### SV: Only logic is necessary?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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

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?

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?

-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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

--- 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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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

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?

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?

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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---