"ought to be" and Aristotle is "is in fact".
You are right. Aristotle is intuitive, and Plato is counter-intuitive.
There is a troubling dualism between the two, that while we live in
the
Kingdom of Earth, we strive for the Kingdom of Heaven
("thy Kingdom come.).
This is unreconciliable dualism Hume pointed out between
"is" and "should be". He said he knew of no way to go from
"is" to "should be". Hume is a great prose stylist and thinker
so ihe's worth quoting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
Hume discusses the problem in book III, part I, section I of his
work, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739):
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have
always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the
ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or
makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I
am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of
propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not
connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is
imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this
ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation,
'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the
same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether
inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others,
which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly
use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers;
and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the
vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of
vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects,
nor is perceived by reason.[1]
Hume calls for caution against such inferences in the absence of any
explanation of how the ought-statements follow from the is-
statements. But how exactly can an "ought" be derived from an "is"?
The question, prompted by Hume's small paragraph, has become one of
the central questions of ethical theory, and Hume is usually
assigned the position that such a derivation is impossible.[2] This
complete severing of "is" from "ought" has been given the graphic
designation of Hume's Guillotine.[3]
Implications
The apparent gap between "is" statements and "ought" statements,
when combined with Hume's fork, renders "ought" statements of
dubious validity. Hume's fork is the idea that all items of
knowledge are either based on logic and definitions, or else on
observation. If the is–ought problem holds, then "ought" statements
do not seem to be known in either of these two ways, and it would
seem that there can be no moral knowledge. Moral skepticism and non-
cognitivism work with such conclusions.
The is–ought problem has been recognised as an important issue for
the validity of secular ethics and their defense from criticism—
often religiously inspired.[4]
You make me realize that Hume is a bit Quinean. Quine was struggling
against modal logic, or any notion of necessity and possibility.
Indeed Modal logic has been discovered by Aristotle when trying to
make clearer its metaphysics, and modal logic is indeed a technical
tool for serious metaphysician.
Quine claimed that modal logic has been conceived in sin.
But, as George Boolos said aptly: Gödel's incompleteness redeemed
Modal logic, if only by assuring purely arithmetical interpretation of
it, made necessary by arithmetical incompleteness. It is a fact:
machines cannot avoid the modalities.
Arithmetical truth does fit well with Quine's idea of "is", and then
incompleteness provides all the internal, modalities as seen by the
numbers (the person associated to them).
This concerns more "is possible" than "ought to". The moral element is
more complex to talk about, but is made possible by the "is possible",
and so they are certainly related.
In the machine's world Hume's Guillotine is bugged. It can't work.
Bruno
Roger , [email protected]
8/18/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-18, 10:10:58
Subject: Re: Descartes and the turf war between science and religion
On 18 Aug 2012, at 15:35, Roger wrote:
IMHO
Religion deals with the unchanging Kingdom of Heaven: the eternal
logic of Plato, final causes. Eternal truth,
not contingent facts. Either and always Yes or No.
Whoa! You are close to Platonism. Nice (with respect to comp).
Science deals with the Kingdom of Earth: the contingent world of
Aristotle and Lebniz.
Contingent facts, not eternal truth. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
I can be OK with that. We can be more precise by postulating comp,
as many contingency become absolutely contingent. In particular the
computational states become necessarily contingent. We have
p-> []<>p (p -> necessary possible p): it makes the accessibility
relation among worlds symmetrical, and something physical is
something repeatable in principles.
For a modal logician, Kripke is a big progress on Leibniz, because
Kripke relativizes the modalities to the 'actual world'. Leibniz
always works implicitly in one modal logic (known as S5). S5 is the
only modal logic which cannot be interpreted in arithmetic, at least
not in the self-referential approach to cognition.
There are billions (even a continuum to be exact) of modal logic.
Each defines its o<n notion of contingence and necessity. But both
Aristotle, and Leibniz (and even G鰀el, arguably) single out S5.
More on this later perhaps.
Bruno
The other remarks of yours are mankind's mistaken views of both.
----- Have received the following content -----
Sender: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-18, 06:26:11
Subject: Re: Descartes and the turf war between science and religion
On 17 Aug 2012, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/17/2012 11:32 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi guys,
Regarding Descartes.....
There has always been, and still is, a turf war between science
and religion,
each wanting to claim superiority over the other. And there's a
bit of fear
because most people believe that there's only one truth or that
truth comes in only one form,
either in science or in the Bible.
WHOA! Talk about parochial. I guess Roger hasn't heard of the
Quran, the Tao, the Eightfold Way, Dianetics, Wicca, the Torah,...
The interesting thing is that wars are fought over divine TRUTHs,
be not over scientific knowledge.
It is the same, as you can see through history. Just that
scientific knowledge impose itself in the shorter run than
fundamental knowledge.
Science is just an attitude of modesty, religion is the belief
that, not science, but what science tries to handle, makes sense,
and it motivates (fundamental) research.
Of course humans, and even nature, perverts science and religion
all the time for reason of dishonest selfish special local short
term interests. That's part of life.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
[email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
