Understanding
in [Logic]
|
Prev: I Think Therefore I Am - rebuttal
Next: NAY, I SAY AGAIN, STUBBORN STAINS? USE BRILLO. ONLY A BRILLO UNDERPANTS CAN OUTSHINE THE SUN.
From: William Elliot on 21 Mar 2010 03:55 On Sat, 20 Mar 2010, Marshall wrote: >> >>>>>>>> MATHEMATICS is a belief system which can be almost mechanically >>>>>>>> followed. >> >>>>>>> False. �Mathematics is not religion. �Religion is belief system. >> >>>>>> The premises >>>>>> �Mathematics is not religion. >>>>>> �Religion is [a] belief system. >>>>>> do not imply >>>>>> �Mathematics is not a belief system. >> >>>>> So what? �I didn't say they did. >>>>> I made three declarative statements. >> >>>> Oh, yes, of course. �Just three simple statements, with no inferences >>>> intended. Of course you did. >> >>> Ok, just for you, I'll consolidate the three in one >>> hallucinated sillygism into the one true utterance. >> >>> � �Absurd, you're viewing math as religion. >> >> Regardless of the truth of the original claim, he was not evidently >> viewing math as religion. �People use the term "belief systems" in >> many different ways, you know. �For instance, as a means of generating >> or justifying beliefs? > > Next up, you can correct his spelling. > No, that would change the connotation of what I wrote. ----
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 21 Mar 2010 08:54 William Elliot <marsh(a)rdrop.remove.com> writes: > On Sat, 20 Mar 2010, Jesse F. Hughes wrote: >> William Elliot <marsh(a)rdrop.remove.com> writes: > >>> Absurd, you're viewing math as religion. >> >> Regardless of the truth of the original claim, he was not evidently >> viewing math as religion. People use the term "belief systems" in >> many different ways, you know. For instance, as a means of generating >> or justifying beliefs? >> > Beliefs are not assumptions. > No, they're not. And so? -- "I am a force of Nature. Time is a friend of mine, and We talk about things, here and there. And sometimes We muse a bit [...] and then We watch them go... in the meantime, Time and I, We play with some of them, at least for a little while." --- JSH and His pal, Time.
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 21 Mar 2010 08:54 Marshall <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Mar 20, 6:03 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: >> William Elliot <ma...(a)rdrop.remove.com> writes: >> > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010, Jesse F. Hughes wrote: >> >> William Elliot <ma...(a)rdrop.remove.com> writes: >> >>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010, Jesse F. Hughes wrote: >> >>>> William Elliot <ma...(a)rdrop.remove.com> writes: >> >> >>>>>> MATHEMATICS is a belief system which can be almost mechanically >> >>>>>> followed. >> >> >>>>> False. Mathematics is not religion. Religion is belief system. >> >> >>>> The premises >> >>>> Mathematics is not religion. >> >>>> Religion is [a] belief system. >> >>>> do not imply >> >>>> Mathematics is not a belief system. >> >> >>> So what? I didn't say they did. >> >>> I made three declarative statements. >> >> >> Oh, yes, of course. Just three simple statements, with no inferences >> >> intended. Of course you did. >> >> > Ok, just for you, I'll consolidate the three in one >> > hallucinated sillygism into the one true utterance. >> >> > Absurd, you're viewing math as religion. >> >> Regardless of the truth of the original claim, he was not evidently >> viewing math as religion. People use the term "belief systems" in >> many different ways, you know. For instance, as a means of generating >> or justifying beliefs? > > Next up, you can correct his spelling. I would, but I don't have a good head for picking funny pseudonyms. -- "[Sometimes, I don't know what to do] so I guess. Technically what I do is called making a hypothesis. It's like what physicists do, and I basically operate a lot like a theoretical physicist." -- James S. Harris
From: Marc Alcobé García on 23 Mar 2010 03:55 On 18 mar, 16:04, yasu <yasuakik...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you,.. I do have some books on the incompleteness theorem. "Forever undecided" is not only a guide to Gödel's theorems, but also an introduction to doxastic logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_logic which seemed to be at the heart of your discussion. (It was you who first mentioned the expression 'belief system').
From: yasu on 24 Mar 2010 18:21
On Mar 23, 4:55 pm, Marc Alcobé García <malc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 18 mar, 16:04, yasu <yasuakik...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thank you,.. I do have some books on the incompleteness theorem. > > "Forever undecided" is not only a guide to Gödel's theorems, but also > an introduction to doxastic logic: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_logic > > which seemed to be at the heart of your discussion. (It was you who > first mentioned the expression 'belief system'). Thank you very much for this link: http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/avigad/Papers/understanding.pdf I have been reading this in the past few days. Although it's not easy for me because I lack the mathematical background, I have been trying to "understand" :-) what he means. I think I am feeling better now that I think my original thinking was not too far off. Thank you also for mentioning doxastic logic. It looks very interesting! It seems that I need to learn modal logic, which I also heard for the first time, before I can study doxastic logic. It seems to me that "understanding" is similar to how babies learn the first language. Babies just cannot read the textbook to understand the first language; they need to interact with someone who knows the language. It seems that textbooks, axiomatic theorems, proofs, etc are just auxiliary help us to "understand" something efficiently. In a sense, it seems to me if an axiomatic theory is completely bullet proof (I am referring to something like the technicalities of completeness, consistency, etc) or not is not important, at least in the not-purely-academic context, to our understanding of numbers, etc. As long as we "reasonably" understand something, we can do practical things like encoding messages with passwords, creating a search engine like Google, calculating mortgage payment, etc I don't know if I what I wrote makes much sense but now I feel that I don't have to feel terrible that my understanding is not genuine. I think understanding is a very human practice that for all intents and purposes, is "practical". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_logic |