Ming, stop confusing my taste buds, we're trying to have a serious conversation here.. Same with you, Lusi, Sherry, Mark, and Schonmei

## Advertising

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Stephen Lin <sw...@post.harvard.edu> wrote: > Ming? Was that you??? > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> >> On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:34:05 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 23 Oct 2013, at 17:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>> >>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Dialetheism<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism> >>> > >>> > Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and >>> > false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there >>> > can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements >>> > are called "true contradictions", or dialetheia. >>> > >>> > Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis >>> > about truth, that influences the construction of a formal logic, >>> > often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has >>> > various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is >>> > introduced. For example, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., >>> > classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes >>> > true if a contradiction is true; this means that such systems become >>> > trivial when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical >>> > systems do not explode in this manner when contradictions are >>> > introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as >>> > paraconsistent logics. >>> > >>> > Graham Priest defines dialetheism as the view that there are true >>> > contradictions. JC Beall is another advocate; his position differs >>> > from Priest's in advocating constructive (methodological) >>> > deflationism regarding the truth predicate. >>> > Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes >>> > >>> > The Liar's paradox and Russell's paradox deal with self- >>> > contradictory statements in classical logic and naïve set theory, >>> > respectively. Contradictions are problematic in these theories >>> > because they cause the theories to explode—if a contradiction is >>> > true, then every proposition is true. The classical way to solve >>> > this problem is to ban contradictory statements, to revise the >>> > axioms of the logic so that self-contradictory statements do not >>> > appear. Dialetheists, on the other hand, respond to this problem by >>> > accepting the contradictions as true. Dialetheism allows for the >>> > unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory, claiming that any >>> > resulting contradiction is a theorem. >>> > >>> > It occurs to me that MWI is a way of substantiating dialetheism as a >>> > physical reality...in order to avoid having to internalize the >>> > possibility of dialetheism metaphysically. >>> >>> No problem with that. Like Everett restore 3p-determinacy, comp >>> restore also non-dialetheism, metaphysically, but does not (and >>> cannot) disallow it it in some machine's mind. >>> >>> G* says it; D(Bp & B~p), or <>([]p & []~p). read: it is consistent >>> that p is believed and that ~p is believed, by the Löbian machine. >>> The machine cannot know that, note. >>> >>> Well, don't take this too much seriously. My problem is that you need >>> to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. >>> >>> Note that in machines' theology, some theorem cannot be proved without >>> the reduction to contradiction, so that it misses them. (Unlike >>> intuitionism which can still get them by the use of the double >>> negation). >>> >>> Classical logic is the simplest logic to (re) discover the many non >>> classical logics of the realities/dreams. >>> >> >> "My problem is that you need >> to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark." >> >> Under comp, why couldn't I just imagine tasting the flavor of the math >> instead? >> >> Craig >> >> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ <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 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. >> > > -- 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.