Hi Stephen,
Le 24-déc.-05, à 02:27, Stephen Paul King a écrit :
> As for a name, following the comments of George and John, what about
> "I^st and 3^rd Person aspects in Computational Logics"?
That is not too bad ... for the title of a paper, but I'm afraid it is
too long for a field's name.
Also, strictly speaking, "computational logic" is misleading because
people could take it as a form of constructive or effective or
algorithmic logic (like computational chemistry is chemistry through
algorithm). So, more correct, (and then obviously more ugly) would be
"1st and 3rd Person aspects in computationalist logic". Remember that
the first Person aspect is not necessarily computational or effective,
although it is so, accidentally, for the propositional parts.
Many thanks for trying, and making me realise that the word "theology"
is apparently as problematic in English than in French. Actually I am
very astonished by that, and even somehow anxious about that. People
can understand that Galileo has refuted Aristotle Physics, or even that
QM is incompatible with Aristotle theory of substances. But Aristotle
is also the first guy who did built a thoroughly scientific
(Popper-Falsifiable) theology, and then the comp hyp refutes it, and
forces us to go back to Plato and Pythagorus or to some
neo-Platonician; mainly Plotinus, because the one who will follow
Plotinus will again try to reintroduce some Aristotelian mind/body
ideas which are, unlike Plato's and Pythagorus' one) incompatible with
the comp hyp or even much weaker hyp.).
I am just trying to find simple word to convey to a general audience
what are the logics G and G*. I will say more this afternoon (It is
12h50 am in Brussels) in my reply to Kim.
Best regards,
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Tue Dec 27 2005 - 07:34:29 PST