Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Degrees of Belief

Expand Messages
  • Bruno Marchal
    ... Perhaps. In which theory? I don t see how we can be sure on anything here. ... I don t follow. The fact that the source of the guesses is God, a primitive
    Message 1 of 134 , Jan 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      On 31 Dec 2009, at 01:18, Elliot Temple wrote:

      >

      > On Dec 30, 2009, at 8:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
      >
      > > if all is but a web of woven guesses, we have the right to be
      > > interested in who make the guesses
      >
      > That is a non-sequitur. We may have that right, but what rights we
      > have doesn't follow from what is a web of woven guesses.

      Perhaps. In which theory?
      I don't see how we can be sure on anything here.


      >
      > Perhaps more importantly, I don't agree that the source of a guess
      > is relevant to much of anything.

      I don't follow. The fact that the source of the guesses is God, a
      primitive physical universe, or a web of arithmetical relations
      *could* have some relevance for the search of an explanation, or a
      search for solving a problem, like the consciousness/reality (or mind-
      body) problem.




      > What's relevant is if we see a problem with the guess, or not, and
      > if it solves a problem we have, or not.

      Ultra mathematicalist Platonists, like Xeusippe, have seen at once the
      big problem with Aristotle Naturalism. This has not prevent its
      widespread acceptation, up to the point of putting the big problem it
      raises under the rug.
      For example, physics is good in prediction, and probably in explaining
      material organizations, but it may be misleading for the search of a
      general explanation including consciousness.

      It seems to me that if there are guesses in the natural world, it is
      part of the attempt to unify our knowledge (in a coherent whole) to be
      interested in the guessing phenomenon, including the question of who
      guess, and what makes the guess possible. It seems relevant for the
      mind body problem. But it is relevant also for "matter". For example,
      Everett guessed that the observer is some sort of memory machine,
      obeying itself to QM, and this led him to abandon the wave collapse
      and so he found the many-worlds quantum theory.
      I guess that the observer is a digital machine, and this leads a
      priori to a many computations view of reality, which explains many
      things, yet is today (and for some time) clearly difficult to use for
      predicting quickly new natural features in the world, except for the
      logic of observation.

      To say that the "woven web of guess" is not worth to be studied seems
      arbitrary to me. It could depend on the choice of a theory, and of the
      problem we want to be addressed. The choice of problem in which we are
      interested is personal, and should be theory independent, like love
      and things like that.

      Bruno Marchal
      http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Charles Goodwin
      ... fabilist, ... crossing ... It s similar to the one about postmodernists flying by aeroplanes rather than broomsticks, even though they think all views are
      Message 134 of 134 , Jan 12, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        >>>>> True, Elliot, but, whether Popperian-anti-inductivist,
        fabilist,
        >>>>> nihilist or whatever, remember to look both ways before
        crossing
        >>>>> the road.
        >>>>
        >>>> I don't understand where roads come into it.
        >>>
        >>> You must live in an unusually safe (and humorless) part of the
        >>> multiverse.
        >>
        >> Will you try explaining your joke?
        >
        > Elliot: I will try iff any other FoR lister, unfamiliar with roads
        > and safety drill, requests an explanation. Otherwise, I suspect we
        > would both be wasting time.

        It's similar to the one about postmodernists flying by aeroplanes rather
        than broomsticks, even though they "think all views are equally valid".

        Charles
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.