Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-21 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-21 Thread meekerdb
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

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-20 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-20 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-20 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-20 Thread meekerdb
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

Re: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-20 Thread Roger Clough
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

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-20 Thread Stephen P. King
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

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-20 Thread Stephen P. King
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.

Re: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-19 Thread Roger Clough
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

Re: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-19 Thread Richard Ruquist
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

Re: Re: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-19 Thread Roger Clough
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

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-19 Thread Stephen P. King
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

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-19 Thread meekerdb
, 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, 16:44:29 *Subject:* Re: the only truth we can understand

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-19 Thread John Mikes
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

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-19 Thread Richard Ruquist
[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

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-19 Thread meekerdb
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

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-18 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-18 Thread John Mikes
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

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-18 Thread 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

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-18 Thread meekerdb
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

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-18 Thread Stephen P. King
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

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-18 Thread meekerdb
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.

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-18 Thread meekerdb
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

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-18 Thread Stephen P. King
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

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-17 Thread Bruno Marchal
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.

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-17 Thread 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 it in less obvious ontologies, like

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-17 Thread Quentin Anciaux
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

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-17 Thread 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 think they are then called

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-17 Thread 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 permit you to prove everything from a

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-17 Thread Quentin Anciaux
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

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

Re: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-16 Thread Roger Clough
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

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
: 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

Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

2012-12-16 Thread meekerdb
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