SV: Only logic is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread Lennart Nilsson

No, you have the burden of showing what possible worlds could possibly mean
outside a real biological setting.

Cooper shows that logical laws are dependent on which population model they
refer to. Of course that goes for the notion of possibility also...

LN

-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För 1Z
Skickat: den 8 juli 2006 22:38
Till: Everything List
Ämne: Re: Only logic is necessary?



Brent Meeker wrote:
 Bruno Marchal wrote:
  Le 05-juil.-06, à 15:55, Lennart Nilsson a écrit :
 
 
 William S. Cooper says: The absolutist outlook has it that if a logic
 is valid at all it is valid period. A sound logic is completely sound
 everywhere and for everyone, no exceptions! For absolutist logicians a
 logical truth is regarded as 'true in all possible worlds', making
 logical laws constant, timeless and universal.

Of course logical laws are true in all logically possible worlds
is a (logical) tautology. An X-possible world is just a hypothetical
state of affairs that does not contradict X-rules (X is usually
logic or physics).

 Where do the laws of logic come from? he asks the absolutist.
 Bruno

First you have to ask if they could possibly have been different.
Then you have to ask what notion of possibility you are appealling
to...





--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



RE: SV: Only logic is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread Jesse Mazer

Lennart Nilsson wrote:


No, you have the burden of showing what possible worlds could possibly mean
outside a real biological setting.

Cooper shows that logical laws are dependent on which population model they
refer to. Of course that goes for the notion of possibility also...

That sounds incoherent to me...how can you even define population models 
without assuming various things about math and logic? Do you think the 
(mathematical) laws of population genetics have some sort of objective 
existence outside the human mind, but laws of math and logic themselves do 
not?

Jesse



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread Lennart Nilsson

We use mathematics as a meta-language, just like you kan describe what is
said in latin by using italian. That does not make italian
logically/evolutionary prior to latin of course.

-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Jesse Mazer
Skickat: den 9 juli 2006 10:08
Till: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Ämne: RE: SV: Only logic is necessary?


Lennart Nilsson wrote:


No, you have the burden of showing what possible worlds could possibly mean
outside a real biological setting.

Cooper shows that logical laws are dependent on which population model they
refer to. Of course that goes for the notion of possibility also...

That sounds incoherent to me...how can you even define population models 
without assuming various things about math and logic? Do you think the 
(mathematical) laws of population genetics have some sort of objective 
existence outside the human mind, but laws of math and logic themselves do 
not?

Jesse






--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Only logic is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread Bruno Marchal


Le 08-juil.-06, à 22:14, Brent Meeker a écrit :

 Cooper says that numbers come from the evolutionary advantage of 
 being able to count.

But he clearly talk about Human's numbers. Numbers per se are what make 
If being able to count an evolutionary advantage.

 Of course
 that doesn't explain where big numbers come from, or even whether they 
 exist.

All right. Need some faith there ...

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread Bruno Marchal


Le 08-juil.-06, à 22:10, 1Z a écrit :



 Bruno Marchal wrote:

 I am just saying that I have faith in the fact that the number 17 is
 prime, independently of me.

 That 17 is prime is true, independent of you?

 Or that 17 exists, independent from you, as a a prime number. ?




A priori the first one:  [17 is prime] is  independent of me. But now 
I accept also the first order predicate rule that if someone prove 17 
is prime, he can infer Ex(x is prime), so that I can take the 
proposition it exists a number which is prime as independent of me 
too.
I don't interpret numbers existence in any substantial way like if 
there was a place and a time where you can observe the number 17 
sitting on some chair ...

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: A calculus of personal identity

2006-07-09 Thread Bruno Marchal


Le 09-juil.-06, à 06:50, James N Rose a écrit :

 My email has not gotten through accurately this week.
 Just wondering if you had replied to my post of July 2nd
 or just let it go?

I think I did. Perhaps you could find it on the archive.

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread 1Z


Lennart Nilsson wrote:
 No, you have the burden of showing what possible worlds could possibly mean
 outside a real biological setting.

I have shown that; HYPOTHETICAL states-of-affairs which do not
contradict
any laws KNOWN TO US.

 Cooper shows that logical laws are dependent on which population model they
 refer to.

I have no doubt that whatver rules can be reverse-engineered from
practical problem-solving tend to vary.

I doubt that de facto problem-solving defines or constitutes logic.

There are psychological tests which show that most people,
80%-90% , get certain logical problems worng. Of course
the notion of right and wrong logic that is being appealed
to here comes from the textbook, not from the study
of populations. If populations defined logic, the majority couldn't be
wrong (by textbook logic, anyway).

If popular practice defined logic, people wouldn't have to learn logic.

 Of course that goes for the notion of possibility also...




 LN

 -Ursprungligt meddelande-
 Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För 1Z
 Skickat: den 8 juli 2006 22:38
 Till: Everything List
 Ämne: Re: Only logic is necessary?



 Brent Meeker wrote:
  Bruno Marchal wrote:
   Le 05-juil.-06, à 15:55, Lennart Nilsson a écrit :
  
  
  William S. Cooper says: The absolutist outlook has it that if a logic
  is valid at all it is valid period. A sound logic is completely sound
  everywhere and for everyone, no exceptions! For absolutist logicians a
  logical truth is regarded as 'true in all possible worlds', making
  logical laws constant, timeless and universal.

 Of course logical laws are true in all logically possible worlds
 is a (logical) tautology. An X-possible world is just a hypothetical
 state of affairs that does not contradict X-rules (X is usually
 logic or physics).

  Where do the laws of logic come from? he asks the absolutist.
  Bruno

 First you have to ask if they could possibly have been different.
 Then you have to ask what notion of possibility you are appealling
 to...


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



SV: Only logic is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread Lennart Nilsson



-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Bruno Marchal
Skickat: den 9 juli 2006 14:10
Till: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Ämne: Re: Only logic is necessary?

Numbers per se are what make 
If being able to count an evolutionary advantage.

Bruno

This is precisely the notion Cooper undermines in his book...

LN



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread Bruno Marchal


Le 09-juil.-06, à 10:07, Jesse Mazer a écrit :


 Lennart Nilsson wrote:


 No, you have the burden of showing what possible worlds could 
 possibly mean
 outside a real biological setting.

 Cooper shows that logical laws are dependent on which population 
 model they
 refer to. Of course that goes for the notion of possibility also...

 That sounds incoherent to me...how can you even define population 
 models
 without assuming various things about math and logic? Do you think the
 (mathematical) laws of population genetics have some sort of objective
 existence outside the human mind, but laws of math and logic 
 themselves do
 not?



I agree with you.




 Lennart Nilsson wrote:

 We use mathematics as a meta-language, just like you kan describe what 
 is
 said in latin by using italian. That does not make italian
 logically/evolutionary prior to latin of course.


I think you are confusing language and theory. I agree that the 
language belongs to human inventions, but even and especially in math 
(and numbers) we use those languages to build theories *about* truth 
which should be, and mostly are, independent of the choice of the 
languages.
You are defending a conventionalist philosophy of math. I don't think 
that conventionalism is coherent either with (simple) mathematics or 
with metamathematics.
There is nothing conventional in the distribution of the primes. There 
is nothing conventional in the fact that the set of total computable 
function is not recursively enumerable. Etc.
It seems to me.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread 1Z


Bruno Marchal wrote:

 A priori the first one:  [17 is prime] is  independent of me. But now
 I accept also the first order predicate rule that if someone prove 17
 is prime, he can infer Ex(x is prime), so that I can take the
 proposition it exists a number which is prime as independent of me
 too.
 I don't interpret numbers existence in any substantial way like if
 there was a place and a time where you can observe the number 17
 sitting on some chair ...

So how do insubstantial numbers generate a substantial world ?


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread Bruno Marchal


Le 09-juil.-06, à 14:26, 1Z a écrit :



 So how do insubstantial numbers generate a substantial world ?




I guess there is no substantial world and I explain in all details here 
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ (and on this list) why insubstantial 
numbers generate inescapably, by the mixing of their additive and 
multiplicative structures,  local coherent webs of beliefs in 
substantial worlds, and how the laws of physics must emerge (with comp) 
from those purely mathematical webs ... making comp testable in the 
usual Popperian sense. In that sense comp already succeeds some first 
tests.


Bruno



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



SV: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread Lennart Nilsson

I really think that we should infer both the substantial world and the
numerical world from the middleground so to speak, from our observations.

-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Bruno Marchal
Skickat: den 9 juli 2006 14:36
Till: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Ämne: Re: Only Existence is necessary?



Le 09-juil.-06, à 14:26, 1Z a écrit :



 So how do insubstantial numbers generate a substantial world ?




I guess there is no substantial world and I explain in all details here 
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ (and on this list) why insubstantial 
numbers generate inescapably, by the mixing of their additive and 
multiplicative structures,  local coherent webs of beliefs in 
substantial worlds, and how the laws of physics must emerge (with comp) 
from those purely mathematical webs ... making comp testable in the 
usual Popperian sense. In that sense comp already succeeds some first 
tests.


Bruno






--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread John M



--- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
 Le 09-juil.-06, � 14:26, 1Z a �crit : 
 
  So how do insubstantial numbers generate a
 substantial world ? 
 
 I guess there is no substantial world and I explain
 in all details here 
 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ (and on this list)
 why insubstantial 
 numbers generate inescapably, by the mixing of their
 additive and 
 multiplicative structures,  local coherent webs of
 beliefs in 
 substantial worlds, and how the laws of physics must
 emerge (with comp) 
 from those purely mathematical webs ... making
 comp testable in the 
 usual Popperian sense. In that sense comp already
 succeeds some first 
 tests.
 
 
 Bruno
 
Bruno, please forgive my nitpicking:
First: there is no substantial world,  - BUTL
insubstantial 
 numbers generate inescapably, [by the mixing of
their
 additive and multiplicative structures,] local[[?]] 
coherent webs of
 *beliefs* in ((nonexisting)) substantial worlds,
...

Do I see here a world generated by a solipsistic comp?
Would you agree that this imaginary 'substantial
world' is a figment of our existing (math - comp
based) logic and with another one it would be 'that
way', not 'this way'? Inescabapbly!?
Reminds me the joke of the 9 blind scientists who try
to catch in a dark room a cat that does not even
exiost. Are we the cat?
John






--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread 1Z


Bruno Marchal wrote:

 Le 09-juil.-06, à 14:26, 1Z a écrit :



  So how do insubstantial numbers generate a substantial world ?




 I guess there is no substantial world and I explain in all details here
 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ (and on this list) why insubstantial
 numbers generate inescapably, by the mixing of their additive and
 multiplicative structures,  local coherent webs of beliefs in
 substantial worlds, and how the laws of physics must emerge (with comp)
 from those purely mathematical webs ... making comp testable in the
 usual Popperian sense. In that sense comp already succeeds some first
 tests.

Insubstantial numbers can't generate beliefs or appearances unless
they are substantial enough to generate some kind of psyhcological
reality. Standard solipsistic arguments, like the ones you use,
seek to show how the appearance of an objective , physical
world can arise given the *assumption* that there is already
some kind of psychological or subjective reality for appearances
to appear in and beliefs to be believed by.

Standard solipsists do not find that assumption problematic because
they are starting from their experience of the world. If you are
starting from
only the assumption of the existence (in some admitedly insubstantial
sense)
of mathematical objects. you cannot just assume that there are
experienceing
midns. You have to show how experiencing minds emerge from numbers
before you can show ow an apparent physical world arises out of their
experience.

And there is still the problem that your insubstantial mathematical
existence is still too substantial for some tastes. Claiming that
mathematical existence falls short of full physical existence
is not going to satisfy staunch anti-realists about mathematics,
for whom numbers just don't exist at all. And producing
mathematical sentences like there exists a number such...
is hardly likely to convince them that mathematical objects
have any real existnce, after they have spent their lives
inisting that such sentences are mere /facons de parler/.

Mathematical anti-realists might not be correct of course,
but  that they are wrong is and additional assumption above
and beyond COMP. (And of course anti-realists don't think
mathematical realsim is entailed by COMP. They don't think
the fact that humans can calculate means numbers exist,
why should the fact that comuters calculate persuade them that numbers
exist) ?


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread Brent Meeker

1Z wrote:
 
 Lennart Nilsson wrote:
 
No, you have the burden of showing what possible worlds could possibly mean
outside a real biological setting.
 
 
 I have shown that; HYPOTHETICAL states-of-affairs which do not
 contradict
 any laws KNOWN TO US.
 
 
Cooper shows that logical laws are dependent on which population model they
refer to.
 
 
 I have no doubt that whatver rules can be reverse-engineered from
 practical problem-solving tend to vary.
 
 I doubt that de facto problem-solving defines or constitutes logic.
 
 There are psychological tests which show that most people,
 80%-90% , get certain logical problems worng. Of course
 the notion of right and wrong logic that is being appealed
 to here comes from the textbook, not from the study
 of populations. If populations defined logic, the majority couldn't be
 wrong (by textbook logic, anyway).

You misunderstand population models.  It's not a question of what members of 
a species think or 
vote for; it's a matter of whether their logic will lead to their survival in 
the evolutionary 
biological sense.  So the majority can be wrong.

Brent Meeker

Brent Meeker

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



RE: SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread Jesse Mazer

Lennart Nilsson wrote:

We use mathematics as a meta-language, just like you kan describe what is
said in latin by using italian. That does not make italian
logically/evolutionary prior to latin of course.

But in this case we are using mathematics to describe actual events in the 
real world, specifically the way gene frequencies change over time in 
response to natural selection. Surely these events were obeying the same 
mathematical laws even before we could describe them as doing so using 
whatever specific mathematical symbols we use to represent these laws, in 
just the same way that the earth is round is a statement describing a fact 
that was true before we came up with the words earth, round, etc. In 
other words, it's the specific mathematical symbols we use to represent 
mathematical truths that are analogous to italian or some other human 
language, but they represent truths that have been true all along, just like 
the earth has been round all along even before humans came up with the 
language to describe it (or don't you believe it makes sense to say that?)

Jesse



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread Brent Meeker

Jesse Mazer wrote:
Lennart Nilsson wrote:

We use mathematics as a meta-language, just like you kan describe what is
said in latin by using italian. That does not make italian
logically/evolutionary prior to latin of course.
 
 
 But in this case we are using mathematics to describe actual events in the 
 real world, specifically the way gene frequencies change over time in 
 response to natural selection. Surely these events were obeying the same 
 mathematical laws even before we could describe them as doing so using 
 whatever specific mathematical symbols we use to represent these laws, in 
 just the same way that the earth is round is a statement describing a fact 
 that was true before we came up with the words earth, round, etc. In 
 other words, it's the specific mathematical symbols we use to represent 
 mathematical truths that are analogous to italian or some other human 
 language, but they represent truths that have been true all along, just like 
 the earth has been round all along even before humans came up with the 
 language to describe it (or don't you believe it makes sense to say that?)
 
 Jesse

That the Earth is a spheroid (WGS84 ?) is a model and the *model* obeys 
certain mathematical laws 
- because the mathematical laws are just rules of a language we invented for 
talking about such 
things.  The Earth, understood as some not completely knowable object in 
reality, doesn't obey 
anything.  Same with gene frequencies.  Gene frequencies are part of the map 
(theory of natural 
selection) not the territory.  It's easy to fall into confusing the map and 
territory because we 
have only maps to refer to and describe the territory.  Positivists recognized 
this and decided we 
should stop assuming that there is any territory - but this doesn't work 
because a map is only a map 
if it's a map *of* something.

Brent Meeker

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread Jesse Mazer

Brent Meeker wrote:



Jesse Mazer wrote:
 Lennart Nilsson wrote:
 
 We use mathematics as a meta-language, just like you kan describe what 
is
 said in latin by using italian. That does not make italian
 logically/evolutionary prior to latin of course.
 
 
  But in this case we are using mathematics to describe actual events in 
the
  real world, specifically the way gene frequencies change over time in
  response to natural selection. Surely these events were obeying the same
  mathematical laws even before we could describe them as doing so using
  whatever specific mathematical symbols we use to represent these laws, 
in
  just the same way that the earth is round is a statement describing a 
fact
  that was true before we came up with the words earth, round, etc. In
  other words, it's the specific mathematical symbols we use to represent
  mathematical truths that are analogous to italian or some other human
  language, but they represent truths that have been true all along, just 
like
  the earth has been round all along even before humans came up with the
  language to describe it (or don't you believe it makes sense to say 
that?)
 
  Jesse

That the Earth is a spheroid (WGS84 ?) is a model and the *model* obeys 
certain mathematical laws
- because the mathematical laws are just rules of a language we invented 
for talking about such
things.  The Earth, understood as some not completely knowable object in 
reality, doesn't obey
anything.  Same with gene frequencies.

But to me, obey simply means that *if* there had been someone around in 
the past to observe the earth/gene frequencies and compare with the model, 
they would have matched up with it at all times, even times when there 
wasn't actually anyone there to make such a comparison. And really, can we 
make any statements about what external reality is or was really like 
without using models? If we want to say that back in the Cretaceous, T. 
Rexes were larger than dragonflies, isn't the concept of bigger than just 
as much based on a model of sorts as the concept of roundness? Maybe we're 
getting into the territory of Kantian philosophy here, with the question of 
whether we can say anything about reality in itself without using various 
a priori mental concepts such as numbers. In any case, it still seems 
incoherent to me to imagine that uncovering the evolutionary history of 
these a priori concepts should somehow undermine our belief in them as 
genuine truths, since we are completely dependent on them in our 
understanding of evolutionary history or anything else involving external 
reality.

Jesse



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread 1Z


Brent Meeker wrote:

 You misunderstand population models.  It's not a question of what members 
 of a species think or
 vote for; it's a matter of whether their logic will lead to their survival in 
 the evolutionary
 biological sense.  So the majority can be wrong.

Cooper is making valid comments about *something*, but it isn't logic.
Logic is what tells us the majority can be wrong


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread Brent Meeker

Jesse Mazer wrote:
 Brent Meeker wrote:
 
 

Jesse Mazer wrote:

Lennart Nilsson wrote:

We use mathematics as a meta-language, just like you kan describe what 

is

said in latin by using italian. That does not make italian
logically/evolutionary prior to latin of course.


But in this case we are using mathematics to describe actual events in 

the

real world, specifically the way gene frequencies change over time in
response to natural selection. Surely these events were obeying the same
mathematical laws even before we could describe them as doing so using
whatever specific mathematical symbols we use to represent these laws, 

in

just the same way that the earth is round is a statement describing a 

fact

that was true before we came up with the words earth, round, etc. In
other words, it's the specific mathematical symbols we use to represent
mathematical truths that are analogous to italian or some other human
language, but they represent truths that have been true all along, just 

like

the earth has been round all along even before humans came up with the
language to describe it (or don't you believe it makes sense to say 

that?)

Jesse

That the Earth is a spheroid (WGS84 ?) is a model and the *model* obeys 
certain mathematical laws
- because the mathematical laws are just rules of a language we invented 
for talking about such
things.  The Earth, understood as some not completely knowable object in 
reality, doesn't obey
anything.  Same with gene frequencies.
 
 
 But to me, obey simply means that *if* there had been someone around in 
 the past to observe the earth/gene frequencies and compare with the model, 
 they would have matched up with it at all times, even times when there 
 wasn't actually anyone there to make such a comparison. 

That's your second-order model, i.e. a model in which you embed the earth/gene 
model - I take their 
past validity to simply be part of the (first-order) model.

And really, can we 
 make any statements about what external reality is or was really like 
 without using models? 

No, we can't.  That's why positivists tried to get rid of the notion that 
models were models *of* 
anything.  But the essence of a model is that does assume an underlying 
something, or in other words 
it presumes to be able to predict beyond just the data on which it was based.  
It's more than 
curve-fitting or cataloging.

If we want to say that back in the Cretaceous, T. 
 Rexes were larger than dragonflies, isn't the concept of bigger than just 
 as much based on a model of sorts as the concept of roundness? Maybe we're 
 getting into the territory of Kantian philosophy here, with the question of 
 whether we can say anything about reality in itself without using various 
 a priori mental concepts such as numbers. In any case, it still seems 
 incoherent to me to imagine that uncovering the evolutionary history of 
 these a priori concepts should somehow undermine our belief in them as 
 genuine truths, 

Are you talking about the truths of mathematics - which I regard as just 
rules of consistency for 
talking about things, i.e. constructing models that are not internally 
inconsistent.  Or are you 
talking about the Kantian concepts like round and prime, which I regard as 
existing only in our 
models and are neither true nor false.

since we are completely dependent on them in our 
 understanding of evolutionary history or anything else involving external 
 reality.

But we're not completely dependent on them.  Some of them are essentially 
hardwired into us by our 
evolution, but we can go beyond them.  For example our intuitive understanding 
of probabilities is 
very poor - but we can go beyond it by forcing ourselves to be consistent 
(mathematical) in 
discussing probabilities.  I think the difficulty in interpreting quantum 
mechanics arises because 
intepretation essentially means giving Newtonian picture of what happens and 
we feel that we can't 
really understand a picture unless it is Newtonian - even though we have a 
perfectly consistent 
model that isn't.

Brent Meeker

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread Brent Meeker

1Z wrote:
 
 Brent Meeker wrote:
 
 
You misunderstand population models.  It's not a question of what members 
of a species think or
vote for; it's a matter of whether their logic will lead to their survival in 
the evolutionary
biological sense.  So the majority can be wrong.
 
 
 Cooper is making valid comments about *something*, but it isn't logic.
 Logic is what tells us the majority can be wrong

Cooper is not talking about logic in the formal sense; he's talking about 
reasoning, making 
decisions, acting.  This can be wrong in the sense that there is a better (in 
terms of survival) 
way of reasoning.

I'm not sure that logic in the formal sense can be right or wrong; it's a set 
of conventions about 
language and inference.  About the only standard I've seen by which a logic or 
mathematical system 
could be called wrong is it if it is inconsistent, i.e. the axioms and rules 
of inference allow 
everything to be a theorem.

Brent Meeker


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread Jesse Mazer

Brent Meeker wrote:


1Z wrote:
 
  Brent Meeker wrote:
 
 
 You misunderstand population models.  It's not a question of what 
members of a species think or
 vote for; it's a matter of whether their logic will lead to their 
survival in the evolutionary
 biological sense.  So the majority can be wrong.
 
 
  Cooper is making valid comments about *something*, but it isn't logic.
  Logic is what tells us the majority can be wrong

Cooper is not talking about logic in the formal sense; he's talking about 
reasoning, making
decisions, acting.  This can be wrong in the sense that there is a better 
(in terms of survival)
way of reasoning.

I'm not sure that logic in the formal sense can be right or wrong; it's a 
set of conventions about
language and inference.  About the only standard I've seen by which a logic 
or mathematical system
could be called wrong is it if it is inconsistent, i.e. the axioms and 
rules of inference allow
everything to be a theorem.

If this is all that Cooper is talking about, I probably wouldn't have any 
objection to it--but Lennart Nilsson seemed to be making much stronger 
claims about the contingency of logic itself based on his interpretation of 
Cooper.

Jesse



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Fermi's Paradox

2006-07-09 Thread Stathis Papaioannou


John Mikes writes:

 Destroyingyourspeciesrunscountertoevolution.  Stathis, 'evolution'doesnotfollowgoodmannersandmaynot bechisledinstone,Iforoneidentifiedit(inmy narrative)astheentirehistoryoftheunioversefrom itsappearancetillitsdemise(letmeskipnowthe detaileddefinitions).Destroyingone'sownspecies maybebeneficialtoothersinthebiosphere...
Yes, you're right, evolution doesn't about or want anything.
 I'llrephrasethat:everythingthathappensin natureisbydefinitioninaccordancewith evolution,butthosespeciesthatdestroythemselves willdieout,whilethosespeciesthatdon'tdestroy themselveswillthrive.  Didthedinosaursdestroy'themselves'?Noway!they weredestroyedbythetemporaryexclusionofsunlight aftertheplanetesimal-impact'sdustclouding.(At leastaccordingtoawidelypublicisedstory).They werewellequippedforthecircumstancesontheplanet thatchangedabruptly.Noself-destruct,just extinction. Nobodyisexemptfromchangesinthewholeness.
Yes, but we were talking about self-destruction as a subtype of extinction.
 Therefore,therewillbe selectionforthespeciesthatdon'tdestroy themselves,andeventuallythosespecieswillcome topredominate.Whenyouthinkaboutit,thetheory ofevolutionisessentiallyatautology:those specieswhichsucceed,succeed.  Iliketothinkthatthereismoretothat.
What more to it than that is there? Sure, the details are infinitely variable, but basically living things are around because they managed to stay around and propagate themselves. 

Stathis PapaioannouBe one of the first to try  Windows Live Mail.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group.  To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list  -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---




Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread George Levy

Stephen Paul King wrote:

little discussion has 
been given to the implications of taking the 1st person aspect as primary or 
fundamental. Could you point me toward any that you have seen?
  


Hi Stephen

Alas, I am a mere engineer, not a philosopher. The only author I can 
point you to is John Locke who I was told had some view similar to the 
ones I expressed. I have formed my opinions  mostly independently in the 
process of writing a book (unpublished :'( )  I think that science is 
moving gradually toward first person - starting with Galileo's 
relativity, then Einstein's relativity and finally with QM (MWI). As 
science had progressed, the observer has acquired a greater and greater 
importance. Extrapolating to the limit, I becomes central and its 
existence anthropically defines (creates) the world where it resides.

George

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



RE: Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread Stathis Papaioannou


George Levy writes:

 StephenPaulKingwrote:  Iwouldliketopointoutthatyoumayhaveinadvertentlyveeredinto theproblemthatIseeinthe"YesDoctor"belief!Itisentirely unverifiable.  Itisunverifiablefromthe3rdpersonperspective.Fromthefirst personperspectiveitisperfectlyverifiable."I"willnotobserveany changesin"myself"afterthe(brain)substitution.Thisisa fundamentalinvarianceanditisanotherargumentwhythefirstperson perspectiveshouldbetheprimaryoneandthe3rdoneshouldbethe derivedone.Andhereagainspecifyingtheframeofreferenceis importanttoavoidconfusion.
Sort of true. The person with the new brain may believe that heis the same person as the original, but he is in the same position as an outside observer as far as proving this goes. The observer says: "he seems to be the same person as far as I can tell, but it is impossible to know whether he might have completely different mental qualities, or no mental qualities at all". The subject himself says: "Ithink that I am the same person as the original, in that I have what I believe to be his memories and sense of personal identity, but there is no way even in theory for me to know that I am not in fact a completely different person with different mental qualities, or indeed that the person I recall having been was alive or sentient at all." Of course, this is also true with living life normally from moment to moment, soI'm not worried as long as the imagined continuity with a new brain is of roughly the same type. 

I still think it issimpler and and more consistent if we say that 1st person experience can onlybe meaningfulin the present: when we think about other minds, whether that means the minds of strangers, of our duplicates walking out of the teleporter, or of our past selves, then we are making a third person extrapolation of a first person experience.

Stathis PapaioannouBe one of the first to try  Windows Live Mail.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group.  To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list  -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---