On 11/7/2012 10:13 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
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 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning%20>

"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] "

Dear Roger,

I am a HUGE fan of Peirce. I hope to work with you and any one else to elaborate on his ideas. I think that there are no ideal absolutes except only those Hintikka decision games <http://www.springerlink.com/content/k2727246n056x1lu/fulltext.pdf>converge to Nash equilibria <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium> in some finite number of steps.



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 

Reply via email to