Bruno and Mirek,
concerning Theateticus vs. Theaeteticus:
in my strange linguistic background I make a difference betwee ai and ae -
the spelling in Greek and Latin of the name. As far as I know, nobody knows
for sure how did the 'ancient' Greeks pronounce their ai - maybe as the flat
'e' like in German "lehr" while the 'e' pronounciation might have been
clsoer to (between) 'make' and 'peck' - the reason why the Romans
transcribed it by their *ONE letter* *"ae",* (lehr) and not as English would
read: *'a'+'ee'*. The spelling you gave points to this latter. The Latin
'ae' is not TWO separate letters (a+e), it is a twin, as marked in the Wiki
article
..."*Theætetus"... **and not Theaetetus *
which looked strange to me from the beginning .
*(I wonder if the e-mail reproduces the (ae) one sign? look up in Wiki's
Theaetetus Dialogue (in the title with the wrong spelling) the 1st line
brings the merged-together double 'æ'.) *
***
*English spelling always does a job on classical words, the Greek 'oi' has
been transcribed into Latin sometimes as 'oe' and pronounced as in "girl"
(oeuvre) while many think it was a sound like what the pigs say: as "oy".
then comes America, with it's Phoenix (pron: feenix).... *
I don't think the Romans were much better off, centuries after and a world
apart from the ancient (classical for them) Greeks.
And who knows today if the great orator was Tzitzero or Kikero to turn later
into Tchitchero?
***
*"The Old Man" did quite a job on us at the tower of Babel. *
***
*[[ - I am enjoying your 'other' post where you spelled out my own
vocabulary as indeed thinking functions as relations, lately not as a static
description, but also the interchanging factor - ]]*
**
*John*
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
> On 02 Aug 2009, at 23:20, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
>
>
>
> I am in a good mood and a bit picky :-) Do you know how many entries
>
> google gave me upon entering
>
> Theaetetical -marchal -bruno
>
>
>
> Well 144?
>
>
> Good way to find my papers on that. The pages refer quickly to this
>
> list or the FOR list.
>
>
> I am sorry for the delay, I've just got back from my vacation.
>
> Hmm. The above written search should not return any references to your
> papers/letters as the minus sign in front of your name asks for an
> exclusion.
>
> Given that it works as supposed google then gives only 01 hit in my
> location (Sweden). That hit is a translation of the word "Theaetetical"
> into some eastern characters. Thus, I end up with zero meaningful hits
> and a feeling that you might be the only one using this word.
>
> That makes me insists a little bit more (in a very polite way) that,
> occasionally, your work is
> "difficult to read unless one is willing to undertake long
> discussions, clarifications and position adjustments."
>
> I am writing this in a reference to your complains that sometimes you
> have troubles to get enough relevant feedback to your work.
>
>
>
>
> Come on Mirek: "Theaetetical" is an adjective I have forged from
> "Theatetus".
> "Theatetus" gives 195.000 results on Google.
> "Theatetus" wiki 4310.
>
> By "theatetical notion of knowledge", I mean the "well known" attempts to
> define "knowledge" by Theaetetus in Plato's Theaetetus. The most known
> definition is "truye justified belief", that Bill taylor just mentionned on
> the FOR list recently as:
> "This old crock should have been given a decent burial long ago."
> I guess I will have to make a comment ...
>
>
> My work is, without doubt, very difficult to read because it crosses three
> or four fields: "mathematical logic", "philosophy of mind" and "computer
> science"; + quantum mechanics to evaluate the plausibility of the derived
> computationalist physics. This does not help in an epoch of
> hyper-specialization.
> I am also using a deductive approach in the philosophy of mind. I am
> apparently the first to *postulate* "mechanism". Most philosophers of mind
> accept mechanism as the only rational theory, or reject it with some
> passion. Few, if any, use it as an hypothesis, in a deductive strategy. Then
> mathematical logic is virtually unknown, except by mathematical logicians,
> who, for historical reasons, do not want to come back to the earlier
> philosophical motivations: they want to be accepted as pure mathematicians.
> Except the philosophical logicians, who in majority criticized classical
> logic, and see philosphy as a mean to criticize classical philosophy.
> Mathematicians are so used to classical philosophy, that they consider it as
> science, and hate to be remind that this is still a philosophical.
>
> I have no feedback for purely contingent reason related to facts which have
> nothing to do with the startling feature of the conclusion of the reasoning.
> Up to now, I heard continuously about critics on an imaginary work I have
> never done. The price of the best PhD thesis that I got in France has
> eventually only spread those rumor from Brussels to elsewhere.
> All real scientist who have studied my work and have accepted to meet me,
> or to write a real report on it, have understood it. True, some took a
> rather long time to understand, but that is normal: the subject matter is
> very complex, and still taboo, especially for the atheists, and other
> religious-based thinkers. But when they study it, they quickly discover that
> I use the scientific method, that is I am just asking a question, what is
> wrong with the following reasoning? ... The reasoning is decomposed in
> "easy" steps, so people accepting (for personal belief or for the sake of
> the argument) the hypotheses and wanting to reject the conclusion have a way
> to put their fingers on some problems.
>
> UDA has been judged to obvious and simple in Brussels, and that is why I
> have augmented the thesis with the AUDA, which unfortunately is considered
> as ... too much simple for logicians, and too much difficult for non
> logicians. But AUDA is not needed at all to understand the simple and clear
> result: if we are digitalisable machine, the laws of physics emerge from a
> statistics on computations, in a verifiable way (quantitatively and
> qualitatively). The result is very simple and clear: the reasoning which
> leads to that result is much more subtle and difficult.
>
> I am not at all pretending that reasoning is correct. Science progress when
> people do errors, but we have to find them, and sometimes, if we don't find
> them, we have to accept momentarily the conclusion, perhaps with the hope an
> error will be find later. But the attitude of a (tiny but influencing) part
> of the community consists in hiding the reasoning, or deforming it
> completely. This can't help.
>
> Some people, even here recently (see 1Z's post) and recently on the FOR
> list, attributes me a curious theory, where they confuse the conclusion with
> the postulate (which deprives the work of *any* meaning). But the theory I
> am studying is the old "mechanist theory", in its modern digital version,
> and nothing else. So, if they have a genuine interest in the subject, we
> would begin to learn something if they can criticize some point in the
> reasoning, instead of ignoring it, or attributing it statements without ever
> referring to a relevant piece of text. Of course they can't point on such
> text, given that such information exists only in their mind. They repeat
> rumors, and have clearly not take time to read the papers.
>
> The fact that the result would contradict the current paradigm does not
> help, of course, but is not, yet, the source of the problem.
>
>
>
>
> I let those interested to meditate on two questions (N is {0, 1, 2, 3,
>
> 4, ...}):
>
>
> 1) What is common between the set of all subsets of a set with n
>
> elements, and the set of all finite sequences of "0" and "1" of length
>
> n.
>
> 2) What is common between the set of all subsets of N, and the set of
>
> all infinite sequences of "0" and "1".
>
>
> Just some (finite and infinite) bread for surviving the day :)
>
>
> I am going to catch up with the thread ...
>
>
> Welcome back Mirek. Feel free to ask for any clarification, position
> adjustments, question, at any level ...Do you understand what is the comp
> hypothesis?
>
> Bruno
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Tue Aug 04 2009 - 09:05:16 PDT