On 12/20/2012 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Dec 2012, at 22:12, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/18/2012 3:28 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/18/2012 10:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/18/2012 12:51 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/17/2012 11:51 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than
What do you mean ? that provable true is truer ?
No, just that there must be propositions we judge to be true that
How do we defend such "propositions we judge to be true that
aren't provable" from claims of subjectivity?
Of course being provable does eliminate subjectivity - it just
pushes it back to the axioms. Generally what we mean by objective
is that there is almost universal subjective agreement, e.g. given
any number x there is a successor of x not equal to x. So if there
is some proposition of arithmetic that everyone agrees must be true,
then it's as 'objective' as the axioms and as 'objective' as
anything proven from the axioms even though it is not provable from
You have written the magic words! "... if there is some
proposition of arithmetic that everyone agrees must be true". This is
exactly what I am talking about with my banter about "truth obtaining
from agreements between mutually communicating observers". We remove
the subjectivity of the individual by spreading it out over many
individuals. When we have many individuals in agreement, the
disagreement by one of them is inconsequential. This is the laws of
large numbers at work. ;-)
OK for politics, but not for science. That would be worst than
solipsism, that would be nationalism, that is collective solipsism.
Could you stop with your anthropocentric bias for once in your
life? "Everyone", as I used the word, about is not just human beings.
Yes, it is collective solipsism. It has a name: Multisolipsism.
It is we we consider all entities that are capable of being defined
as having a 1p and that are capable of communication with each other.
This includes, for instance, every electron, every quark, every proton,
every atom, every molecule, every animal, every planet, every solar
system, every galaxy, ... any entity capable of having a 1p and that
their individual 1p includes aspects that are bisimilar to aspects of
the 1p of others.
What you need to understand is that the mereology of the systems
that can have a 1p cannot be confined to a unique partition of some
irreducible set of primitives in a regular or well founded way. You need
to understand the statistical implication of non-well foundedness!
The "nationalist allegiance" here, to use your strange metaphor,
would be to the Reality that all of them - the entities with 1p -
participate in. Did you notice the huge number of entities that have to
be considered, in my discussion with LizR? As it stands, we need to
consider at least 10^23 entities just to take into account smallish
phenomena at our human level, because that is the average number of
entities that are at our level of substitution as an ensemble of
equivalence. This is well known in chemistry and engineering...
In science all argument per authority are invalid, and to invoke
majority would be the best way to kill the possibility of progress.
history shows that in science, very often, those who are "right" are a
minority for some period, which is normal in front of the unknown.
Rubbish, you are being a hypocrite, invoking that "truth from
authority" crap. I am a minority of one here. So my minority status
beats your minority status every day all day. Do we really need to "go
there" and act like children? You really should take a class on
statistic taught by an engineer and not a cloistered academic
mathematician. I am merely trying to make the principles of COMP useful
to an engineer, because, as I have been explaining to LizR, I see a use
We have many entities that are available to agree that 2+2=4 (for
all sizes of 2 and 4 that we can find),
People agree that 2+2=4 because it is a simple truth which follow from
Sure, and those people don't notice that the universe is not
"everything that I can see with my eyes, touch with my hands, hear with
my ears, smell with my nose, etc." The universe is far far more than we
can distinguish at our level of substitution which is a function of our
very coarse measurements. I am considering way more than "people". I am
considering any and every entity with a 1p. If you believe that only
people have a 1p, then well....
2^90 entities at least! Every particle that exist in our universe
that can hold a bit of data and all possible combinations of them
that agree on some "laws of physics". If we take this finite number
to be infinite then things change; we are not able to take about
measures that are relative to agreements in populations of entities
and must be capable of comprehending that simple fact.
Granting ourselves imaginary powers of omniscience or to some
imaginary Platonic proxy does not change anything when we are
considering the degeneracy of the very idea of a measure in the case
Measure theory has been invented to define measure on all kinds of
sets, especially infinite one. (Riemann measure, Lebesgues, etc.).
I understand that and in the process of the invention (or
discovery) many things are completely neglected. Things like the laws of
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at