On 02 Jun 2016, at 20:16, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 6/2/2016 9:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jun 2016, at 21:05, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 6/1/2016 5:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In fact my definition of rational belief is very simple: a
machine beliefs p if she asserts p. Then I limit myself to
rational believers because it would be nonsense to interview a
non rational machine to derive rationally, following the UDA
prescription, the correct physics or the correct theology.
But what does "rational" mean? I think you mean "proves all valid
theorems from some set of axioms", which is not what it means when
applied to humans.
It means: does not deny the consequences of its/her/his beliefs.
Does that mean a rational person must know all the consequences of
their beliefs?
They need only to be knowable. But we could use more "Rosserian"
provability predicate, so that something can be known or believed
before some other proposition. But that would make things
unnecessarily complex at this stage.
Does one's belief have consequences if one never acts on it?
Relatively to some situation? No.
Or do you mean "consequence" = "logically entailed proposition"?
That is what I mean. But by completeness (Gödel 1930) it means also
"true in all models satisfying my belief".
I'd say a rational person is one who can give coherent reasons for
their beliefs.
Which makes PA into a rational person, even more so than most of us.
Humans still act like they believe that the only coherent reason to
believe in something is that the boss say so (and everyone know that
the boss is always right, especially when wrong!).
But even PA, if asked about why she believes in x + 0 = x, might say
something like "obvious", or "Instinct", or "I have been told", or "I
have many examples", or ....
Bruno
Brent
Brent
Note that correct beliefs does NOT mean knowledge (in the sense
of the machine). The machine is not aware, and never will, that
her beliefs are in general correct. Knowledge, contrarily is
correct *by definition*, as it is formally defined, at the
necessary meta-level, by correct-beliefs. This is a subtle but
extremely important point made possible only thanks to
incompleteness. (For those who have the book by Gerson on Antic
Epistemology, that is the precise point where Gerson critics of
the Theatetus" definition of knowledge get wrong: it is the
difference between a belief which happen to be correct, and a
belief restricted (non constructively) to correct proposition).
The goal is to derive physics and theology, not human psychology.
Bruno
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
