On 09 Jan 2014, at 05:55, meekerdb wrote:
Bruno writes Bp & p, where "Bp" ambiguously means "Proves
p" (Beweisbar?) and "Believes p".
What is ambiguous? I said that I limit the interview to Platonist
*correct* machine, believing in arithmetic or in recursively
enumerable extension of ari
On 08 Jan 2014, at 23:11, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno and Brent:
did you agree whether "TRUE BELIEF" means in your sentences
1. one's belief that is TRUE, (not likely),
It is that one. "Bp & p" means that p is believed (by some machine)
and that it is the case that p.
or
2. the TRUTH tha
Bruno writes Bp & p, where "Bp" ambiguously means "Proves p" (Beweisbar?) and "Believes
p". "Believes p and P" is then a belief that is "true". I put scare quotes around "true"
because I think it just means "is a consequence of some (Peano's) axioms", which is not
necessarily the same as "expre
Bruno and Brent:
did you agree whether *"TRUE BELIEF*" means in your sentences
1. one's belief that is TRUE, (not likely), or
2. the TRUTH that one believes in it (a maybe)?
(none of the two may be 'true').
JM
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 31 Dec 2013, at 21:09
On 31 Dec 2013, at 21:09, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/31/2013 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
only rules to extract knowledge from assumed beliefs.
?
I answered "no" to your question. Knowledge is not extracted in any
way from belief (assumed or not). knowledge *is* belief, when or in
the world
On 12/31/2013 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
only rules to extract knowledge from assumed beliefs.
?
I answered "no" to your question. Knowledge is not extracted in any way from belief
(assumed or not). knowledge *is* belief, when or in the world those beliefs are true,
but this you can never
On 30 Dec 2013, at 23:32, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Edgar: allow me not to copy your post the 8th time, just
marking the #s of your par-s into my short remarks.
#1
As long as we don't "know" ALL of the (external?) complexity-stuff
we cannot claim 'knowledge' of any 'reality',
An (ideal, so
On 30 Dec 2013, at 20:02, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
To summarize, there is no possible pure knowledge,
Why? On the contrary, beliefs can intersect truth, sometimes, and
provably so for simpler machine than us.
What happens is that only God knows when your beliefs are genuine
knowledge. For
Dear Edgar: allow me not to copy your post the 8th time, just marking the
#s of your par-s into my short remarks.
#1
As long as we don't "know" ALL of the (external?) complexity-stuff we
cannot claim 'knowledge' of any 'reality', only quote the so far received
part and that, too, as adjusted into
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:21 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 31 December 2013 08:20, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
> multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Alberto G. Corona
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To summarize, there is no possible pure knowledge, only rules to extract
>>> knowledge f
:-) Those realms can be avoided, especially if one is flexible with where
one... but off-topic. PGC
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>
>
> 2013/12/30 Platonist Guitar Cowboy
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Alberto G. Corona
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To summari
2013/12/30 Platonist Guitar Cowboy
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>> To summarize, there is no possible pure knowledge, only rules to extract
>> knowledge from assumed beliefs. Thanks. But I already knew so.
>>
>> But i the realm of reality,
>>
>
> And where m
On 31 December 2013 08:20, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>> To summarize, there is no possible pure knowledge, only rules to extract
>> knowledge from assumed beliefs. Thanks. But I already knew so.
>>
>> But i the realm of reality,
>
On 12/30/2013 3:39 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
In response to the discussion of the possibility of a "Final Theory" I'm starting a new
topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an important and separate issue from previous
discussions.
1, it is impossible to directly know the external fu
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> To summarize, there is no possible pure knowledge, only rules to extract
> knowledge from assumed beliefs. Thanks. But I already knew so.
>
> But i the realm of reality,
>
And where may one find this realm of realms?
> i.e. sensible e
To summarize, there is no possible pure knowledge, only rules to extract
knowledge from assumed beliefs. Thanks. But I already knew so.
But i the realm of reality, i.e. sensible experience, Edgar is right here.
2013/12/30 Bruno Marchal
>
> On 30 Dec 2013, at 15:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 15:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2013/12/30 Bruno Marchal
On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:39, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
In response to the discussion of the possibility of a "Final Theory"
I'm starting a new topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an
important and separate
2013/12/30 Bruno Marchal
>
> On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:39, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> All,
>>
>> In response to the discussion of the possibility of a "Final Theory" I'm
>> starting a new topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an important and
>> separate issue from previous discussions.
>>
>>
>>
On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:39, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
In response to the discussion of the possibility of a "Final Theory"
I'm starting a new topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an
important and separate issue from previous discussions.
1, it is impossible to directly know the exte
19 matches
Mail list logo
