On 10/18/2013 11:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The key result is that incompleteness makes the Theaetetus' definition of knowledge (the only one I know capable of doing justice to the metaphysical antic dream argument) given a classical theory of knowledge (S4Grz) which X1* is an important "physical" variant.
I'm not sure how to parse that sentence, but the definition of knowledge that you give seems to me just a rough approximation (like the physicists spherical cow) to knowledge people actually have. For example, I 'know' the four color theorem is true, but I can't prove it without a computer. And there must be infinitely many other theorems of arithmetic who's proof is would take longer than the age of the universe. So, except as rough approximation why should we identify Bp&p with Knows(p).
Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
