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 12/21/2012 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
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
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
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:
We have many entities that are available
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
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, Stephen P. King wrote:
We
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
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.
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, Stephen P. King wrote:
We
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 available to agree that 2+2=4 (for all
sizes of 2 and 4 that we can find), 2^90 entities at least
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, 2012 at 11:34 AM
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
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
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
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
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@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 12/19/2012 11:58 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net 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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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.
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
2012/12/17 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
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
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
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
2012/12/18 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
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
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
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 wrote:
Hi Bruno
: 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 words.
With the CTM
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
36 matches
Mail list logo