Hi Bruno Marchal OK. That's analytic uncertainty.
And analytic deduction cannot really tell us anything new, it can only give us a fresh perspective. But a new thing can be created with synthesis (intuiition,inference, induction, abduction), which is the trick that Einstein performed when he showed (very simply) that time is relative. This was invented I think, entirely new, not deduced. I suppose this might be construed as a form of nominalism, and if so, realism can be expanded with intuition. Roger Clough, [email protected] 11/6/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-06, 07:48:07 Subject: Re: (mathematical) solipsism On 05 Nov 2012, at 13:48, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Bruno Marchal > > Isn't strong AI just an assumption ? Yes. Comp too. The existence of the moon also. The fact that I am conscious, can only be an assumption for you, and vice versa. The only thing which is not an assumption is private consciousness. All the rest are assumptions. Strictly speaking. Science uses only assumption and develop only *relative* certainty. A difficulty comes from the fact that the brain wired in us already many assumptions, which we are not conscious of the hypothetical nature. for example some birds assumes that the first things they see moving after birth is their parent, and we tend to do the same. But having parent is of the type "theoretical hypotheses". Bruno > > > Roger Clough, [email protected] > 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, 09:43:16 > Subject: Re: (mathematical) solipsism > > > > > On 03 Nov 2012, at 13:00, Stephen P. King wrote: > > > On 11/3/2012 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > [SPK] In the absence of a means to determine some property, it is > incoherent and sometimes inconsistent to claim that the property has > some particular value and the absence of all other possible values. > > > In math this is called (mathematical) solipsism. > > > Dear Bruno, > > How is it solipsism? Solipsism is: "Solipsism is the > philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The > term comes from the Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism > as an epistemological position holds that knowledge of anything > outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds > cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a > metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that > the world and other minds do not exist." > > My point is that numbers, by your notion of AR, are solipsistic > as there is literally nothing other than the numbers. I reject AR > because of this! Numbers alone cannot do what you propose. > > > > Comp entails Strong AI, which attributes consciousness to machines, > and thus to others. You argument is not valid because it beg the > question that number (related through the laws of + and *) emulated > computation to which comp attribute consciousness. So comp is not > solipsism. > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > > > This post argues similar to my point: > http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=5944965 > > "Conventional solipsism is a logical philosophy whose underlying views > apply equally to mathematical philosophies of neopythagoreanism and > neoplatonism as well as mathematical realism and empiricism generally. > > The well established philosophical principle of solipsism is that only > the individual is or can be demonstrated to exist. But the problem is > that if this principle were actually demonstrably true it would also > make it false because the "truth" established would ipso facto make > the principle beyond control of any individual. > > Nobody really thinks solipsism is true. But the difficulty is no one > can prove or disprove the concept because no one can prove the > foundations of truth in absolute, necessary, and universal terms." > > > This article > http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=philo > > argues against the claim that Intuitionism is solipsistic. I reject > Intuitionism as a singular coherent theory of mathematics, but I do > accept it as a member of the pantheon of "interpretations" of > mathematics. > > -- > Onward! > > Stephen > > > -- > 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 > . > 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. -- 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.
