Hi Bruno,
I am reopening an old thread ( more than a year old) which I found very
intriguing. It leads to some startling conclusions.
Le 05-août-06, à 02:07, George Levy a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:I think that if you want to
make the first person primitive, given that neither you nor me can
really define it, you will need at least to axiomatize it in some way.
Here is my question. Do you agree that a first person is a knower, and
in that case, are you willing to accept the traditional axioms for
knowing. That is:
1) If p is knowable then p is true;
2) If p is knowable then it is knowable that p is knowable;
3) if it is knowable that p entails q, then if p is knowable then q is
knowable
(+ some logical rules).
Bruno, what or who do you mean by "it" in statements 2) and 3). In
addition, what do you mean by "is knowable", "is true" and "entails"?
Are "is knowable", "is true" and "entails" absolute or do they have
meaning only with respect to a particular observer? Can these terms be
relative to an observer? If they can, how would you rephrase these
statements?
George
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Thu Nov 22 2007 - 14:50:42 PST