On 11/3/2012 7:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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?
By relation to equivalence classes, just as you define observers as
bundles of computations.
Where and how will the truth of "truth is an emergent valuation" emerge?
When and where agreement between many observers obtains.
What you say does not make sense for me. But if someone else
understand please help Stephen in conveying the idea.
Any one understand my point?
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?
Properties that are not definite are either non-existence (not
defined by a theory) or ambiguous or a superposition of all possible
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.
I am defining new philosophical ideas. This is not a reharsh of
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