On 08 Jan 2014, at 23:11, 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),
It is that one. "Bp & p" means that p is believed (by some machine)
and that it is the case that p.
or
2. the TRUTH that one believes in it (a maybe)?
No. That would be equivalent with Bp.
Bruno
(none of the two may be 'true').
JM
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:50 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
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 beliefs are true, but this you can never
know as such.
Since your theory to an infinite number of semi-classical worlds
with different events (and even different physics) it seems that
"true belief" is not a very useful concept.
It is, because by incompleteness, we will have that Bp & p (true
belief) obeys a different logic (an epistemic intuitionist logic)
despite G* knows that it is the same machine, having the same
action. The machine just dont know that, although it 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 -> <>p, which is ocrrect for Bp & p, though, and indeed
a physics appears already there, but that is a sort of anomaly
(which confirms what I took as an anomaly in 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 logic, and the probability different from 1 are
handled by the mathematics, and is related to the Dp (not Bp). The
probability bears on the accessible "worlds".
The interesting concept is the probability of future events
relative to one's current state.
That's exactly why we need to go from Bp to Bp & Dt (or Bp & Dt & p,
or actually Bp & p). This gives the relevant notion of relative
consistency together with some temporal interpretation.
Bruno
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
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.
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.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
