This one more informative and without annoying music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p3m32AUwUM
2013/6/12 Alberto G. Corona <[email protected]> > This is the documentary mentioned > > Flying wales at 1:30 > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLRijkhDqRU > > my pleasure > > > 2013/6/12 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> > >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > On 12 Jun 2013, at 11:20, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) >> >>> scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the >> question >> >>> of >> >>> existence, which is not obvious. >> >>> Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants >> at >> >>> all. >> >> >> >> >> >> Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere >> >> flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? >> > >> > >> > You will not help John! >> >> I know, couldn't resist :) >> >> > But the problem with your answer, is: what do you mean by "elephant". >> On >> > that smaller planet elephant might be called "bird". >> >> Well, maybe something that triggers the classification of "elephant" >> on a majority of human brains? Something that looks like this: >> >> http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg237/unbelivablybored/Montagebilledecopy.jpg >> >> > Can a dinosaur fly? Yes, they are called bird, but they are descendent >> of >> > dinosaurs. But here some genomic can be invoked for establishing some >> > identity or parental relation. >> > >> > With enough "IF" you can deduce what you want. If some dictator renamed >> the >> > bird as "elephant", then surely elephant can fly. >> > >> > Bruno >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> Telmo. >> >> >> >>> Bruno >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> JM >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 6/11/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On 10 Jun 2013, at 20:04, meekerdb wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> On 6/10/2013 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On 10 Jun 2013, at 18:25, meekerdb wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> On 6/10/2013 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bruno Marchal < >> [email protected]> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> On 09 Jun 2013, at 11:20, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal < >> [email protected]> >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 08 Jun 2013, at 17:55, meekerdb wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2013 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 08 Jun 2013, at 05:15, meekerdb wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found >> >>>>>>>>>>>> this: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> A fictionalist account holds that some things are fictional, >> >>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> don't >> >>>>>>>>>>>> exist even though their complete description is >> self-consistent. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Everythingists apparently reject this idea. Platonists seem >> to >> >>>>>>>>>>>> equate >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 'true' with 'exists'. If you believe 17 is prime you must >> >>>>>>>>>>>> believe >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 17 >> >>>>>>>>>>>> exists. I think this is wrong. If you believe that a flying >> >>>>>>>>>>>> pink >> >>>>>>>>>>>> elephant >> >>>>>>>>>>>> is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists? >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Flying pink elephants are pink and not pink. That's why >> flying >> >>>>>>>>>>>> pink >> >>>>>>>>>>>> elephant >> >>>>>>>>>>>> can't exist. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> A pink elephant is pink by construction. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Exact. But the flying pink elephant are also not pink. By >> logic. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Or show >> >>>>>>>>>>>> me >> >>>>>>>>>>>> a flying pink elephant living on this planet which isn't not >> >>>>>>>>>>>> pink. >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Bruno, how are flying pink elephants any different from things >> >>>>>>>>>>> that >> >>>>>>>>>>> I >> >>>>>>>>>>> remember but am not experiencing this very moment? >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> I add explanation. Here you describe two 1p events. They are >> >>>>>>>>>> similar, >> >>>>>>>>>> although I guess you don't have precise memory of having >> actually >> >>>>>>>>>> seen a >> >>>>>>>>>> Flying Pink Elephant in your life, except in cartoon or dreams. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> For example, I've >> >>>>>>>>>>> been to Brussels but I'm not there right now. Brussels is an >> >>>>>>>>>>> abstraction in my mind, but I believe it's the capital of >> >>>>>>>>>>> Belgium. >> >>>>>>>>>>> That's part of the Brussels abstraction, in the same sense >> that >> >>>>>>>>>>> being >> >>>>>>>>>>> pink is part of the flying pink elephant abstraction. No? >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> I do not dispute that fact. Pink elephant are pink. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> But the pink elephant on this planet happens also to be brown >> >>>>>>>>>> rampant worms. >> >>>>>>>>>> And I'm afraid that is only a classical logician's joke. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> (x = Flying Pink Elephant) -> (x = Brown Rampant Worms) is >> true on >> >>>>>>>>>> this >> >>>>>>>>>> planet because (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, >> on >> >>>>>>>>>> this planet >> >>>>>>>>>> (I think), >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> But (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, is an >> empirical >> >>>>>>>> proposition. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I agree. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point >> was >> >>>>>>>> that true propositions, like "Flying pink elephants are pink" >> don't >> >>>>>>>> imply >> >>>>>>>> the existence of anything; just like "17 is prime" doesn't imply >> the >> >>>>>>>> existence of 17. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> But how do you formalize "flying pink elephant are pink" ? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical >> >>>>>>> formula: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> if x is an elephant which is pink and which is flying then x is >> pink. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> This does not entail Ex( x = an elephant which is pink and which >> is >> >>>>>>> flying) >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> For the same reason that: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> "if x is a prime number, which is even, and bigger that 3" then x >> is >> >>>>>>> bigger than 3" >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> does not entail Ex(x = even prime number bigger than 3). >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Actually it does. Let y="x is a prime number which is even and >> bigger >> >>>>>> than three". Then, if y anything; in classical logic everything >> >>>>>> follows >> >>>>>> from a contradiction. But we were talking about the metalogical >> >>>>>> relation of >> >>>>>> true/false and fictional/real. I don't think two are parallel. >> It's >> >>>>>> true >> >>>>>> that 17 is prime - but it doesn't follow that 17 is real. It's >> true >> >>>>>> that >> >>>>>> Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker Street, but it doesn't follow that >> he >> >>>>>> existed. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The difference comes from the fact that in arithmetic e can prove >> Ex(x >> >>>>> = >> >>>>> 17), but we cannot prove in your "theory" that Ex(= Sherlock >> Holmes). >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> But "E" in those two propositions don't have the same meaning. In >> the >> >>>> first it means that the axioms of arithmetic imply there is an x=17. >> In >> >>>> the >> >>>> second it means there was person who had all or most of the >> >>>> characteristics >> >>>> described in Conan Doyle's stories. >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> Of course something described by a contradiction can't exist. But >> a >> >>>>>> contradiction is dependent on an axiomatic system. So a pink >> elephant >> >>>>>> doesn't exist, but "There is a pink elephant." is not a >> contradiction; >> >>>>>> it's >> >>>>>> just a falsehood and it's not the case that everything follows >> from a >> >>>>>> falsehood. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> It is the case that everything follows from a falsehood. (0=1) does >> >>>>> implies everything. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> In classical logic. But logic is just supposed to formalize good >> >>>> reasoning. "There is a pink elephant." may mean no more than "That >> >>>> looks >> >>>> like an elephant painted pink." It's not an axiom of a formal >> system. >> >>>> I >> >>>> deliberately included "flying" because it makes the identification as >> >>>> "elephant" problematic. If we found an animal that looks like an >> >>>> elephant >> >>>> painted pink, we'd certainly call it a "pink elephant". But if we >> found >> >>>> an >> >>>> animal that looked like an elephant with wings that could fly, we'd >> only >> >>>> call it a "flying elephant" metaphorically. >> >>>> >> >>>> Brent >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> f -> q is a tautology. It is equivalent with ~f V p. that is with t >> V >> >>>>> q. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> "p -> everything" in all words where p is false, even if there are >> >>>>> worlds >> >>>>> were p is true. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> >>>> Groups >> >>>> "Everything List" group. >> >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >> send >> >>>> an >> >>>> email to [email protected]. >> >>>> To post to this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> >>>> Visit this group at >> >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups >> >>> "Everything List" group. >> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >> send an >> >>> email to [email protected]. >> >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> . >> >>> Visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups >> >>> "Everything List" group. >> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >> send an >> >>> email to [email protected]. >> >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> . >> >>> Visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups >> >> "Everything List" group. >> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >> an >> >> email to [email protected]. >> >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> >> Visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups >> > "Everything List" group. >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >> an >> > email to [email protected]. >> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> > Visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > >> > >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > > -- > Alberto. > -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
