Hi Bruno Marchal OK, you say propositions might have a contradiction but you might not yet have found the contradictions. That's a profound point. In other words, one can't ever be sure if a proposition is necessarily true, because, as Woody Allen says, forever is a long time. And the variety and number of possible copntradictions is possibly vast. Shades of Nietzsche ! Tell me it isn't so !
I guess that's the same as saying that you can never be sure of contingency either. I need to lie down for a while. This is beginning to look like existentialism. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/5/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-04, 08:56:01 Subject: Re: The two types of truth On 03 Nov 2012, at 12:45, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Bruno Marchal and Stephen, > > http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/leibniz.html > > "Leibniz declares that there are two kinds of truth: > truths of reason [which are non-contradictory, are always either > true or false], We can only hope that they are non contradictory. And although true or false, they are aslo known or unknown, believed of not believed, disbelieved or not disbelieved, etc. > and truths of fact [which are not always either true or false]. Why? They are contextual, but you can study the relation fact/context in the higher structure level. > > Truths of reason are a priori, while truths of fact are a posteriori. > Truths of reason are necessary, permanent truths. Truths of fact are > contingent, empirical truths. > Both kinds of truth must have a sufficient reason. Truths of reason > have their > sufficient reason in being opposed to the contradictoriness and > logical inconsistency > of propositions which deny them. Truths of fact have their > sufficient reason in > being more perfect than propositions which deny them." Unfortunately, this is acceptable below Sigma_1 truth, but doubtable above, so even in the lower complexity part of arithmetic, things are not that simple. Bruno > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 11/3/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > From: Bruno Marchal > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-11-03, 07:13:24 > Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm > > > On 02 Nov 2012, at 23:12, Stephen P. King wrote: > >> On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>>> I can understand these symbols because there is at least a way >>>>>> to physically implement them. >>>>> >>>>> Those notion have nothing to do with "physical implementation". >>>> >>>> So your thinking about them is not a physical act? >>> >>> Too much ambiguous. Even staying in comp I can answer "yes" and >>> "no". >>> Yes, because my human thinking is locally supported by physical >>> events. >>> No, because the whole couple mind/physical events is supported by >>> platonic arithmetical truth. >> Dear Bruno, >> >> Where is the evidence of the existence of a Platonic realm? > > It is part of the assumption. We postulate arithmetic. I try to avoid > the use of "platonic" there, as I used the term in Plato sense. In > that sense Platonia = the greek No?, and it is derived from > arithmetic and comp. > > All you need is the belief that 43 is prime independently of "43 is > prime". > > > >> The mere self-consistency of an idea is proof of existence > > Already in arithmetic we have the consistence of the existence of a > prrof of the false, this certainly does not mean that there exist a > proof of the false. So self-consistency is doubtfully identifiable > with truth, and still less with existence. > > > >> but the idea must be understood by a multiplicity of entities with >> the capacity to distinguish truth from falsehood to have any >> coherence as an idea! > > Not at all. 43 is prime might be true, even in absence of universe and > observer. > > > >> We cannot just assume that the mere existence of some undefined acts >> to determine the properties of the undefined. Truth and falsity are >> possible properties, they are not ontological aspects of existence. > > Truth is no more a property than existence. It makes no sense. > > 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-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en > . > > -- > 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 > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
