Bruno writes Bp & p, where "Bp" ambiguously means "Proves p" (Beweisbar?) and "Believes
p". "Believes p and P" is then a belief that is "true". I put scare quotes around "true"
because I think it just means "is a consequence of some (Peano's) axioms", which is not
necessarily the same as "expresses a fact".
On 1/8/2014 2:11 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno and Brent:
did you agree whether *"TRUE BELIEF*" means in your sentences
1. one's belief that is TRUE, (not likely), or
2. the TRUTH that one believes in it (a maybe)?
(none of the two may be 'true').
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:50 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 31 Dec 2013, at 21:09, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/31/2013 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
only rules to extract knowledge from assumed beliefs.
I answered "no" to your question. Knowledge is not extracted in any way from
belief (assumed or not). knowledge *is* belief, when or in the world those
are true, but this you can never know as such.
Since your theory to an infinite number of semi-classical worlds with
events (and even different physics) it seems that "true belief" is not a
It is, because by incompleteness, we will have that Bp & p (true belief)
different logic (an epistemic intuitionist logic) despite G* knows that it
same machine, having the same action. The machine just dont know that,
can infer it from comp + a sort of faith in herself.
Every belief is going to have probability zero of being true.
neither Bp nor Bp & p is a priori related to probability. For this you need
<>p, which is ocrrect for Bp & p, though, and indeed a physics appears
there, but that is a sort of anomaly (which confirms what I took as an
Plotinus, but the machine agrees with him).
Now, Bp, when present in the nuances, gives the logic of the corresponding
"certainty", so it is trivially a probability one. We need to extract the
the probability different from 1 are handled by the mathematics, and is
the Dp (not Bp). The probability bears on the accessible "worlds".
The interesting concept is the probability of future events relative to
That's exactly why we need to go from Bp to Bp & Dt (or Bp & Dt & p, or
& p). This gives the relevant notion of relative consistency together with
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.