Re: Belief Statements

From: Bruno Marchal <>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:50:02 +0100

At 09:45 12/01/05 +0000, Alastair Malcolm wrote:

>It sounds like we may be using 'logics' for two different purposes. For me,
>basic logic is intended here (that of syllogisms and 'if it is true
>that p, then it cannot be the case that p is false');

This is a little ambiguous. But I will take it as your acceptation
of (at least) intuitionist basic logical system.

>any ambiguities
>between logics in directly describing a (physical-type) world would tend to
>be due to their particular application areas (for example temporal logic
>would not be geared to worlds with certain alternatives to time);

And this will depend on some non-logical axiom you will postulate
togeteher with the background logic.

> others
>tend not to have this use at all (for example modal logic is more about
>consistency/proveability/necessity, or worlds in general). Again, in the
>same vein as my reply to Hal F, if a logic / formal system cannot
>describe an entity, it is either due to an inherent restriction (compared to
>other logics / formal systems), or else the entity is totally beyond our
>comprehension (in a formal sense).


>Is it still the case that the best english version of the relevant ideas are
>from your earlier posts to this list, as identified in your URL? I shall try
>to look at them at some stage.

Perhaps better is my SANE paper, you can download it from

I show that IF we are Turing-emulable THEN physics is, in a testable way,
  the geometry of the border of our ignorance. Where by "our" I refer to
"us" the
Loebian Machine.

Received on Wed Jan 12 2005 - 06:49:50 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:10 PST