Peirce's concept of logical abduction-- a possible moneymaker

```Hi Bruno Marchal

Yes, by new I mean contingent. But Kant, although his examples
are debatable, at least sought a synthetic a priori,
which of course would be a gold mine, or perhaps a stairway
to the divine. ```
```
Pragmatism rejects the idea of there being any
such universals, but I think by abduction strives
to obtain completly new results (if actually new I can't say).
I think that's why Peirce came up with the concept of abduction.
The concept is very seductive to me for its possible
power of discovery of something unknown or new.
If comp could do this, I'd not spend a moment more on
simulating the brain. Such a program might be worth a lot of
money in venues such as AI, the defense industry, medicine
and criminal investigation a la Sherlocki Holmes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

"Abduction[1] is a form of logical inference that goes from data description of
something to a
hypothesis that accounts for the reliable data and seeks to explain relevant
evidence.
The term was first introduced by the American philosopher Charles Sanders
Peirce (1839?1914) as
"guessing".[2] Peirce said that to abduce a hypothetical explanation from an
observed surprising circumstance
is to surmise that may be true because then would be a matter of course.[3]
Thus, to abduce
from involves determining that is sufficient (or nearly sufficient), but not
necessary, for [b, unclear symbol].

For example, the lawn is wet. But if it rained last night, then it would be
unsurprising that the lawn is wet. Therefore, by abductive reasoning, the
possibility that it rained last night is reasonable. (But note that Peirce did
not remain convinced that a single logical form covers all abduction.)[4]
Peirce argues that good abductive reasoning from P to Q involves not simply
a determination that, e.g., Q is sufficient for P, but also that Q is among the
most economical explanations for P. Simplification and economy are what call
for the 'leap' of abduction.[5] In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive
reasoning, the premises do not guarantee the conclusion. Abductive reasoning
can be understood as "inference to the best explanation".[6]
There has been renewed interest in the subject of abduction in the
fields of law,[7] computer science, and artificial intelligence research.[8] "

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/7/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Time: 2012-11-07, 09:07:59
Subject: Re: (mathematical) solipsism

On 06 Nov 2012, at 15:30, Roger Clough wrote:

> Hi Bruno Marchal
>
> OK. That's analytic uncertainty.

Yes indeed. Almost the opposite of the comp indeterminacy. With comp
we get many form of indetermlinacies and uncertainties.

>
> And analytic deduction cannot really tell us anything new,
> it can only give us a fresh perspective.

Yes. But nor can a God, or a universe. I am not sure what you mean by
"new".

>
> 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.

OK, but this happens in arithmetic too, even without comp. And more
easily shown with comp.

> This was invented I think, entirely new, not deduced.

So by new, you mean contingent. But arithmetic is full of many
contingencies. Even many type of very different sort of contingencies.

>
> I suppose this might be construed as a form of nominalism,
> and if so, realism can be expanded with intuition.

Tell me what you mean by nominalism, as this term is often used
differently by different people.

Bruno

>
>
>
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
> 11/6/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> From: Bruno Marchal
> 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, rclo...@verizon.net
>> 11/5/2012
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>
>>
>> ----- Receiving the following content -----
>> From: Bruno Marchal
>> 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."
>>
>>
>> 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 everything-
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> 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-
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> .
>>
>
> 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
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> .
>
> --
> 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
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> .
>

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
For more options, visit this group at