Re: Belief vs Truth
On 23 Nov 2013, at 07:09, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 9:11 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Belief vs Truth On 11/22/2013 3:24 PM, John Mikes wrote: Bruno: Brent's dichotomy - as you pointed out - about exist and true may go deeper in my opinion: If we THINK of something: it DOES exist indeed (in our mind) but may not be true. I refrain from calling T R U E anything in our restsricted (partial) knowledge capability. WE THINK IT IS TRUE is in our belief system. Now it is up to you to call the EXISTING thought as 'truly existing' We fabricate 'truth' in this respect but only in this respect. Otherwise I am just waiting for additional input disproving what I 'beleived-in' so far. John M PS I read this remark of mine to my wife who asked: if somebody KILLS a person (cuts her throat): is it TRUE, or NOT? (pointing to the more convoluted sides of the topic). I tried to save face by saying: Don't you apply our 'wisdom-concepts' to practical life! We seek the theoretical truth! (laugh). (As a matter of fact 'true' is not confoundable with 'truth' just as conscious is not the adjective representing consciousness - in most cases) JM In my meta-physics true is an attribute of a sentence meaning that the sentence expresses some fact. Facts do not depend on sentences, they can be facts even though no one says so in a sentence. Exist has different meaning in different contexts. In physics the essential parts of a model are thought to exist just in case the model is true. Truth, perhaps, depends on some frame of reference; one could even describe it as an emergent phenomena that has meaning only within the frame of reference from which it emerges. Logicians distinguish theory (which are set of sentences close for some applications of some inference rules), and models, which are mathematical structures together with a notion of satisfaction of sentences. So a sentence (close formula) is never true per se. It is only satisfied, or not, by this or that model. Validity or theoremhood will correspond with the idea of being true in *all* models of a theory, at least for first order theories (which have such nice model theory). In that case the validity of a reasoning is independent of the interpretation of the theory. Physics, biology and theology brought some difficulty here, as it assumes some reality, and normally we should distinguish the theory, the models of the theory, and the relation between those models and reality. Physicists usually ignore the model theory level intermediate between theory and reality, and logicians, like mathematicians, ignore reality, which they take as a dirty notion used only by engineers or philosophers. Now, I can agree that many truth can emerge, but they have to emerge from some truth, which are needed to be considered as primitive. With comp, computer science or just arithmetic constitute(s) enough basic truth to explain the emergence of many different notions of truth and existence (indeed one for each person points of view). Bruno 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Belief vs Truth
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 1:14 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Belief vs Truth On 23 Nov 2013, at 07:09, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 9:11 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Belief vs Truth On 11/22/2013 3:24 PM, John Mikes wrote: Bruno: Brent's dichotomy - as you pointed out - about exist and true may go deeper in my opinion: If we THINK of something: it DOES exist indeed (in our mind) but may not be true. I refrain from calling T R U E anything in our restsricted (partial) knowledge capability. WE THINK IT IS TRUE is in our belief system. Now it is up to you to call the EXISTING thought as 'truly existing' We fabricate 'truth' in this respect but only in this respect. Otherwise I am just waiting for additional input disproving what I 'beleived-in' so far. John M PS I read this remark of mine to my wife who asked: if somebody KILLS a person (cuts her throat): is it TRUE, or NOT? (pointing to the more convoluted sides of the topic). I tried to save face by saying: Don't you apply our 'wisdom-concepts' to practical life! We seek the theoretical truth! (laugh). (As a matter of fact 'true' is not confoundable with 'truth' just as conscious is not the adjective representing consciousness - in most cases) JM In my meta-physics true is an attribute of a sentence meaning that the sentence expresses some fact. Facts do not depend on sentences, they can be facts even though no one says so in a sentence. Exist has different meaning in different contexts. In physics the essential parts of a model are thought to exist just in case the model is true. Truth, perhaps, depends on some frame of reference; one could even describe it as an emergent phenomena that has meaning only within the frame of reference from which it emerges. Logicians distinguish theory (which are set of sentences close for some applications of some inference rules), and models, which are mathematical structures together with a notion of satisfaction of sentences. So a sentence (close formula) is never true per se. It is only satisfied, or not, by this or that model. Validity or theoremhood will correspond with the idea of being true in *all* models of a theory, at least for first order theories (which have such nice model theory). In that case the validity of a reasoning is independent of the interpretation of the theory. Physics, biology and theology brought some difficulty here, as it assumes some reality, and normally we should distinguish the theory, the models of the theory, and the relation between those models and reality. Physicists usually ignore the model theory level intermediate between theory and reality, and logicians, like mathematicians, ignore reality, which they take as a dirty notion used only by engineers or philosophers. Now, I can agree that many truth can emerge, but they have to emerge from some truth, which are needed to be considered as primitive. With comp, computer science or just arithmetic constitute(s) enough basic truth to explain the emergence of many different notions of truth and existence (indeed one for each person points of view). Very well put. I am attracted by this idea that some abstract mathematical reality -- itself emerging from the vastly numerous and subtle interactions of orthogonal infinities of recursive null sets/equations existing outside and apart from any and all frames of reference, by which our, and any other, for that matter, emerged reality are characterized. It provides an elegant means to exit from those endless hall of mirrors logic situations -- or turtles holding turtles (also a nice metaphor) that is uncovered at the bottom of so many attempts to present a foundation for everything. Chris Bruno 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Belief vs Truth
2013/11/23 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 23 Nov 2013, at 07:09, Chris de Morsella wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [ mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *meekerdb *Sent:* Friday, November 22, 2013 9:11 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Belief vs Truth On 11/22/2013 3:24 PM, John Mikes wrote: Bruno: Brent's dichotomy - as you pointed out - about exist and true may go deeper in my opinion: If we *THINK *of something: it DOES *exist* indeed *(in our mind)* but may not be true. I refrain from calling T R U E anything in our restsricted (partial) knowledge capability. WE THINK IT IS TRUE is in our belief system. Now it is up to you to call the EXISTING thought as 'truly existing' We fabricate 'truth' in this respect but only in this respect. Otherwise I am just waiting for additional input disproving what I 'beleived-in' so far. John M PS I read this remark of mine to my wife who asked: if somebody KILLS a person (cuts her throat): is it TRUE, or NOT? (pointing to the more convoluted sides of the topic). I tried to save face by saying: Don't you apply our 'wisdom-concepts' to practical life! We seek the theoretical truth! (laugh). (As a matter of fact 'true' is not confoundable with 'truth' just as conscious is not the adjective representing consciousness - in most cases) JM In my meta-physics true is an attribute of a sentence meaning that the sentence expresses some fact. Facts do not depend on sentences, they can be facts even though no one says so in a sentence. Exist has different meaning in different contexts. In physics the essential parts of a model are thought to exist just in case the model is true. Truth, perhaps, depends on some frame of reference; one could even describe it as an emergent phenomena that has meaning only within the frame of reference from which it emerges. Logicians distinguish theory (which are set of sentences close for some applications of some inference rules), and models, which are mathematical structures together with a notion of satisfaction of sentences. So a sentence (close formula) is never true per se. It is only satisfied, or not, by this or that model. Validity or theoremhood will correspond with the idea of being true in *all* models of a theory, at least for first order theories (which have such nice model theory). In that case the validity of a reasoning is independent of the interpretation of the theory. Physics, biology and theology brought some difficulty here, as it assumes some reality, and normally we should distinguish the theory, the models of the theory, and the relation between those models and reality. Physicists usually ignore the model theory level intermediate between theory and reality, and logicians, like mathematicians, ignore reality, which they take as a dirty notion used only by engineers or philosophers. Now, I can agree that many truth can emerge, but they have to emerge from some truth, which are needed to be considered as primitive. Very well stated. With comp, computer science or just arithmetic constitute(s) enough basic truth to explain the emergence of many different notions of truth and existence (indeed one for each person points of view). For example?. For me comp explain to much., (even what is not observed) and to few (of the truths that are self evident). There are other basic truths that work better Bruno 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Belief vs Truth
the factual notions of truth and existence are linked by the notion that what is true kick back and what kick back can render you nonexistent at the moment `t +1` if you negate its truth at the moment `t`. Now natural selection can make the units of time really really long. So it is not a surprise that people agree most in the truth and existence of things that kick back in order of seconds by the natural law of physics than abstract things that kick back in orders of generations by the natural law of game theory applied to social proceses.. But both kinds of truths are in our common sense by means of the Lorenzian-Kantian-evolitionary process that I mentioned above. The first kind of knowledge are in our common sense by means of the perception of solid objects in space and time. The second kind of knowledge are in the form of moral intuitions. 2013/11/23 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com 2013/11/23 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 23 Nov 2013, at 07:09, Chris de Morsella wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [ mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *meekerdb *Sent:* Friday, November 22, 2013 9:11 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Belief vs Truth On 11/22/2013 3:24 PM, John Mikes wrote: Bruno: Brent's dichotomy - as you pointed out - about exist and true may go deeper in my opinion: If we *THINK *of something: it DOES *exist* indeed *(in our mind)* but may not be true. I refrain from calling T R U E anything in our restsricted (partial) knowledge capability. WE THINK IT IS TRUE is in our belief system. Now it is up to you to call the EXISTING thought as 'truly existing' We fabricate 'truth' in this respect but only in this respect. Otherwise I am just waiting for additional input disproving what I 'beleived-in' so far. John M PS I read this remark of mine to my wife who asked: if somebody KILLS a person (cuts her throat): is it TRUE, or NOT? (pointing to the more convoluted sides of the topic). I tried to save face by saying: Don't you apply our 'wisdom-concepts' to practical life! We seek the theoretical truth! (laugh). (As a matter of fact 'true' is not confoundable with 'truth' just as conscious is not the adjective representing consciousness - in most cases) JM In my meta-physics true is an attribute of a sentence meaning that the sentence expresses some fact. Facts do not depend on sentences, they can be facts even though no one says so in a sentence. Exist has different meaning in different contexts. In physics the essential parts of a model are thought to exist just in case the model is true. Truth, perhaps, depends on some frame of reference; one could even describe it as an emergent phenomena that has meaning only within the frame of reference from which it emerges. Logicians distinguish theory (which are set of sentences close for some applications of some inference rules), and models, which are mathematical structures together with a notion of satisfaction of sentences. So a sentence (close formula) is never true per se. It is only satisfied, or not, by this or that model. Validity or theoremhood will correspond with the idea of being true in *all* models of a theory, at least for first order theories (which have such nice model theory). In that case the validity of a reasoning is independent of the interpretation of the theory. Physics, biology and theology brought some difficulty here, as it assumes some reality, and normally we should distinguish the theory, the models of the theory, and the relation between those models and reality. Physicists usually ignore the model theory level intermediate between theory and reality, and logicians, like mathematicians, ignore reality, which they take as a dirty notion used only by engineers or philosophers. Now, I can agree that many truth can emerge, but they have to emerge from some truth, which are needed to be considered as primitive. Very well stated. With comp, computer science or just arithmetic constitute(s) enough basic truth to explain the emergence of many different notions of truth and existence (indeed one for each person points of view). For example?. For me comp explain to much., (even what is not observed) and to few (of the truths that are self evident). There are other basic truths that work better Bruno 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- Alberto. -- You received
Re: Belief vs Truth
On 23 Nov 2013, at 16:30, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2013/11/23 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 23 Nov 2013, at 07:09, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 9:11 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Belief vs Truth On 11/22/2013 3:24 PM, John Mikes wrote: Bruno: Brent's dichotomy - as you pointed out - about exist and true may go deeper in my opinion: If we THINK of something: it DOES exist indeed (in our mind) but may not be true. I refrain from calling T R U E anything in our restsricted (partial) knowledge capability. WE THINK IT IS TRUE is in our belief system. Now it is up to you to call the EXISTING thought as 'truly existing' We fabricate 'truth' in this respect but only in this respect. Otherwise I am just waiting for additional input disproving what I 'beleived-in' so far. John M PS I read this remark of mine to my wife who asked: if somebody KILLS a person (cuts her throat): is it TRUE, or NOT? (pointing to the more convoluted sides of the topic). I tried to save face by saying: Don't you apply our 'wisdom-concepts' to practical life! We seek the theoretical truth! (laugh). (As a matter of fact 'true' is not confoundable with 'truth' just as conscious is not the adjective representing consciousness - in most cases) JM In my meta-physics true is an attribute of a sentence meaning that the sentence expresses some fact. Facts do not depend on sentences, they can be facts even though no one says so in a sentence. Exist has different meaning in different contexts. In physics the essential parts of a model are thought to exist just in case the model is true. Truth, perhaps, depends on some frame of reference; one could even describe it as an emergent phenomena that has meaning only within the frame of reference from which it emerges. Logicians distinguish theory (which are set of sentences close for some applications of some inference rules), and models, which are mathematical structures together with a notion of satisfaction of sentences. So a sentence (close formula) is never true per se. It is only satisfied, or not, by this or that model. Validity or theoremhood will correspond with the idea of being true in *all* models of a theory, at least for first order theories (which have such nice model theory). In that case the validity of a reasoning is independent of the interpretation of the theory. Physics, biology and theology brought some difficulty here, as it assumes some reality, and normally we should distinguish the theory, the models of the theory, and the relation between those models and reality. Physicists usually ignore the model theory level intermediate between theory and reality, and logicians, like mathematicians, ignore reality, which they take as a dirty notion used only by engineers or philosophers. Now, I can agree that many truth can emerge, but they have to emerge from some truth, which are needed to be considered as primitive. Very well stated. With comp, computer science or just arithmetic constitute(s) enough basic truth to explain the emergence of many different notions of truth and existence (indeed one for each person points of view). For example?. The points of view of truth (p) The points of view of rational testable deduction (Bp) The points of view of knowledge/intuition (Bp p) The points of view of observation/bet (Bp Dt) The points of view sensations/feeling (Bp Dt p). That leads to eight points of view, due to the splitting between provable and true, which take part for Bp, Bp Dt, Bp Dt p. This gives 8 interelated intensional mathematics corresponding to arithmetic seen by machines whose histories are comp-supported by the computations emulated in arithmetic. For me comp explain to much., (even what is not observed) and to few (of the truths that are self evident). There are other basic truths that work better It depends on what you are interested. String theory might be useful to marry gravitation and gravity in a coherent global picture for the physical reality, but be hopelessly useless to make a pizza, or, to study afterlife. Comp explains where QM comes from, in a way which distinguishes what we (the machine) can prove and what is true about us but that we cannot prove. That is still awfully useless to make a pizza, but is handy to get some possible (hypothetical) light on after life and parallel life, and the complex mind-body relation. And comp is testable, which was the goal. It is not a question of working or not working. It is question of showing that some things does not work, (like comp + materialism) and might not work (like perhaps comp). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed
Re: Belief vs Truth
On 23 Nov 2013, at 16:47, Alberto G. Corona wrote: the factual notions of truth and existence are linked by the notion that what is true kick back and what kick back can render you nonexistent at the moment `t +1` if you negate its truth at the moment `t`. Now natural selection can make the units of time really really long. So it is not a surprise that people agree most in the truth and existence of things that kick back in order of seconds by the natural law of physics than abstract things that kick back in orders of generations by the natural law of game theory applied to social proceses.. But both kinds of truths are in our common sense by means of the Lorenzian-Kantian-evolitionary process that I mentioned above. The first kind of knowledge are in our common sense by means of the perception of solid objects in space and time. The second kind of knowledge are in the form of moral intuitions. OK. Bruno 2013/11/23 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com 2013/11/23 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 23 Nov 2013, at 07:09, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 9:11 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Belief vs Truth On 11/22/2013 3:24 PM, John Mikes wrote: Bruno: Brent's dichotomy - as you pointed out - about exist and true may go deeper in my opinion: If we THINK of something: it DOES exist indeed (in our mind) but may not be true. I refrain from calling T R U E anything in our restsricted (partial) knowledge capability. WE THINK IT IS TRUE is in our belief system. Now it is up to you to call the EXISTING thought as 'truly existing' We fabricate 'truth' in this respect but only in this respect. Otherwise I am just waiting for additional input disproving what I 'beleived-in' so far. John M PS I read this remark of mine to my wife who asked: if somebody KILLS a person (cuts her throat): is it TRUE, or NOT? (pointing to the more convoluted sides of the topic). I tried to save face by saying: Don't you apply our 'wisdom-concepts' to practical life! We seek the theoretical truth! (laugh). (As a matter of fact 'true' is not confoundable with 'truth' just as conscious is not the adjective representing consciousness - in most cases) JM In my meta-physics true is an attribute of a sentence meaning that the sentence expresses some fact. Facts do not depend on sentences, they can be facts even though no one says so in a sentence. Exist has different meaning in different contexts. In physics the essential parts of a model are thought to exist just in case the model is true. Truth, perhaps, depends on some frame of reference; one could even describe it as an emergent phenomena that has meaning only within the frame of reference from which it emerges. Logicians distinguish theory (which are set of sentences close for some applications of some inference rules), and models, which are mathematical structures together with a notion of satisfaction of sentences. So a sentence (close formula) is never true per se. It is only satisfied, or not, by this or that model. Validity or theoremhood will correspond with the idea of being true in *all* models of a theory, at least for first order theories (which have such nice model theory). In that case the validity of a reasoning is independent of the interpretation of the theory. Physics, biology and theology brought some difficulty here, as it assumes some reality, and normally we should distinguish the theory, the models of the theory, and the relation between those models and reality. Physicists usually ignore the model theory level intermediate between theory and reality, and logicians, like mathematicians, ignore reality, which they take as a dirty notion used only by engineers or philosophers. Now, I can agree that many truth can emerge, but they have to emerge from some truth, which are needed to be considered as primitive. Very well stated. With comp, computer science or just arithmetic constitute(s) enough basic truth to explain the emergence of many different notions of truth and existence (indeed one for each person points of view). For example?. For me comp explain to much., (even what is not observed) and to few (of the truths that are self evident). There are other basic truths that work better Bruno 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
Re: Belief vs Truth
On 21 Nov 2013, at 19:28, meekerdb wrote: On 11/21/2013 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let´s go to a human level: in evolutionary terms, I would say that truth is a belief hardcoded by natural selection. This is self-defeating or circular. You need the truth of natural selection to make sense of it. That seems to confound truth and existence. I don't see why. I was talking on the truth of the evolution facts. There are some facts that make the theory of natural selection true (if it is true). Yes. Those facts may include hardwired beliefs in human brains and then they exist whether there is a theory that expresses them or not. So you say they exist is true. What I said is that this is circular when used to define truth from evolution. It's not circular if it is grounded in facts. No. Evolution remains circular as an explanation of truth (it is not circular as an explanation of the species, but that's another topic). Bruno 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Belief vs Truth
Bruno: Brent's dichotomy - as you pointed out - about exist and true may go deeper in my opinion: If we *THINK *of something: it DOES *exist* indeed *(in our mind)* but may not be true. I refrain from calling T R U E anything in our restsricted (partial) knowledge capability. WE THINK IT IS TRUE is in our belief system. Now it is up to you to call the EXISTING thought as 'truly existing' We fabricate 'truth' in this respect but only in this respect. Otherwise I am just waiting for additional input disproving what I 'beleived-in' so far. John M PS I read this remark of mine to my wife who asked: if somebody KILLS a person (cuts her throat): is it TRUE, or NOT? (pointing to the more convoluted sides of the topic). I tried to save face by saying: Don't you apply our 'wisdom-concepts' to practical life! We seek the theoretical truth! (laugh). (As a matter of fact 'true' is not confoundable with 'truth' just as conscious is not the adjective representing consciousness - in most cases) JM On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Nov 2013, at 19:28, meekerdb wrote: On 11/21/2013 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let´s go to a human level: in evolutionary terms, I would say that truth is a belief hardcoded by natural selection. This is self-defeating or circular. You need the truth of natural selection to make sense of it. That seems to confound truth and existence. I don't see why. I was talking on the truth of the evolution facts. There are some facts that make the theory of natural selection true (if it is true). Yes. Those facts may include hardwired beliefs in human brains and then they exist whether there is a theory that expresses them or not. So you say they exist is true. What I said is that this is circular when used to define truth from evolution. It's not circular if it is grounded in facts. No. Evolution remains circular as an explanation of truth (it is not circular as an explanation of the species, but that's another topic). Bruno 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Belief vs Truth
On 23 Nov 2013, at 00:24, John Mikes wrote: Bruno: Brent's dichotomy - as you pointed out - about exist and true may go deeper in my opinion: If we THINK of something: it DOES exist indeed (in our mind) but may not be true. I refrain from calling T R U E anything in our restsricted (partial) knowledge capability. WE THINK IT IS TRUE is in our belief system. I refrain from using both real and true in any scientific proposal. But in theology, we still need the concept of real or true, because it is part of the subject matter. I don't separate them. True is only an assertative variant of real, and both reality and truth concerns the many form of existence. Atoms exists, temperature exists, countries exist, persons exist; all in different true senses, for example. Now it is up to you to call the EXISTING thought as 'truly existing' I reserve the terming really existing or truly existing for the terms which are assumed in the base (ontological) theory. But that is only a convention, depending of the choice of the basic terms, which is arbitrary insofar that we have laws making the base system universal (in Turing sense). We fabricate 'truth' in this respect but only in this respect. Otherwise I am just waiting for additional input disproving what I 'beleived-in' so far. Me too. PS I read this remark of mine to my wife who asked: if somebody KILLS a person (cuts her throat): is it TRUE, or NOT? (pointing to the more convoluted sides of the topic). I tried to save face by saying: Don't you apply our 'wisdom-concepts' to practical life! We seek the theoretical truth! (laugh). Very good remark by your wife! (As a matter of fact 'true' is not confoundable with 'truth' just as conscious is not the adjective representing consciousness - in most cases) Agreed. Now you can define truth (in some domain) by the set of true propositions (about the objects of that domain). Logicians do things like that. It can help. Arithmetical truth = the collection of all true arithmetical sentences, for example. Bruno JM On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Nov 2013, at 19:28, meekerdb wrote: On 11/21/2013 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let´s go to a human level: in evolutionary terms, I would say that truth is a belief hardcoded by natural selection. This is self-defeating or circular. You need the truth of natural selection to make sense of it. That seems to confound truth and existence. I don't see why. I was talking on the truth of the evolution facts. There are some facts that make the theory of natural selection true (if it is true). Yes. Those facts may include hardwired beliefs in human brains and then they exist whether there is a theory that expresses them or not. So you say they exist is true. What I said is that this is circular when used to define truth from evolution. It's not circular if it is grounded in facts. No. Evolution remains circular as an explanation of truth (it is not circular as an explanation of the species, but that's another topic). Bruno 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. 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Belief vs Truth
On 11/22/2013 3:24 PM, John Mikes wrote: Bruno: Brent's dichotomy - as you pointed out - about exist and true may go deeper in my opinion: If we *_THINK _*of something: it DOES *_exist_* indeed */(in our mind)/* but may not be true. I refrain from calling T R U E anything in our restsricted (partial) knowledge capability. WE THINK IT IS TRUE is in our belief system. Now it is up to you to call the EXISTING thought as 'truly existing' We fabricate 'truth' in this respect but only in this respect. Otherwise I am just waiting for additional input disproving what I 'beleived-in' so far. John M PS I read this remark of mine to my wife who asked: if somebody KILLS a person (cuts her throat): is it TRUE, or NOT? (pointing to the more convoluted sides of the topic). I tried to save face by saying: Don't you apply our 'wisdom-concepts' to practical life! We seek the theoretical truth! (laugh). (As a matter of fact 'true' is not confoundable with 'truth' just as conscious is not the adjective representing consciousness - in most cases) JM In my meta-physics true is an attribute of a sentence meaning that the sentence expresses some fact. Facts do not depend on sentences, they can be facts even though no one says so in a sentence. Exist has different meaning in different contexts. In physics the essential parts of a model are thought to exist just in case the model is true. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Belief vs Truth
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 9:11 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Belief vs Truth On 11/22/2013 3:24 PM, John Mikes wrote: Bruno: Brent's dichotomy - as you pointed out - about exist and true may go deeper in my opinion: If we THINK of something: it DOES exist indeed (in our mind) but may not be true. I refrain from calling T R U E anything in our restsricted (partial) knowledge capability. WE THINK IT IS TRUE is in our belief system. Now it is up to you to call the EXISTING thought as 'truly existing' We fabricate 'truth' in this respect but only in this respect. Otherwise I am just waiting for additional input disproving what I 'beleived-in' so far. John M PS I read this remark of mine to my wife who asked: if somebody KILLS a person (cuts her throat): is it TRUE, or NOT? (pointing to the more convoluted sides of the topic). I tried to save face by saying: Don't you apply our 'wisdom-concepts' to practical life! We seek the theoretical truth! (laugh). (As a matter of fact 'true' is not confoundable with 'truth' just as conscious is not the adjective representing consciousness - in most cases) JM In my meta-physics true is an attribute of a sentence meaning that the sentence expresses some fact. Facts do not depend on sentences, they can be facts even though no one says so in a sentence. Exist has different meaning in different contexts. In physics the essential parts of a model are thought to exist just in case the model is true. Truth, perhaps, depends on some frame of reference; one could even describe it as an emergent phenomena that has meaning only within the frame of reference from which it emerges. Chris Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Belief vs Truth
On 20 Nov 2013, at 21:57, Alberto G. Corona wrote: To say that F = m . a or e= m c2 as truth it is necessary to accept certain beliefs. Belief that at the next moment the laws will not change for example. e=mc^2 is an interesting theory (belief), or an interesting theorem in an interesting theory. True. Perhaps, but that's a question for theologian, not physicists. Let´s go to a human level: in evolutionary terms, I would say that truth is a belief hardcoded by natural selection. This is self-defeating or circular. You need the truth of natural selection to make sense of it. Truth would say, is the constants plus the algorthm, OK. But that's equivalent with saying that we accept elementary arithmetic as true, and then proceed from there. With comp, we cannot take more axioms. The data that the living being processes, are the beliefs. OK. The pivotal affirmation from Conrad Lorenz: The kantian a priori where shaped in our mind as a result of natural selection This presupposed some theory, implicitly as being true. has a very far reaching: it means that self evident truths like the existence of persons, animals, space, time and all self evident truths that derives from them are hardcoded, and we have hardcoded algorithms for processing them. That is the reason why they appear behind us and we react to them without any doubt about their existence. We also have also algoritm for adquiring derived concepts in certain ways and not in others. OK. But all this depends on your fundamental theory. What is natural selection when you have no time, no space, no persons, etc. What are your starting assumptions? Truth in a ample sense is whatever that kick-back: a stone wall for example. OK. I like to see truth as a queen which win all wars without any army (but that can take times!). But that is not all. in evolutionary terms, the kick-back can happen across generations. If we doubt about certain abstract truths (like to kill is bad), That's not a truth. It is a normative imperative. (A good one imo). we will not receive an inmediate negative feedback, but perhaps in a few years or even our gene/meme descendants. That is why the Lorenz`s mechanism has included in our mind a lot of innate common sense truths). That materialist explanation paradoxically end up in the idea that there is no space neither time neither persons outside the world of the mind, that is what really exist. Out of the mind there is nothing. Perhaps mathematics. With comp we can't really use more than arithmetic for the ontology, and we need full higher order mathematics for anything inside arithmetic seen from arithmetic. Arithmetic seen from inside is much bigger than arithmetic (cf the Skolem phenomenon). I´m in aggreement with Craig on this. I don't see this. Craig assumes some primitive matter, and attribute mind to it. You seem more to be in agreement with comp than with Craig, it seems to me. Bruno 2013/6/3 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
Re: Belief vs Truth
2013/11/21 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 20 Nov 2013, at 21:57, Alberto G. Corona wrote: To say that F = m . a or e= m c2 as truth it is necessary to accept certain beliefs. Belief that at the next moment the laws will not change for example. e=mc^2 is an interesting theory (belief), or an interesting theorem in an interesting theory. True. Perhaps, but that's a question for theologian, not physicists. Let´s go to a human level: in evolutionary terms, I would say that truth is a belief hardcoded by natural selection. This is self-defeating or circular. You need the truth of natural selection to make sense of it. It do not try to define truth beyond the psychological truth. However, the psychological truths are the self evident truths, that are the true absolute truths. You want a pure mathematical or logical notion of absolute truth, which is impossible. natural selection is like e= mc2 . it explain things, but has implicit beliefs, but expand the categories of problems and the deep of them that we can think of, create new hypothesis and test them. The Konrad Lorenz theory about the Kantian a prioris is one of them. Truth would say, is the constants plus the algorthm, OK. But that's equivalent with saying that we accept elementary arithmetic as true, and then proceed from there. With comp, we cannot take more axioms. It is not the same IMHO. To Accept as truth the constants and the algorithm of a being actually living (like humans), which implies heavy constraints imposed by the environment (for example moral rules as a result of almost a infinite sucession of games of life and death in society) than the wider affirmation that elementary aritmetic is true. Aritmetic theory is true is not a self evident truth. to kill your neighbour is bad is a constant or part of an algoritm for the navigation in the social environment. It has psychological meaning of truth at the psychological level. and therefore is true in the sense that humans use the word true. The data that the living being processes, are the beliefs. OK. The pivotal affirmation from Conrad Lorenz: The kantian a priori where shaped in our mind as a result of natural selection This presupposed some theory, implicitly as being true. has a very far reaching: it means that self evident truths like the existence of persons, animals, space, time and all self evident truths that derives from them are hardcoded, and we have hardcoded algorithms for processing them. That is the reason why they appear behind us and we react to them without any doubt about their existence. We also have also algoritm for adquiring derived concepts in certain ways and not in others. OK. But all this depends on your fundamental theory. What is natural selection when you have no time, no space, no persons, etc. What are your starting assumptions? Natural selection then becomes a non-process in a block universe defined by a mathematical equation which contains Self aware structures. As Tegmark defines them. NS is perceived psychologically as a law of the spacetime. A law at the macro level which operate at very large scales, but not very different that any law with space and time embedded in it, like s= v . t . But this is just the way we perceive them. Truth in a ample sense is whatever that kick-back: a stone wall for example. OK. I like to see truth as a queen which win all wars without any army (but that can take times!). But that is not all. in evolutionary terms, the kick-back can happen across generations. If we doubt about certain abstract truths (like to kill is bad), That's not a truth. It is a normative imperative. (A good one imo). In terms of psychological self evident truths, it is absolute, since there is no higher truth in the world of the mind, by definition, but self evident , psychological truths. What kiked-back across generations was incorporated in our algoritms as self evident truths of the reality. By means of? by the evolution of the genetic program that develop our brains. that is what Konrad Lorenz said. we will not receive an inmediate negative feedback, but perhaps in a few years or even our gene/meme descendants. That is why the Lorenz`s mechanism has included in our mind a lot of innate common sense truths). That materialist explanation paradoxically end up in the idea that there is no space neither time neither persons outside the world of the mind, that is what really exist. Out of the mind there is nothing. Perhaps mathematics. With comp we can't really use more than arithmetic for the ontology, and we need full higher order mathematics for anything inside arithmetic seen from arithmetic. Arithmetic seen from inside is much bigger than arithmetic (cf the Skolem phenomenon). But as i said before, there is no pure mathematical notion of truth that can model what humans take for truth. Only the world of the mind has
Re: Belief vs Truth
On 21 Nov 2013, at 11:29, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2013/11/21 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 20 Nov 2013, at 21:57, Alberto G. Corona wrote: To say that F = m . a or e= m c2 as truth it is necessary to accept certain beliefs. Belief that at the next moment the laws will not change for example. e=mc^2 is an interesting theory (belief), or an interesting theorem in an interesting theory. True. Perhaps, but that's a question for theologian, not physicists. Let´s go to a human level: in evolutionary terms, I would say that truth is a belief hardcoded by natural selection. This is self-defeating or circular. You need the truth of natural selection to make sense of it. It do not try to define truth beyond the psychological truth. OK. I heard you. But it is almost the difference between reality and dream, or between the first hypostase (God, truth, the real, the One, ..), and the first person (the soul, the subjective, etc.). However, the psychological truths are the self evident truths, that are the true absolute truths. You want a pure mathematical or logical notion of absolute truth, which is impossible. I don't want it, but here computationalism simplifies the picture a lot. Despite this, the absolute truth remains non definable, non expressible, and ply the role of the God that you cannot name. natural selection is like e= mc2 . it explain things, but has implicit beliefs, In the fundamental science, there is a point where we have to make all the beliefs explicit. but expand the categories of problems and the deep of them that we can think of, create new hypothesis and test them. The Konrad Lorenz theory about the Kantian a prioris is one of them. I have no problem with Kant. Truth would say, is the constants plus the algorthm, OK. But that's equivalent with saying that we accept elementary arithmetic as true, and then proceed from there. With comp, we cannot take more axioms. It is not the same IMHO. To Accept as truth the constants and the algorithm of a being actually living (like humans), which implies heavy constraints imposed by the environment (for example moral rules as a result of almost a infinite sucession of games of life and death in society) than the wider affirmation that elementary aritmetic is true. Wider? Aritmetic theory is true is not a self evident truth. my own consciousness here and now is the only self-evident truth. All the rest are theories. Now far more people will find 2+2=4 more self- evident than thou shall not kill. to kill your neighbour is bad is a constant or part of an algoritm for the navigation in the social environment. It can be a law, but we depart from the fundamental inquiry. We might talk on different things. It has psychological meaning of truth at the psychological level. and therefore is true in the sense that humans use the word true. But that cannot be used to do science. The data that the living being processes, are the beliefs. OK. The pivotal affirmation from Conrad Lorenz: The kantian a priori where shaped in our mind as a result of natural selection This presupposed some theory, implicitly as being true. has a very far reaching: it means that self evident truths like the existence of persons, animals, space, time and all self evident truths that derives from them are hardcoded, and we have hardcoded algorithms for processing them. That is the reason why they appear behind us and we react to them without any doubt about their existence. We also have also algoritm for adquiring derived concepts in certain ways and not in others. OK. But all this depends on your fundamental theory. What is natural selection when you have no time, no space, no persons, etc. What are your starting assumptions? Natural selection then becomes a non-process in a block universe defined by a mathematical equation which contains Self aware structures. As Tegmark defines them. Tegmark use some identity thesis which is incoherent with comp. I think. To put it shortly: I don't believe in a physical universe. The physical reality is a sharable dream by numbers. NS is perceived psychologically as a law of the spacetime. A law at the macro level which operate at very large scales, but not very different that any law with space and time embedded in it, like s= v . t . But this is just the way we perceive them. OK. Truth in a ample sense is whatever that kick-back: a stone wall for example. OK. I like to see truth as a queen which win all wars without any army (but that can take times!). But that is not all. in evolutionary terms, the kick-back can happen across generations. If we doubt about certain abstract truths (like to kill is bad), That's not a truth. It is a normative imperative. (A good one imo). In terms of psychological self evident truths, it
Re: Belief vs Truth
On 21 Nov 2013, at 12:17, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Nov 2013, at 11:29, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The material phenomena are events in the mind. That is partially true in the comp theory. But mind and matter emerges from the existence of [READ OR] absence of solution(s) to Diophantine equation, or even to just one of them(*). So there was a typo error (Read OR instead of of). And the (*) was for this: For your contemplative pleasure here is a unique system of Diophantine equation which is Turing universal. That is a precise TOE, written with only s, 0, + and *. It comes from a paper of P. Jones, which is based on the work of Matiyasevitch, Putnam, Davis and Robinson. Of course an expression like Q^16 is an abbreviation of Q*Q*Q*Q*Q*Q*Q*QQ*Q*Q*Q*Q*Q*Q*Q*Q (with the parentheses that should be added!). By adding even more variables, we can get only one polynomial, with degree 4. The equation below asserts that X is in W_Nu (a Turing universal statement, in Davis' earlier sense, a bit more general than Davis change to it later). Nu = ((ZUY)^2 + U)^2 + Y ELG^2 + Al = (B - XY)Q^2 Qu = B^(5^60) La + Qu^4 = 1 + LaB^5 Th + 2Z = B^5 L = U + TTh E = Y + MTh N = Q^16 R = [G + EQ^3 + LQ^5 + (2(E - ZLa)(1 + XB^5 + G)^4 + LaB^5 + + LaB^5Q^4)Q^4](N^2 -N) + [Q^3 -BL + L + ThLaQ^3 + (B^5 - 2)Q^5] (N^2 - 1) P = 2W(S^2)(R^2)N^2 (P^2)K^2 - K^2 + 1 = Ta^2 4(c - KSN^2)^2 + Et = K^2 K = R + 1 + HP - H A = (WN^2 + 1)RSN^2 C = 2R + 1 Ph D = BW + CA -2C + 4AGa -5Ga D^2 = (A^2 - 1)C^2 + 1 F^2 = (A^2 - 1)(I^2)C^4 + 1 (D + OF)^2 = ((A + F^2(D^2 - A^2))^2 - 1)(2R + 1 + JC)^2 + 1 Bruno 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Belief vs Truth
On 11/21/2013 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let´s go to a human level: in evolutionary terms, I would say that truth is a belief hardcoded by natural selection. This is self-defeating or circular. You need the truth of natural selection to make sense of it. That seems to confound truth and existence. There are some facts that make the theory of natural selection true (if it is true). Those facts may include hardwired beliefs in human brains and then they exist whether there is a theory that expresses them or not. It's not circular if it is grounded in facts. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Belief vs Truth
To say that F = m . a or e= m c2 as truth it is necessary to accept certain beliefs. Belief that at the next moment the laws will not change for example. Let´s go to a human level: in evolutionary terms, I would say that truth is a belief hardcoded by natural selection. Truth would say, is the constants plus the algorthm, The data that the living being processes, are the beliefs. The pivotal affirmation from Conrad Lorenz: The kantian a priori where shaped in our mind as a result of natural selection has a very far reaching: it means that self evident truths like the existence of persons, animals, space, time and all self evident truths that derives from them are hardcoded, and we have hardcoded algorithms for processing them. That is the reason why they appear behind us and we react to them without any doubt about their existence. We also have also algoritm for adquiring derived concepts in certain ways and not in others. Truth in a ample sense is whatever that kick-back: a stone wall for example. But that is not all. in evolutionary terms, the kick-back can happen across generations. If we doubt about certain abstract truths (like to kill is bad), we will not receive an inmediate negative feedback, but perhaps in a few years or even our gene/meme descendants. That is why the Lorenz`s mechanism has included in our mind a lot of innate common sense truths). That materialist explanation paradoxically end up in the idea that there is no space neither time neither persons outside the world of the mind, that is what really exist. Out of the mind there is nothing. Perhaps mathematics. I´m in aggreement with Craig on this. 2013/6/3 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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.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 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
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.
Re: Belief vs Truth
I have to respond that in Judaism in the high holiday service there is a prayer praising doubt. I think that may be unique to Judaism? Richard On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Russell wrote: *...When it comes to Bp p capturing the notion of knowledge, I can see it captures the notion of mathematical knowledge, ie true theorems, as opposed to true conjectures, say, which aren't knowledge. * I can see your point, at least for arithmetic, but I am not sure that distinction is interesting, at least for awhile. In both case we assert some proposition, that we cannot prove. Then with some luck it can be true. * But I am vaguely sceptical it captures the notion of scientific knowledge, which has more to do with falsifiability, than with proof. * But the Löbian point is that proof, even when correct, are falsifiable. Why, because we might dream, even of a falsification. On 01 Jun 2013, at 21:41, John Mikes wrote: * And that's about where I left it - years ago.* *...* Interesting difference between 'scientific' and 'mathematical' (see the Nobel Prize distinction) That's one was contingent. Nobel was cocufied by a mathematician who would have deserved the price (Mittag Leffler I think). Hmm.. Wiki says it is a legend, and may be it is just the contingent current Aristotelianism. Some people believe that math is not a science, like David Deutsch. That makes no sense for me. Like Gauss I think math is the queen of science, and arithmetic is the queen of math ... - also in falsifiability, that does not automatically escape the agnostic questioning about the circumstances of the falsifying and the original images. Excellent point. Same difficulty as in judging proof. Formal, first order proof can be verified mechanically, but they still does not necessarily entail truth, as the premises might be inconsistent or incorrect. Scientific knowledge indeed is part of a belief system. In conventional sciences we THINK we know, Only the pseudo-religious or pseudo-scientist people think they know. in math we assume (apologies, Bruno). ? On the contrary I agree. I thought I insisted a lot on this. Except for the non scientific personal (not 3p) consciousness it is always assumption, that is why I say that I assume that 0 is a number, that 0 ≠ s(x) for all x, etc. In science there is only assumption. We never know-for-certain anything that we could transmit publicly. Science is born from doubt, lives in doubt and can only augment the doubts. In the ideal world of the correct machines, *all* certainties are madness. Bruno * * On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:04:13PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: You mean unprovable? I get confused because it seems that you sometimes use Bp to mean proves p and sometimes believes p To a mathematician, belief and proof are the same thing. I believe in this theorem because I can prove it. If I can't prove it, then I don't believe it - it is merely a conjecture. In modal logic, the operator B captures both proof and supposedly belief. Obviously it captures a mathematician's notion of belief - whether that extends to a scientists notion of belief, or a Christian's notion is another matter entirely. When it comes to Bp p capturing the notion of knowledge, I can see it captures the notion of mathematical knowledge, ie true theorems, as opposed to true conjectures, say, which aren't knowledge. But I am vaguely sceptical it captures the notion of scientific knowledge, which has more to do with falsifiability, than with proof. And that's about where I left it - years ago. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: Belief vs Truth
How do we integrate empirical data into Bpp? On Saturday, June 1, 2013 3:41:56 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote: Russell wrote: *...When it comes to Bp p capturing the notion of knowledge, I can see it captures the notion of mathematical knowledge, ie true theorems, as opposed to true conjectures, say, which aren't knowledge. But I am vaguely sceptical it captures the notion of scientific knowledge, which has more to do with falsifiability, than with proof. And that's about where I left it - years ago.* *...* Interesting difference between 'scientific' and 'mathematical' (see the Nobel Prize distinction) - also in falsifiability, that does not automatically escape the agnostic questioning about the circumstances of the falsifying and the original images. Same difficulty as in judging proof. Scientific knowledge indeed is part of a belief system. In conventional sciences we THINK we know, in math we assume (apologies, Bruno). John M * * On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:04:13PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: You mean unprovable? I get confused because it seems that you sometimes use Bp to mean proves p and sometimes believes p To a mathematician, belief and proof are the same thing. I believe in this theorem because I can prove it. If I can't prove it, then I don't believe it - it is merely a conjecture. In modal logic, the operator B captures both proof and supposedly belief. Obviously it captures a mathematician's notion of belief - whether that extends to a scientists notion of belief, or a Christian's notion is another matter entirely. When it comes to Bp p capturing the notion of knowledge, I can see it captures the notion of mathematical knowledge, ie true theorems, as opposed to true conjectures, say, which aren't knowledge. But I am vaguely sceptical it captures the notion of scientific knowledge, which has more to do with falsifiability, than with proof. And that's about where I left it - years ago. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Belief vs Truth
On 31 May 2013, at 19:43, meekerdb wrote: On 5/31/2013 10:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 May 2013, at 01:19, meekerdb wrote: On 5/30/2013 3:43 PM, Russell Standish 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. Not really. You only believe the theorem you've proved if you believed the axioms and rules of inference. What mathematicians generally believe is that a proof is valid, i.e. that the conclusion follows from the premise. But they choose different premises, and even different rules of inference, just to see what comes out. 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. I don't think scientists, doing science, *believe* anything. They believe that they publish papers, and usually share the consensual believes, like in rain, taxes, and death (of others). All humans have many beliefs. A genuine scientist just know that those are beliefs, and not knowledge (even if they hope their belief to be true). So they will provides axioms/theories and derive from that, and compare with facts, in case the theory is applied in some concrete domain. But those are not beliefs in the mathematicians sense, they are beliefs in the common sense. ? The beliefs of the mathematicians are beliefs in the common sense. It seems to me. They don't just believe the axioms and that the theorems follow from them. ? Scientists usually call them hypotheses or models to emphasize that they are ideas that are held provisionally and are to be tested empirically. Mathematicians do the same. It is just than on arithmetic we have kept the same hypothesis for long, and only weaken them, like replacing the induction axiom with set of numbers by the induction axioms on first order formula. But I am not sure there is any significant change. Only what is studied is different. Of course they believe things in the common sense that they are willing to act/bet on something (at some odds). Yes. For example most believe that there is no biggest prime numbers. The Abrahamic religious notion of 'faith' is similar to that; the religious person must always act as if the religious dogma is true (at any odds). This precludes doubting or questioning the dogma. Very often, alas. But the israelites and the taoists encourage the comments and the discussion of texts. So there are degrees of dogmatic thinking. 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. Gettier (whom I know slightly) objected that one may believe a proposition that is true and is based on evidence but, because the evidence is not causally connected to the proposition should not count as knowledge. http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html It is equivalent with the dream argument made by someone who believes he knows that he is awake. Gettier is right, but he begs the question. What question is that? The question of how to distinguish belief from knowledge. But the theaetetus' idea works in arithlmetic, thank to incompleteness, and that's is deemed to be called, imo, a (verifiable) fact. But does it work outside arithmetic? AUDA is after UDA. We know (in the comp theory, 'course) that there is no outside of arithmetic ever needed to be assumed. The bosons and fermions are inside too. Bruno 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.
Re: Belief vs Truth
Brent, thanks for your clear ideas - not controversial to what I try to explain in my poor wordings. No proof is valid, or true. Applicable, maybe. In our 'makebilieve' world-model many facets SEEM true in our terms of explanation, i.e. using conventional science and wisdom. Mathematicians are even more stubborn. JohnM On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:43 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/31/2013 10:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 May 2013, at 01:19, meekerdb wrote: On 5/30/2013 3:43 PM, Russell Standish 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. Not really. You only believe the theorem you've proved if you believed the axioms and rules of inference. What mathematicians generally believe is that a proof is valid, i.e. that the conclusion follows from the premise. But they choose different premises, and even different rules of inference, just to see what comes out. 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. I don't think scientists, doing science, *believe* anything. They believe that they publish papers, and usually share the consensual believes, like in rain, taxes, and death (of others). All humans have many beliefs. A genuine scientist just know that those are beliefs, and not knowledge (even if they hope their belief to be true). So they will provides axioms/theories and derive from that, and compare with facts, in case the theory is applied in some concrete domain. But those are not beliefs in the mathematicians sense, they are beliefs in the common sense. They don't just believe the axioms and that the theorems follow from them. Scientists usually call them hypotheses or models to emphasize that they are ideas that are held provisionally and are to be tested empirically. Of course they believe things in the common sense that they are willing to act/bet on something (at some odds). Yes. For example most believe that there is no biggest prime numbers. The Abrahamic religious notion of 'faith' is similar to that; the religious person must always act as if the religious dogma is true (at any odds). This precludes doubting or questioning the dogma. Very often, alas. But the israelites and the taoists encourage the comments and the discussion of texts. So there are degrees of dogmatic thinking. 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. Gettier (whom I know slightly) objected that one may believe a proposition that is true and is based on evidence but, because the evidence is not causally connected to the proposition should not count as knowledge. http://www.ditext.com/gettier/**gettier.htmlhttp://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html It is equivalent with the dream argument made by someone who believes he knows that he is awake. Gettier is right, but he begs the question. What question is that? But the theaetetus' idea works in arithlmetic, thank to incompleteness, and that's is deemed to be called, imo, a (verifiable) fact. But does it work outside arithmetic? Brent Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Belief vs Truth
On 31 May 2013, at 01:19, meekerdb wrote: On 5/30/2013 3:43 PM, Russell Standish 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. Not really. You only believe the theorem you've proved if you believed the axioms and rules of inference. What mathematicians generally believe is that a proof is valid, i.e. that the conclusion follows from the premise. But they choose different premises, and even different rules of inference, just to see what comes out. 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. I don't think scientists, doing science, *believe* anything. They believe that they publish papers, and usually share the consensual believes, like in rain, taxes, and death (of others). All humans have many beliefs. A genuine scientist just know that those are beliefs, and not knowledge (even if they hope their belief to be true). So they will provides axioms/theories and derive from that, and compare with facts, in case the theory is applied in some concrete domain. Of course they believe things in the common sense that they are willing to act/bet on something (at some odds). Yes. For example most believe that there is no biggest prime numbers. The Abrahamic religious notion of 'faith' is similar to that; the religious person must always act as if the religious dogma is true (at any odds). This precludes doubting or questioning the dogma. Very often, alas. But the israelites and the taoists encourage the comments and the discussion of texts. So there are degrees of dogmatic thinking. 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. Gettier (whom I know slightly) objected that one may believe a proposition that is true and is based on evidence but, because the evidence is not causally connected to the proposition should not count as knowledge. http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html It is equivalent with the dream argument made by someone who believes he knows that he is awake. Gettier is right, but he begs the question. But the theaetetus' idea works in arithlmetic, thank to incompleteness, and that's is deemed to be called, imo, a (verifiable) fact. Bruno 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.
Re: Belief vs Truth
On 5/31/2013 10:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 May 2013, at 01:19, meekerdb wrote: On 5/30/2013 3:43 PM, Russell Standish 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. Not really. You only believe the theorem you've proved if you believed the axioms and rules of inference. What mathematicians generally believe is that a proof is valid, i.e. that the conclusion follows from the premise. But they choose different premises, and even different rules of inference, just to see what comes out. 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. I don't think scientists, doing science, *believe* anything. They believe that they publish papers, and usually share the consensual believes, like in rain, taxes, and death (of others). All humans have many beliefs. A genuine scientist just know that those are beliefs, and not knowledge (even if they hope their belief to be true). So they will provides axioms/theories and derive from that, and compare with facts, in case the theory is applied in some concrete domain. But those are not beliefs in the mathematicians sense, they are beliefs in the common sense. They don't just believe the axioms and that the theorems follow from them. Scientists usually call them hypotheses or models to emphasize that they are ideas that are held provisionally and are to be tested empirically. Of course they believe things in the common sense that they are willing to act/bet on something (at some odds). Yes. For example most believe that there is no biggest prime numbers. The Abrahamic religious notion of 'faith' is similar to that; the religious person must always act as if the religious dogma is true (at any odds). This precludes doubting or questioning the dogma. Very often, alas. But the israelites and the taoists encourage the comments and the discussion of texts. So there are degrees of dogmatic thinking. 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. Gettier (whom I know slightly) objected that one may believe a proposition that is true and is based on evidence but, because the evidence is not causally connected to the proposition should not count as knowledge. http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html It is equivalent with the dream argument made by someone who believes he knows that he is awake. Gettier is right, but he begs the question. What question is that? But the theaetetus' idea works in arithlmetic, thank to incompleteness, and that's is deemed to be called, imo, a (verifiable) fact. But does it work outside arithmetic? Brent Bruno 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.
Re: Belief vs Truth
On 01/06/2013, at 3:35 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: All humans have many beliefs. A genuine scientist just know that those are beliefs, and not knowledge (even if they hope their belief to be true). So they will provides axioms/theories and derive from that, and compare with facts, in case the theory is applied in some concrete domain. Beliefs relate directly to needs. This is seperate to the issue already largely explored here as to whether belief and knowledge are the same. In general, all humans have needs. These needs range from the obvious (fuel ie food/drink, shelter etc) to less obvious things like respect, admiration from some other human or humans, a mission in life and a sense of achievement in relation to that mission. If our deep needs are not satisfied at least partially, we wither and dry-up like any plant. Possibly because these less-obvious needs are such deep motivators of human activities on just about every level, it is rather boring (or sometimes frankly embarrassing) to talk about them or indeed to own-up to the fact. Freud's great achievement was that he got humans to fess-up to their needs and to stop bullshitting each about them. Even Einstein the Great was able to say I don't have any special talent. I'm just insatiably curious. Or words to that effect. Thus, his whole life was about satisfying his *personal need* to know stuff. That's fine; we all benefitted from his attending to his own needs in that regard. Beethoven wrote great music. Not because it was an expectation of others put on him that he tried to live up to, but because he perceived entities existing in a realm that can only be experienced in the mind via musical compositions. In fact he was exploring Platonia - as you do when you write great music or do great science. Please don't get out the Thor's Hammer of reductionism to clout me with because this is not reductionism. This is HONESTY. In Edward de Bono's framework for Parallel Thinking The Six Thinking Hats the Red Hat is donned for the expression of feelings, hunches and intuitions. In other words, with the Red Hat on, everybody gets a chance to spruik their beliefs about something. There is no requirement that these be rational or even logical. You can spit the dummy if you want to, or, out a gut-feeling about the issue under consideration. No one can be criticised for having a bit of a rave or a rant under the Red Hat because that's the essence of Parallel Thinking: everyone wears the same-coloured hat at the same time and the result is that the neurotransmitters for that mental operation (beliefs, needs, emotions etc) are optimised. Later on, we take off the Red Hat and put on the Yellow Hat which is about everyone in the room optimising the neurotransmitters associated with positive thinking. If you cannot see anything positive or beneficial about an idea or an issue, (like John Clark in relation to Bruno's comp theory) then you are merely advertising the fact that you are an excellent Red Hat thinker but a lousy Yellow Hat thinker. There are benefits to everything. The trick is, to be able to see them. Then there is of course the Black Hat, which is the Logical Negative. Don't confuse the Red and Black Hats. The Red Hat has everything to do with needs and beliefs and nothing at all to do with logic. The Black Hat has everything to do with logic. Under the Black Hat, you must judge an idea as unworthy for the following logically-demonstrable reasons: a) - b) - c) etc. Indeed, you may BELIEVE and FEEL that an idea is just fine, but the logical operation of isolating and identifying faults and systemic errors may trump belief. In fact, it usually does. The existence of the Red Hat is an acknowledgement of Freud's primary insight: that the core of the human self is a set of needs that will not go away and which it is absurd to try and rationalise as something else somehow (usually by some fancy logical discourse). The default mode of human thinking (so often observed on this and related lists) is to smuggle back in one's needs-based beliefs under the disguise of reason and evidence as Bruno is clearly saying in the quote, above. If you believe an idea will not work, or is dangerous in some regard, you may well be right, but then you may well be wrong. We cannot yet know. You can however, now be respected for having that belief because clearly you have a deep-seated emotional need to believe that. Only a fool would assert that their beliefs are purely rational and based only on reasoned evidence. As Camus said: which of the sun or the earth turns around the other is of absolutely no consequence whatsoever. The only philosophical question worth considering is whether life is worth living. This was an attempt (in Le Mythe de Sisyphe) to understand the supreme logic of suicide. Cheers, Kim Jones Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email:
Re: Belief vs Truth
On 5/30/2013 3:43 PM, Russell Standish 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. Not really. You only believe the theorem you've proved if you believed the axioms and rules of inference. What mathematicians generally believe is that a proof is valid, i.e. that the conclusion follows from the premise. But they choose different premises, and even different rules of inference, just to see what comes out. 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. I don't think scientists, doing science, *believe* anything. Of course they believe things in the common sense that they are willing to act/bet on something (at some odds). The Abrahamic religious notion of 'faith' is similar to that; the religious person must always act as if the religious dogma is true (at any odds). This precludes doubting or questioning the dogma. 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. Gettier (whom I know slightly) objected that one may believe a proposition that is true and is based on evidence but, because the evidence is not causally connected to the proposition should not count as knowledge. http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html Brent 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 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Belief vs Truth
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 04:19:53PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 5/30/2013 3:43 PM, Russell Standish 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. Not really. You only believe the theorem you've proved if you believed the axioms and rules of inference. What mathematicians generally believe is that a proof is valid, i.e. that the conclusion follows from the premise. But they choose different premises, and even different rules of inference, just to see what comes out. Fair enough, although if you're a Platonist, I guess you believe in some axioms - the PA ones, for instance. Anyway, this is rapidly departing my area of expertise :). 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.
