Re: Belief vs Truth
How about Tao? JM On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: 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
Re: Belief vs Truth
On 03 Jun 2013, at 16:08, John Mikes wrote: How about Tao? JM On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: 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 I agree, the israelite (by which I mean the religious jewish) share with many other religion the idea that you can doubt, criticize, and comment freely whatever is said in religious text. Some buddhist repeat that we have to kill all the buddhas and it is often interpreted as a method to prevent the use of authoritative argument. Of course abuse, and political perversion can always exist. Another common point is the absence of proselytism, which does not make much sense for those trusting their gods. Bruno 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.au 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 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
Re: Belief vs Truth
On 03 Jun 2013, at 01:41, Stephen Paul King wrote: How do we integrate empirical data into Bpp? Technically, by restricting p to the leaves of the UD* (the true, and thus provable, sigma_1 sentences). Then to get the physics (the probability measure à-la-UDA), you can do the same with Bp Dp p. Think about the WM-duplication, where the W or M selection plays the role of a typical empirical data. More on this when you came back to this, probably on FOAR. Bruno 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.au 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.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-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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. 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 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.
