On 12/21/2012 7:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Come on. You could demolish Einstein special relativity with remark like that.
"--Mister Einstein, we member of the jury are not convinced by your thesis. There is a
definite lack of rigor. Clearly E = mc^2 will not work with 2 interpreted by 2
rain
On 20 Dec 2012, at 17:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/20/2012 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
People agree that 2+2=4 because it is a simple truth which follow
from simple definition.
But that makes it conditional on the definition (axioms).
Trivially.
Usually we prefer not see a definition as
On 12/20/2012 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Dec 2012, at 20:18, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/19/2012 2:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I am trying to see if we can use the way that towers of theories
are allowed by the incompleteness theorems...
This is studied in recursion theory. Turing
On 12/20/2012 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Dec 2012, at 22:12, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/18/2012 3:28 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/18/2012 10:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/18/2012 12:51 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/17/2012 11:51 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Which implies ther
o...@verizon.net]
12/19/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-18, 16:44:29
Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/
On 12/20/2012 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
People agree that 2+2=4 because it is a simple truth which follow from simple definition.
But that makes it conditional on the definition (axioms). And it is not such a simple
truth. Two raindrops plus two raindrops makes one big raindrop. One brid
On 19 Dec 2012, at 20:55, John Mikes wrote:
I tried to identify the meaning of "axiom" and found a funny solution:
as it looks, "AXIOM" is an unprovable idea underlining a theory
otherwise non-provable.
In most cases: an unjustified statement, that, however, DOES work in
the contest of the
orever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-18, 16:44:29
Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/18/2012 1:12 PM, Stephen P. King wrote
On 19 Dec 2012, at 20:18, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/19/2012 2:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I am trying to see if we can use the way that towers of theories
are allowed by the incompleteness theorems...
This is studied in recursion theory. Turing shows that
incompleteness continue to all
On 18 Dec 2012, at 22:12, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/18/2012 3:28 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/18/2012 10:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/18/2012 12:51 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/17/2012 11:51 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than
'provab
On 12/19/2012 11:58 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/19/2012 8:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb and Stephen,
If information is stored in quantum form,
I can't see why the number of particles
in the universe can be a limiting fsactor.
I
On 17 Dec 2012, at 22:02, meekerdb wrote:
I would think it was incompleteness. Consistency means not being
able to prove every proposition. But in a consistent system there
can be propositions that are neither provable nor disprovable. Are
those true?
Some are, some are not, for syste
where the Penrose limit of 10^124 comes from whereas the
Lloyd limit of 10^120 is based on the age of the universe.
Richard
>
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 12/19/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> --
I tried to identify the meaning of "axiom" and found a funny solution:
as it looks, "AXIOM" is an unprovable idea underlining a theory otherwise
non-provable.
In most cases: an unjustified statement, that, however, DOES work in the
contest of the particular theory it is serving.
Better definitions
/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* meekerdb <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>
*Receiver:* everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
*Time:* 2012-12-18, 16:
On 12/19/2012 2:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I am trying to see if we can use the way that towers of theories are
allowed by the incompleteness theorems...
This is studied in recursion theory. Turing shows that incompleteness
continue to all effective transfinite tower, on the constructive
ord
On 18 Dec 2012, at 01:50, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/17/2012 4:31 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/17/2012 1:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
ISTM that consistency is the fact that you can't have contradiction.
In some logics you're allowed to have contradictions, but the rules
of inference don't
On 17 Dec 2012, at 22:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/17/2012 1:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
ISTM that consistency is the fact that you can't have contradiction.
In some logics you're allowed to have contradictions, but the rules
of inference don't permit you to prove everything from a
contra
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-19, 11:47:55
Subject: Re: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
The holographic information capacity of the universe is 10^120,
known as the Lloyd limit.
On Wed, Dec 19
t; - Receiving the following content -
> From: meekerdb
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2012-12-18, 16:44:29
> Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
>
> On 12/18/2012 1:12 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
> We have many entities that are ava
/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-18, 16:44:29
Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/18/2012 1:12 PM, Stephe
On 12/18/2012 1:12 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
We have many entities that are available to agree that 2+2=4 (for all sizes of 2 and
4 that we can find), 2^90 entities at least! Every particle that exist in our universe
that can hold a bit of data and all possible combinations of them that agr
On 12/18/2012 3:28 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/18/2012 10:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/18/2012 12:51 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/17/2012 11:51 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than
'provable'.
What do you mean ? that provable true is
On 12/18/2012 10:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/18/2012 12:51 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/17/2012 11:51 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'.
What do you mean ? that provable true is truer ?
No, just that there must be propo
On 12/18/2012 8:47 AM, John Mikes wrote:
To Brent: about "FACTS"? the facts we see(?) are similarly only model related (partially
understood).
That's true. Being a 'fact' is a matter of degree and in practice all 'facts' are theory
laden. Even a fact like, "I am experiencing seeing a chair."
On 12/18/2012 12:51 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/17/2012 11:51 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'.
What do you mean ? that provable true is truer ?
No, just that there must be propositions we judge to be true that
aren't provabl
On 12/17/2012 11:51 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'.
What do you mean ? that provable true is truer ?
No, just that there must be propositions we judge to be true that aren't
provable.
Brent
--
You received this message b
On 12/17/2012 11:53 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Is there a logic that does not recognize a proposition to be true or
false
unless there is an accessible proof for it? Accessible is hard for me to
define
canonically, but one could think of it as being able to build a model (via
Congrats to the perfect definition.
Add to it (my) agnostic position that we know only part of everything and
nobody will talk "truth".
To Brent: about "FACTS"? the facts we see(?) are similarly only model
related (partially understood).
JM
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:02 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On
On 17 Dec 2012, at 22:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/17/2012 11:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/16/2012 2:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we
cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can
2012/12/18 Stephen P. King
> On 12/17/2012 4:31 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> On 12/17/2012 1:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>> ISTM that consistency is the fact that you can't have contradiction.
>>>
>>
>> In some logics you're allowed to have contradictions, but the rules of
>> inference don't pe
2012/12/17 meekerdb
> On 12/17/2012 1:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>> ISTM that consistency is the fact that you can't have contradiction.
>>
>
> In some logics you're allowed to have contradictions, but the rules of
> inference don't permit you to prove everything from a contradiction. I
> t
On 12/17/2012 4:31 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/17/2012 1:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
ISTM that consistency is the fact that you can't have contradiction.
In some logics you're allowed to have contradictions, but the rules of
inference don't permit you to prove everything from a contradiction.
On 12/17/2012 1:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
ISTM that consistency is the fact that you can't have contradiction.
In some logics you're allowed to have contradictions, but the rules of inference don't
permit you to prove everything from a contradiction. I think they are then called
'para-co
2012/12/17 meekerdb
> On 12/17/2012 11:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote:
>
> On 12/16/2012 2:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot
> really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate
On 12/17/2012 11:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/16/2012 2:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define
it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like s
On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/16/2012 2:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we
cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in
less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc.
But
On 12/16/2012 2:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define
it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order
logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it.
Don't con
he following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-16, 05:31:15
Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 14 Dec 2012, at 13:06, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
1) If there is an ultimate truth, the only one we can understand is
in w
rever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-16, 05:31:15
Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 14 Dec 2012, at 13:06, Roger Clough w
On 14 Dec 2012, at 13:06, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
1) If there is an ultimate truth, the only one we can understand is
in words.
With the CTM that might make sense, but a priori this is not obvious.
2) Words are man-made objects.
No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arit
41 matches
Mail list logo
