On 20 Nov 2012, at 20:47, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

2012/11/20 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>

On 20 Nov 2012, at 16:02, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

2012/11/11 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>

On 11 Nov 2012, at 01:29, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

It is an observable fact. is obviously true that if you live in a society where everyone take something as true , no matter what, then it is true for one of its members, you, for example.

That's correct. But that still does not make it true. Sometimes everybody can be wrong.

That´s the reson why truth can only be defined in objective terms as a belief (except perhaps in the realm of mathematics).

Well, mathematicians can differ a lot, but arithmetic seems to be the sharable part of math.

When I say this is true, I´m saying that I believe that this is true.

I don't think this is a good idea. This works well in many case, but on the fundamental question it is better to distinguish truth and belief. truth, by definition, cannot be made wrong, and is independent of our beliefs. Beliefs are typically wrong most of the time. "P" and "I believe P" have a very different meaning.

it is not an idea. is an objective fact. that if you say that something is true, I ´m sure that you believe that this is true. This is the inmediate objective fact that I can extract from your voice

Well, in the case the believer is honest, you can assume this. OK. But this does not make truth and belief identifiable.

Truth is only definable in the field of mathematics.

Actually it is not. Arithmetical truth cannot be defined in arithmetic, and mathematical truth cannot be defined at all. But we can approximate it, in special context.

Because you are interested in mathematical truths.

I am interested in theology and fundamental questions. I use comp as a working hypothesis, and I derive propositions from it, using computer science and logic, but being at the start agnostic on about everything, except perhaps my own consciousness here-and-now.

I´m interested in life as is experienced here and now.

Ah! What a coincidence. Me too.

In the realm of experienced reality, there are no demonstrable absolute and eternal Truth forever and ever.

Perhaps. I am not sure. Anyway, once we theorize we make clear our assumptions. I use the idea that my consciousness here and now remains unchanged for some local digital transformation. I assume also elementary arithmetic (and thus some fragment of classical logic on some fragment of arithmetical truth), and the Church Turing thesis.

So a definition of truth with no belief behind has no interest, because it can not be applied to anything (some details below)

There is no attempt to define truth, nor consciousness. This can be used informally at the meta-level. That is enough, once you agree with the theory, even if only for the sake of the argument.

So truth in the realm of experience means "accepted as truth" in a certain context.

I would call that delusion. of course sometimes we can be lucky, and assert a genuine truth. But this we can never be sure of, except perhaps in arithmetic (but I do not use this in the reasoning I do).

it´s an objective fact. I' m not the believer that is deceived. I´m the objective one that study the one that believe.

? That one can be deceived too. We don't know the truth, except the consciousness here and now. The rest are theories, and it is quite helpful, especially when digging on the fundamental matter (like life and after life) to make all the assumption explicit, with a clear operative level, like in math.

We can´nt go further than that if we want to stay objective (or tautological).

I think we can, as we can have faith in truth, and just admit that we don't know it. We can still searching. defining truth by beliefs would lead to relativism.

I don´t fall in relativism because the said below. If you admit that you do not know every fact of the experienced reality,

I admit this. Only this, actually. But I can reason only on theoretical propositions, which of course have to be coherent with the only things I know.

the you fall in nihilism. In your case, arithmetical nihilism.

It would be nihilist if we believe only in the basic ontology. But that makes no sense as the basic ontology is only the base needed for explaining how both matter and consciousness appear in the epistemology, which is as real as the ontology, even if on different level.

But  I know that you know that i exist,

I don't know that. I belief that, but I might wake up in a second, in a different reality where you don't exist. I don't find this currently plausible, but it remains logically consistent, and it is enough to consider it as a belief, even if a solid one.

or you believe that I exist. because you are talking to me.

I talk to dreamy creature too, and usually not knowing that I am dreaming. But indeed I believe that you exist.

so I assume that you believe that I exist.


This knowledge

Only God knows if it is a "knowledge". I define knowledge of P by a belief in P when P is true.
I believe that you exist, but only God knows that you exist.

neither can be reduce to nihilistic "dont knows" neither can be reduced to reliativistic "it depends". It is an operatiive knowledge that you have, that permits you and me to live. That knowlege is the irreducible, factual, operative, unaviodable, necessary, inherent knowledge for life that I´m interested in. It´s neither delusional belief, as you call it, neither mathematical Truth. i neither relativistic neither nihilistic. It is simply, knowledge upon which living beings live and can not live without

With comp I can even prove that you exist, but I can't still be sure that what I prove is true. So it would better to keep the wording "belief", and to keep the distinction with "true", as it is not usually the same, given that we might harbor false belief. Knowledge verifies []p -> p. Belief and provability don't. For teh correct machine, provability obeys []p -> p, by definition, but the machine cannot believe nor prove that she is correct, nd cannot believe in general that []p -> p.

Thay point of view would be pure relativism unless natural selection is considered.

Or many things weaker than that a priori. If you agree that 43 is prime, that is already a lot. I cannot start with natural selection, as I am agnostic on nature. I don't know what it is, if that exist, at which level, etc. It presuppose also arithmetic, and with comp I can argue that I cannot add anymore, except for the epistemological definitions. I do believe in natural selection, but not that it is something so fundamental. first person consciousness selection is more important, as it selects also the laws making natural selection possible.

Consciousness selection and natural selection are the same.

That is not obvious at all. In the comp context, you should first to define what is meant by "nature".

I don´t fight for which one is more general. neither I will discuss than in this thread

The absolute requirement of existence of the minds which habites in the environmment of the laws of reality makes certain truths possible and certain alternatives impossible.

But such a sentences assumes a lot.

see below

For example, that "electrons collapse in the nucleus is" can never be true for any living being.

Of course, this is a well known physical facts well explained by QM. But with comp, it is nothing but a complex problem, we have to derive QM from + and * before.

I don´t believe in comp as the ultimate essence behind everything

Neither do I. On the contrary comp prevent reductionism and ultimate essences.

yet, I am pretty sure that if comp is true (that is: if my consciousness remains unchanged with some digital brain), then the current Aristotelian conception of reality is wrong, and Plato's conception is still coherent and rational. This of course leads to new problem, like the problem of deriving the physical laws from machine's self-reference.

neither "Mothers don´t love their children" for the very same reason in humans. Because these candidates for truth are incompatible with the existence of minds (1) and the human mind (2).

Hmm.. I can agree, but you are quick. Many mothers does not like their children. Some kill them. Some kill them all, as in a recent case nearby. It is a known phenomenon.

Yes I´m quick. I said mothers, not a given mother. I´m talking about operational, practical truth. In this case it is a fact of evolution that maternal love is a necessary adaptation due to mammal biology. But this love is not a True value in a set [True, False] .


It is a continuous function with many parameters: the resources available, the mother status, the cab state, the help of other, the absence of predators etc. This function goes back and forth, according to the circumstances and in humans it produces moral dilemmas for each individual mother. If you are interested, the algorithm is described in this article: .Nurturance or Negligence: Maternal Psychology and Behavioral Preference
In this book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adapted_Mind .

This is a good example of how truth and goodness in the unavoidable presence of a mind are dual aspects of the same. Mothers love their children is an operational truth. "Mothers should love their children" and "it is good when a mother love his children and bad otherwise" Are moral truths. and are facts . The first is an operational fact for resoning and dealing with mothers and childrens, the second is for knowing that when a woman does not love his child, something is going wrong and something appropriate must be done to change this situation. not only humans know this; A robot that interact with humans should know both facts or it would be destroyed by angry mothers or it would be incapable of solving the problems of the mothers if he is in charge of it.

OK, no problem.

In the middle, there are many truths that can be accepted as truths in some contexts, no matter if they are later refuted. Our time is by no means any different from other times in history. Almost all that we known can be proved wrong in a way or other. except perhaps mathematics (and not even that, if we don´t consider life ( autopoietic computation) as criteria for existence).

To summarize, to say that all may be wrong is not an impediment for a objective study of truth as as a evolutionary phenomenon and his closed identity with what exist and is perceived good .

I agree. That is why I think it is better to distinguih Truth from beliefs, and keep in mind that all scientific "truth" are only belief, by which it is meant that they can be false. truth is what we search (when we have the taste for it).

Yes, but this is not the everyday truth neither the scientific truth, it is the platonic notion of Truth, unreachable for us the mortals, despite that we are after it.

But a theology, even hypothetical, has to relate all kind of truth. The truth we bet on, as to be coherent and hopefully explained the many type of truth we can met, in the everyday life, in ourselves, and in the public science.

I talk about everyday truths, including scientific truth. It also includes the belief of someone who believes that some truth is Truth.

Yes, madness. It is important, but difficult. Even the correct machine are intrinsically close to it.

I mean, that this historic consideration is the only objective non speculative method of considering the notion of Truth, whatever if it is considered in capital letters or not. I may say that truth is an evolutionary (historical) path to Truth.

With comp something happen, which is that we can limit truth to arithmetical truth. It remains a big non-computable thing, but it is rather conceptually clear. Above arithmetics, with comp there are the mind tools and imagination, and dreams, cohering or not? They can be justified from inside arithmetical truth.

As I said, I´m not interested in mathematical truth.

But it plays a big role, (even without comp, but justifiable once comp is assumed). It explains both how nature and natural selection comes from, without assuming a physical universe.

(1) What is objective is the study of beliefs (historical truths) and the testing of hypothesis of why these beliefs (truths) exist. and others do not.

OK, but this leads to other belief. And history can be revised. It is bad but it happens everyday, if you read many newspapers, you can see this.

But this imperfect knowledge or belied gained in this process is a more step toward a more perfect Truth . And, if ought is equated to is (again), if what is good can be demonstrably established in objective terms then political agreements would be far far more easy. therefore life would be easier for everyone. It is a moral endavour.

But searching the truth is not wishful thinking, and I am not sure "ought" can be equated to "is", not even in the limit, despite it would be nice. Politics is just to much complex to be dwelved at the same level as the fundamental question. If politicians or academicians were just doing their job, the world would already improved a lot.

(2)What is speculative, and has no firm ground, is to say "This is true" without concern for the fact that this is the expression of a belief.

Yes, but that is a reason to distinguish the truth and the belief. Not a reason to equate them.

read operational, historical, factual, practical, experiential truth whenever I say truth .

I give real truth for you and your theorems of integer arithmetic.


 the people in (2) are a subject of study for the people in (1).

OK, but such study can only be based on some belief, that is theory or hypothesis. A belief is a questioning.

beliefs in truth is all what I need. It comprises all truths except mathematical truts, that nether me neither anyone is interested 99.99% of the time and with which humans lived happily during most of the human history.

It is ambiguous. Nobody care about quark, but with the current theory in physics, quark are necessary parts of the human body, so we have to care, in that sense, even if not knowing. The goal is not happiness, it is searching the truth (even if that is done to procure some happiness at some meta-level). My father gave me an impressive definition of what is truth: truth it is what the humans fear the most.

 modal logic is something instrumental for (1)
 pure logic is instrumental for (2)
people in (1) must explain the reductions from (1) to (2).

I gave here a way to do this last.

I explain how comp makes this already happening all the time in arithmetic.

Where? I can not imagine how Comp can explain how the reduction implied in the assumption [] p -> p can be accepted by intrahistoric people ( living in the world (2) )

For machine, this is true for the knowledge of p. But knowledge of p is define by p is believed and true. But true cannot be defined, and it can be shown (Scott and Montague) that knowledge is indeed not definable by the machine-knower. So "[]p -> p" cannot be assumed in any expressible way. But comp explains entirely why this should be the case, and explains in this way why knowledge and consciousness cannot be defined, despite existing and making sense in our lives.

In evolutionary terms it is easy. this reduction happens because a shared belief, when it is experienced as Truth, increases the coordination of the group

In which reality? You take some reality for granted. I do not, except my assumptions recalled above.

and therefore the intense experience of a shared belief as Truth has been selected as a component of the human mind.

But shared belief is just not truth. Collective hallucination can happen. I certainly believe in that fact, and take it into account in the theory. In fact "physical truth" becomes quite like what you described, as it is a form of sharing dreams. Dreams here are computation "see from inside" (to be short) and they obeys to the laws of computer science and mathematical logic.

It can even be defined in which degree a candidate belief can be accepted depending on the context in which the people live.

It can be deduced that there is a mitopoetic (mith generation hability) in human beings, and a evaluator of individual and social capital operating in the human mind that pass each candidate belief trough it. This intervenes in the acceptance of something as true.

Locally, and this might be useful for some some human applications, but misleading for the fundamental questioning, in my opinion.


I still did´nt do that formally.

I did, but then it does not help so much apparently, as it asks for some amount of works. But I am a mathematician, and I did not get more choice in the matter.



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 .


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