Re: Are First Person prime?

From: George Levy <>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:56:53 -0800

One more question: can or should p be the observer?
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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Thu Nov 22 2007 - 14:57:14 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST