On 02 Nov 2012, at 23:20, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Are you familiar with Jaakko Hintikka's ideas? I am using his
concept of game theoretic semantics to derive truth valuations.
I read this. yes. I don't see relevant at all.
I do appreciate his linking of intention and intension, but it is a
bit trivial in the comp theory.
Hintikka's idea is to show how truth values can be coherently
considered to be the result of a process and not necessarily just
some a priori valuation. This makes Truth an emergent valuation,
just as I content all definite properties are emergent from mutual
agreements between entities.
But how will you define entities? Where and how will the truth of
"truth is an emergent valuation" emerge?
What you say does not make sense for me. But if someone else
understand please help Stephen in conveying the idea.
Properties, in the absence of the possibility of measurement or
apprehension of some type, do not exist; they are what the 1p
project onto existence. Nothing more.
Existence of what, of who, where, how?
It is very bad philosophy to throw doubt on scientific results just by
using non standard unclear philosophical definition in a context
where honest scientist have no problem at all, and use what everybody
understand to show that there is some problem indeed, and attempt to
make a formulation of such problems.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at