Re: Belief vs Truth
I have to respond that in Judaism in the high holiday service there is a prayer praising doubt. I think that may be unique to Judaism? Richard On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Russell wrote: *...When it comes to Bp p capturing the notion of knowledge, I can see it captures the notion of mathematical knowledge, ie true theorems, as opposed to true conjectures, say, which aren't knowledge. * I can see your point, at least for arithmetic, but I am not sure that distinction is interesting, at least for awhile. In both case we assert some proposition, that we cannot prove. Then with some luck it can be true. * But I am vaguely sceptical it captures the notion of scientific knowledge, which has more to do with falsifiability, than with proof. * But the Löbian point is that proof, even when correct, are falsifiable. Why, because we might dream, even of a falsification. On 01 Jun 2013, at 21:41, John Mikes wrote: * And that's about where I left it - years ago.* *...* Interesting difference between 'scientific' and 'mathematical' (see the Nobel Prize distinction) That's one was contingent. Nobel was cocufied by a mathematician who would have deserved the price (Mittag Leffler I think). Hmm.. Wiki says it is a legend, and may be it is just the contingent current Aristotelianism. Some people believe that math is not a science, like David Deutsch. That makes no sense for me. Like Gauss I think math is the queen of science, and arithmetic is the queen of math ... - also in falsifiability, that does not automatically escape the agnostic questioning about the circumstances of the falsifying and the original images. Excellent point. Same difficulty as in judging proof. Formal, first order proof can be verified mechanically, but they still does not necessarily entail truth, as the premises might be inconsistent or incorrect. Scientific knowledge indeed is part of a belief system. In conventional sciences we THINK we know, Only the pseudo-religious or pseudo-scientist people think they know. in math we assume (apologies, Bruno). ? On the contrary I agree. I thought I insisted a lot on this. Except for the non scientific personal (not 3p) consciousness it is always assumption, that is why I say that I assume that 0 is a number, that 0 ≠ s(x) for all x, etc. In science there is only assumption. We never know-for-certain anything that we could transmit publicly. Science is born from doubt, lives in doubt and can only augment the doubts. In the ideal world of the correct machines, *all* certainties are madness. Bruno * * On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:04:13PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: You mean unprovable? I get confused because it seems that you sometimes use Bp to mean proves p and sometimes believes p To a mathematician, belief and proof are the same thing. I believe in this theorem because I can prove it. If I can't prove it, then I don't believe it - it is merely a conjecture. In modal logic, the operator B captures both proof and supposedly belief. Obviously it captures a mathematician's notion of belief - whether that extends to a scientists notion of belief, or a Christian's notion is another matter entirely. When it comes to Bp p capturing the notion of knowledge, I can see it captures the notion of mathematical knowledge, ie true theorems, as opposed to true conjectures, say, which aren't knowledge. But I am vaguely sceptical it captures the notion of scientific knowledge, which has more to do with falsifiability, than with proof. And that's about where I left it - years ago. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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?hl=en. 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
Re: Belief vs Truth
How do we integrate empirical data into Bpp? On Saturday, June 1, 2013 3:41:56 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote: Russell wrote: *...When it comes to Bp p capturing the notion of knowledge, I can see it captures the notion of mathematical knowledge, ie true theorems, as opposed to true conjectures, say, which aren't knowledge. But I am vaguely sceptical it captures the notion of scientific knowledge, which has more to do with falsifiability, than with proof. And that's about where I left it - years ago.* *...* Interesting difference between 'scientific' and 'mathematical' (see the Nobel Prize distinction) - also in falsifiability, that does not automatically escape the agnostic questioning about the circumstances of the falsifying and the original images. Same difficulty as in judging proof. Scientific knowledge indeed is part of a belief system. In conventional sciences we THINK we know, in math we assume (apologies, Bruno). John M * * On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:04:13PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: You mean unprovable? I get confused because it seems that you sometimes use Bp to mean proves p and sometimes believes p To a mathematician, belief and proof are the same thing. I believe in this theorem because I can prove it. If I can't prove it, then I don't believe it - it is merely a conjecture. In modal logic, the operator B captures both proof and supposedly belief. Obviously it captures a mathematician's notion of belief - whether that extends to a scientists notion of belief, or a Christian's notion is another matter entirely. When it comes to Bp p capturing the notion of knowledge, I can see it captures the notion of mathematical knowledge, ie true theorems, as opposed to true conjectures, say, which aren't knowledge. But I am vaguely sceptical it captures the notion of scientific knowledge, which has more to do with falsifiability, than with proof. And that's about where I left it - years ago. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: The secret of perception. Particular minds and how they relate to the overall or Cosmic Mind
A question Roger: To recap: there is only one mind (the Perceiver or Cosmic Mind or God) that perceives and acts, doing this through the Surpreme (most dominant) monad. It perceives the whole universe with perfect clarity. Only it can perceive and act . the Supreme Monad continually and instantly updates its universe of monads. Thus each monad knows everything in the universe, but only from its own perspective, and monads being monads, not perfectly clear but distorted. I'm very gratified to hear that I know everything and to finally know that I know everything. :) But, Im interested in the process by which the perfectly clear perception degrades into a distorted one. So there's the supreme monad injecting me continually and instantly with its perfectly clear perceptions. Being windowless, they are not my perceptions at all. Is there something inherent in the act of perception injection which is flawed? Or does the Supreme monad deliberately inject distortions to maintain supremacy? Afterall, in an ideal universe there is no space to differentiate my perspective from anyone elses. This perspective must be part of the perception injection musn't it? Regards. CP. From: rclo...@verizon.net To: rclo...@verizon.net Subject: The secret of perception. Particular minds and how they relate to the overall or Cosmic Mind Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 08:41:12 -0400 The secret of perception. Particular minds and how they relate to the overall or Cosmic Mind The problem of perception in materialistic thinking is that it forces us to think that there is a homunculo us Leibniz has a more complicated understanding of particular minds and how they relate to Cosmic Mind. In Leibniz's metaphysics, there is only one mind (the Perceiver or Cosmic Mind or God) that perceives and acts, doing this through the Surpreme (most dominant) monad. It perceives the whole universe with perfect clarity. Only it can perceive and act, because its monads (which includes our minds) have no windows. The monads (our minds) perceive only indirectly, as the Supreme Monad is the only --what we would call-- conscious mind. We only think and perceive indirectly, as the Supreme Monad continually and instantly updates its universe of monads. Thus there is no problem communing with God (the Cosmic Mind) as we do so continually and necessarily, although only aqccording to our own abilities and perspective. s That we ourselves, not God, appear to be the perceiver is thus only apparent. Also, because Cosmic Mind sees the entire universe as viewed by a kaleidoscope of individual monads, the perceptions it returns to us contains not only what we see (the universe from our own individual perspectives) but what the perceptions of all of the other monads. Thus each monad knows everything in the universe, but only from its own perspective, and monads being monads, not perfectly clear but distorted. Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/1/2013 See my Leibniz site at http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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?hl=en. 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
