--- Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> Le 03-févr.-06, à 23:45, John M a écrit :
>
> > --- Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> > Just compare past systems of 'logic' - say back to
> > 3000 years, about "the same nature (world)" and
> >you can agree that ALL OF THEM cannot be true.
>
> I agree. I would say HALF of them are true. My point
> is that we can test it.
>
Bruno, You missed my point: whatever you want to test
is still WITHIN the - I condone - HALF which you deem
true. But it is perfectly circular: you test our human
logic/understanding within human logic/understanding.
The caveman 200,000 years ago used the same (?) for
establishing our mental ways with a lot less empirical
cognitive inventory for use. And we still don't know
all (understatement). Ignorance without knowing what
we don't know - unstructurably.
SNIP
>
> > ignorance about what?
>
> about ourselves and the rest. Already about numbers.
>
>
> > We have to know "about it" to
> > structure it.
Could Columbus ever
'structure' the No-American West-Coast region when he
thought he is in Asia?
>
> Bruno:
> And it is very hard to do so, but in our west, there
> was an Old School
> discussing the point from Pythagoras to the late
> neoplatonist. I think
> the peak is Plotinus. But in the east: same
> discussions with different
> words.
> Today, we have the math for listening to machines
> and angels, belonging
> to vast lattices of angels (non-machines).
Beautiful.
>
>
> > Solipsism can be humiliating: "I cannot be
> right".<G>
> > #rd person is not denied in my position: it is
> just
> > represented by MY 1st person interpretation of it,
> so
> > while "there is" a 3rd person "truth" it emerges
> in us
> > as our 1st person understanding.
>
>
> No problem with that. We can start from the first
> person as well. In
> some of its presentation Plotinus follows that path.
> Technically it is
> less simple. Albert Visser got the logic of
> intutionistic provability,
> and its corresponding version of the Loeb truth.
> But you know I am a Platonist , and then classical
> logic is more easy
> to handle. Anyway, we get all "hypostases".
> Incompleteness leads
> naturally to many different points of view, even
> with "Truth" limited
> to the truth of proposition about numbers.
Bruno, I don't believe you are a Platonist. You may
accept some (side?)lines of Platonistic ways, but
you are ~3 millennia past Platonism, I think even
past Loebianism. You are a BrunoMarchalist.
>
> Bruno
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
John M
>
Received on Sat Feb 04 2006 - 11:21:35 PST