Gunther,
Sorry for no umlaut.
I'm sure you will wait for Bruno's answer, but I'd like to offer a
simple example.
What is the meaning of the ratio of the circumference of a circle to
its diameter. Granted, a circle is an ideal, but it is something that
has meaning, and I would even argue, quasi a la Plato, that the ideal
circle is what gives meaning to other circles. etc. Perhaps this is
what Bruno is getting at. Not only is infinity sufficient for meaning
(which some would even argue against, would you?), but it is also
necessary.
Tom
On Sep 12, 1:17 pm, Günther Greindl <guenther.grei....domain.name.hidden>
wrote:
> Bruno,
>
> why do you think that meaning depends on the presence of infinities?
>
> Cheers,
> Günther
>
>
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> > On 12 Sep 2008, at 06:28, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> >> marc.ged....domain.name.hidden wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 12, 5:06 am, Brent Meeker <meeke....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> >>>> marc.ged....domain.name.hidden wrote:
> >>>>> <b>Given two categories C and D a functor F from C to D can be
> >>>>> thought
> >>>>> of as an *analogy* between C and D, because F has to map objects
> >>>>> of C
> >>>>> to objects of D and arrows of C to arrows of D in such a way that
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> compositional structure of the two categories is preserved.</b>
> >>>> No meaning there either.
>
> >>>> Brent
>
> >>> Given that its been published on wikipedia, I'd say ya need to brush
> >>> up on ya category theory. Analogies and category theory are very
> >>> interesting indeed, as a possible means to extend Bayesianism.
>
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
> >> "Analogy is both the cognitive process of transferring information
> >> from a
> >> particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular
> >> subject (the
> >> target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process."
>
> >> Notice that the subject must already have information, i.e. meaning,
> >> and analogy
> >> is a way of transferring it.
>
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory
> >> "In mathematics, category theory deals in an *abstract* way with
> >> mathematical
> >> structures and relationships between them: it abstracts from sets
> >> and functions
> >> to objects and morphisms."
>
> >> No meaning there.
>
> > ??? There are infinities there. I think this means that there is some
> > meaning there.
>
> >> It's not that I disagree that Bayesian inference is limited, it's
> >> just that I
> >> don't see how any formalism, logic, set theory, category theory,
> >> arithmetic...
> >> can provide it's own meaning. To say that some symbolic string has
> >> meaning is
> >> just to say it can provoke action in some context.
>
> > Only a symbolic things can have meaning, or are putting mind in
> > matter? then you have to put
> > infinities in both mind and matter. At least. I don't believe if
> > works, but if you don't you are back
> > to explain meaning in strict finite terms.
> > 5rememeber that the UD argument goes through with the "generalized
> > brain". This can contain
> > any finite part of the environment.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Fri Sep 12 2008 - 17:39:59 PDT