> On 20 Jun 2019, at 19:41, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 6/20/2019 3:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 18 Jun 2019, at 20:41, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/18/2019 3:56 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>> An overlooked simple possibility is that separating the notions of >>>> "consciousness" and "reality" is nonsensical. There is no evidence of any >>>> "reality" outside of conscious experience, nor can there be. >>> Weren't you ever unconscious and awoke to discover that reality had >>> proceeded without you? That's evidence. >> I might agree. Perhaps Telmo was talking about a physical reality, as judged >> independent of consciousness, which does not exist … physically, but still >> arithmetically. >> >> The physical reality is independent of us, with “us” = the terrestrial >> mammals (say). >> >> But the physical reality is not independent of us, with “us” = the universal >> numbers. >> >> Dinosaurs have existed in our human past. But things like past and future >> are “invention” of numbers (to be short). We cannot prove this (in the >> strong sense of proof), but in that sense, we cannot prove anything about >> Reality nor even that there is a reality. To prove the existence of a >> reality is akin to prove our own consistency. We cannot prove that, despite >> we cannot really donut that we are (locally) consistent. >> >> Some faith is unavoidable, if we want to do fundamental research, and avoid >> pure instrumentalism, which leads to manipulations, lies, and the law of the >> jungle ... > > You seem to have a black-and-white view of knowledge: It's either faith or > proof.
? I make precise 8 notion of truth. One is the simple (conceptually) arithmetical truth, the other are all phenomenological modes of self-reference. That does not seem black and white to me, except for the arithmetical sentences, where we use classical logic, but then we get all the modal nuances imposed by incompleteness and its intensional variants. > The first is unreliable, the second is inapplicable. I don’t understand what you say that the second is inapplicable. It is not applicable for “knowledge-for-sure”, but that does not exist in science. And it works for the maker and more modest notion of Theaetetus’ knowledge. > What everyone else relies on is evidence. It doesn't provide certainty, but > it reduces uncertainty. No problem with this. I agree.That’s the main point. > > And how does instrumentalism, the idea that theories are good or bad > according to how well they predict things, That is not instrumentalist. That is empiricism, which I support. Instrumentalism is, roughly speaking “shut up and calculate”. Instrumentalism is positivism: it claims that there is no fundamental truth. Like relativism and positivism, it is self-defeating as a metaphysical position. > lead to "manipulaltion and lies". Are you rejecting empiricism as a measure > of knowledge? Of course not. Bruno > > Brent > > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3ddf8198-cea7-0bec-7e8b-bbd9da0c9983%40verizon.net. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8AE9AC9E-0978-4779-A2CF-A7C7775B9C8B%40ulb.ac.be.
