One more question: can or should p be the observer?
George
George Levy wrote:
> 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 - 14:57:14 PST