HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Do completed infinite totalities exist? Was: Lowneheim-Skolem theorem
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:17:37 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <TORKEL.92Nov22231254@bast.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
> In article <371@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
> 
>   The "pragmatic reality" of present day mathematics is what my comments
> have been about. The mathematics you envisage, which is pretty opaque
> to me, may or may not be viable. By all means develop and present it.
> I see no point in arguing about hypothetical mathematics.

The issue we were discussing was what questions are properly considered
the philosophy of mathematics and which are the substance of mathematics.
The pragmatic reality of mathematics at a given time should be largely
irrelevant to *how* one makes this separation. I regard mathematical
theorems as the substance and interpretation of those theorems and the
sets they reference as the philosophy and I consider that all proofs are
relative to some formal system, even if the system is not explicitly given.
I am not sure what your position is.

Paul Budnik
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Why Logic?
Date: 22 Nov 92 20:23:26 GMT
	<1992Nov22.014208.6629@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU's message of 22 Nov 92 01:42:08 GMT

Hmmm... rather to my astonishment, it appears that the word "logic" here
is becoming polymorphous.  On at least one hand, we have a very general
idea of logic as "the study of the principles of reasoning" or "valid
reasoning as opposed to invalid reasoning".  On another hand, we have
the much more constrained definition of formal or mathematical logic.
(An appropriate Peano axiomatization leading to the generation of
infinite hands is left as an exercise.)

I believe that the original question was really in the first domain, so
it isn't clear that the mathematical arguments -- while interesting in
themselves -- are very informative.  Considering the question from the
more general position, it appears that the original question

   Can anyone explain why we use logic? Unfortunately, any logical
   arguments to support logic, are unfortunately, invalid.  --Ray Cote

is clearly an attempt to attack the use of "logic" by paradox, by
claiming that there is no "logical" reason to use logic.  However, as
someone else pointed out, the question presumes an appeal to logic on
its face, because the distinction between a "valid" and "invalid"
argument is itself a logical one.  One might argue therefore that the
best argument for using logic is the fact that the attempt to challenge
the use of logic must itself appeal to "logic", that is, to valid
reasoning.  This can lead to the idea of a Platonic Form for "valid
reasoning" that pre-exists our attempts to use that valid reasoning,
making "logic" into a sort of natural-science search for a better and
better description of this Ideal of Valid Reasoning.

More pragmatically, there appear to be only two forms of reaching
agreement available: either we appeal to an idea of "valid argument"
under which, by a dialectic or discursive process, we arrive at a
conclusion acceptable to all parties; or we deny that such a process can
exist, in which case we are reduced to the more direct method of hitting
one another over the head with large rocks until one side or the other
gives in.

--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Hypotheses (was: Re: Assumptions vs.
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:02:00 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

> I wrote:  
> >> What person thinks he saw can easily be slightly different from what he  
> >> actually saw.    
>   
> In article <10292319.81767.18770@kcbbs.gen.nz> Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (H
> >and how would you know that ?    
>   
> Because there have been times when *I* thought I saw something, and later  
  
yes, you thought you _saw_....but you didn't see it clearly...  
  
> evidence (looking at it more closely, for example) led me to conclude that I
> had been mistaken.  
  
then you saw it better...  
  
>   
> >I think you are in a loop.  
>   
> I think you are raising a philosophical point irrelevant to the discussion  
  
how do you know ?  
  
> at hand.  If you want to define perception in such a way that it is not  
> possible to mistaken about a perception, go right ahead; but that is not the
  
we are not talking about "perception", we are talking about the use of  
the word "see"....  
  
> sense of the word I had in mind.  
  
and I am not interested what is the sense of this word in your mind, unless  
you can put it on the sceen :-)  
  
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.individualism
From: rseymour@reed.edu (Robert Seymour)
Subject: Re: RF more D: talk.philosophy.objectivism
Keywords: objectivism
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 21:27:39 GMT
Reply-To: rseymour@reed.edu

In article <1992Nov15.094302.8873@wuecl.wustl.edu> amc@wucs1.wustl.edu (Adam  
Costello) writes:
> I recently propsed the newsgroup
> 
>     talk.philosophy.objectivism
>     unmoderated
>     For the discussion of all topics related to Objectivism.
> 
> I have since learned of many people who favor the creation of the group,
> and a few who oppose it.  The latter are opposed not to the group per
> se, but to its unmoderated status.  These few claim to be able to rally
> many no-votes, and I have reason to believe them.
> 
> I personally would prefer an unmoderated group, but to me it's more
> important that there be a group at all.  Therefore, I am willing to
> consider changing the proposal to one for a moderated group.  What do
> others think about this?
> 
> If a moderated group were created, Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com> would be
> willing to serve as moderator.  He is currently moderator of the
> objectivism@vix.com mailing list.
> 
> AMC
> amc@cics.wustl.edu

	My vote would be for an unmoderated group. While I expect that there  
will be some people who will just subscribe so that they may attack objectivism  
at every chance, I think the unmoderated forum would be preferable. If we  
include language in the charter to the effect that such a group is set up to  
discuss objectivism in a productive and useful manner (not necessarily always  
positive, but constructive) then we can simply point out the charter to anyone  
who is a pain, and I should expect that they would comply. If this is not the  
case, may an unmoderated group restrict a person from posting?

--
Robert Seymour				rseymour@reed.edu
Departments of Physics and Philosophy
Artificial Life Project			Reed College
Reed Solar Energy Project (SolTrain)	Portland, OR
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Subject: Re: Measurement & Precision
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:11:12 GMT

In article <1dpg74INNp4n@gap.caltech.edu> palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes:
>dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>
>>PS. BTW, it would be an interesting to put 5 or 6 scientists/engineers on
>>a desert island (rich in ores) with the goal of producing a 5um accuracy stepper
>>motor from stratch. They are allowed any text books they like and we feed them
>>well, so they can work on it full time.
>
>>It would be interesting to see if they could do it within their life time.
>
>>Do people think it would necessarily take a number of generations?
>
>>Also recording the minimum number of steps it took to "bootstrap" modern
>>precision out of stone age tools would be a fascinating bit of trivia.
>
>Piece of cake.  (Assuming you have the right kind of ores.)
>Make a 5 micron/step 'inchworm' motor.  (An inchworm motor works
>using the expansion and contraction of piezo-electric crystals
>to make the system 'walk'.  They are used in probe positioning for
>atomic resolution scanning-probe microscopes  (e.g. scanning tunnelling
>microscopes.))
>
>Wire you can beat out of native gold.  Batteries might be a problem,
>but you could make a generator out of magnetite and wire.  Use quartz
>for the piezo-electric components.  Polished stone for the rails.
>
>Voila, within a year.  Less if the team includes a master blacksmith who
>can do ab initio smelting of metals from ores.  A lot longer if you have
>a management team.
>
>All it takes is a little Conneticut Yankee ingenuity.
>

Hmmmmmm, I don't think it's quite as simple as that. The whole measurement
technology itself has to be bootstrapped up, measurement standards reinvented
etc etc for them to be able to measure the positioning performance of the
motor.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.misc
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: QM and Free Will
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 18 Nov 92 00:21:26 GMT

In <27811@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:

>Contrary to the presumption of many posters, there is no necessary
>connection between lack of free and determinism, or free will and lack
>of determinism. It would help if posters who wish to presume one or
>both of these would spend a little time elaborating some decent
>supporting arguments.

Determinism negates free will.  Lack of determinism does not necessarily
entail free will.

In re my first statement, wherein I disagree with Chris Malcolm, I submit
another quotation from G. K. Chesterton:

	Intelligent skeptics...mean that the universe is itself a 
	universal prison; that existence itself is a limitation 
	and a control; and it is not for nothing that they call   
	causation a chain...To them it is like believing in fairy-
	land to believe in such freedom as we enjoy.  It is like
	believing in men with wings to entertain the fancy of men
	with wills.  It is like accepting a fable about a squirrel
	in conversation with a mountain to believe in a man who is
	free to ask or a God who is free to answer.  This is a
	manly and a rational negation for which I for one shall
	always show respect.  But I decline to show respect for 
	those who will first of all clip the wings and chain the
	squirrel, rivet the chain and refuse the freedom, close
	all the doors of the cosmic prison on us with a clang of
	eternal iron, tell us that our emancipation is a dream and
	our dungeon a necessity; and then calmly turn round and
	tell us they have a freer thought and a more liberal
	theology.
  			_The Everlasting Man_, pp. 242-243
			in the Image Books 1955 edition,
			Doubleday & Company, Inc.

I would have put the part after the last semicolon slightly
differently: "and then calmly turn around and tell us that we
still have free will, simply because we are free to do as we
will."

For if that will is foreordained from the beginning of time,
it is not free.

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: frank@Cookie.secapl.com (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Hypotheses (was: Re: Assumptions vs.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:40:31 GMT
Organization: Security APL, Inc.

In article <10292322.79320.9942@kcbbs.gen.nz> Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas) writes:
>> I wrote:  
>> >> What person thinks he saw can easily be slightly different from what he  
>> >> actually saw.    
>>   
>> In article <10292319.81767.18770@kcbbs.gen.nz> Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (H
>> >and how would you know that ?    
>>   
>> Because there have been times when *I* thought I saw something, and later  
>  
>yes, you thought you _saw_....but you didn't see it clearly...  
>  
>> evidence (looking at it more closely, for example) led me to conclude that I
>> had been mistaken.  
>  
>then you saw it better...  
>  
>>   
>> >I think you are in a loop.  
>>   
>> I think you are raising a philosophical point irrelevant to the discussion  
>  
>how do you know ?  
>  
>> at hand.  If you want to define perception in such a way that it is not  
>> possible to mistaken about a perception, go right ahead; but that is not the
>  
>we are not talking about "perception", we are talking about the use of  
>the word "see"....  
>  
>> sense of the word I had in mind.  
>  
>and I am not interested what is the sense of this word in your mind, unless  
>you can put it on the sceen :-)  

If you have a point which is relevant to the discussion, please make it.
All I can get from this is that you don't like my word choices.  If, on the
other hand, this whole line of commentary was a joke, it wasn't funny.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: frank@Cookie.secapl.com (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Hypotheses (was: Re: Assumptions vs.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:49:32 GMT
Organization: Security APL, Inc.

I wrote:
>> What person thinks he saw can easily be slightly different from what he
>> actually saw.  

In article <10292319.81767.18770@kcbbs.gen.nz> Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas) writes:
>and how would you know that ?  

Because there have been times when *I* thought I saw something, and later
evidence (looking at it more closely, for example) led me to conclude that I
had been mistaken.

>I think you are in a loop.

I think you are raising a philosophical point irrelevant to the discussion
at hand.  If you want to define perception in such a way that it is not
possible to mistaken about a perception, go right ahead; but that is not the
sense of the word I had in mind.
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Popper and Abian and other matters
Date: 15 Nov 92 19:19:33 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: frank@Cookie.secapl.com (Frank Adams)

In article <1992Nov11.223252.133155@Cookie.secapl.com>, frank@Cookie (Frank Adams) writes:
>You seemed to be saying that "fittest" has a naturalistic *definition* -- in
>terms of things like cardiovascular efficiency, etc.  I don't think it does.

I gave naturalistic definitions in limited situations only.  I have no idea
as to whether I even think it has a naturalistic definition in general.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.tech:4161 sci.physics:19149 sci.skeptic:19792
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Measurement & Precision
Date: 18 Nov 1992 15:02:53 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov18.021112.13489@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
=In article <1dpg74INNp4n@gap.caltech.edu> palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes:
=>dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
=>
=>>PS. BTW, it would be an interesting to put 5 or 6 scientists/engineers on
=>>a desert island (rich in ores) with the goal of producing a 5um accuracy stepper
=>>motor from stratch. They are allowed any text books they like and we feed them
=>>well, so they can work on it full time.
=>
=>>It would be interesting to see if they could do it within their life time.
=>
=>>Do people think it would necessarily take a number of generations?
=>
=>>Also recording the minimum number of steps it took to "bootstrap" modern
=>>precision out of stone age tools would be a fascinating bit of trivia.
=>
=>Piece of cake.  (Assuming you have the right kind of ores.)
=>Make a 5 micron/step 'inchworm' motor.  (An inchworm motor works
=>using the expansion and contraction of piezo-electric crystals
=>to make the system 'walk'.  They are used in probe positioning for
=>atomic resolution scanning-probe microscopes  (e.g. scanning tunnelling
=>microscopes.))
=>
=>Wire you can beat out of native gold.  Batteries might be a problem,
=>but you could make a generator out of magnetite and wire.  Use quartz
=>for the piezo-electric components.  Polished stone for the rails.
=>
=>Voila, within a year.  Less if the team includes a master blacksmith who
=>can do ab initio smelting of metals from ores.  A lot longer if you have
=>a management team.
=>
=>All it takes is a little Conneticut Yankee ingenuity.
=>
=
=Hmmmmmm, I don't think it's quite as simple as that. The whole measurement
=technology itself has to be bootstrapped up, measurement standards reinvented
=etc etc for them to be able to measure the positioning performance of the
=motor.

Does anybody else find it interesting that here Derek both commits the fallacy
of his hypothetical troglodyte (if Derek can't figure out how to do it, it's
impossible) and exhibits the behavior of his hypothetical "extreme skeptic"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: bcushman@bagpipe.reed.edu (Ben Cushman)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: free will ?
Date: 19 Nov 92 12:35:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Nov19.123504.1371
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <1992Nov19.065536.5127@ugle.unit.no> tommyjak@solan.unit.no  
(Tommy Jakobsen) writes:
> free from what ?
> 
> God ?
> Randomness ?
> Determinism ?
> 
> What else is there ?
> -- 


What about positive freedom?

You know-- "free to"--
 
Like free do do what I want to do.
Free to will what I want to will.
Free to want waht I want to want.

I don't care about what I am free or nor free from, as long as I am free  
to do, will and want the things I are important to me.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: pj@linz.ensmp.fr (Pierre JOUVELOT <jouvelot@cri.ensmp.fr>)
Subject: Lichtenberg?
Organization: Ecole des Mines de Paris, France
Date: 18 Nov 92 12:40:41


Lichtenberg is an 18th century German philosopher and mathematician who
published a somewhat famed book of aphorisms (he is the inventor of the
"edgeless knife missing its hand").  I'm wondering what he did in the
field of mathematics?

Thanks to answer by e-mail,

Pierre
--
Centre de Recherche en Informatique 			(cri)
Ecole Nationale Supe'rieure des Mines de Paris		(ensmp)
France							(fr)

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: John Wilkins <john@publications.ccc.monash.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Popper and Abian and other matters
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A72EA37066012434@manager.ccc.monash.edu.au>
X-Xxdate: Tue, 17 Nov 92 21:26:08 GMT
Organization: Monash University, Melbourne Australia
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:25:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.004237.50028@Cookie.secapl.com> Frank Adams,
frank@Cookie.secapl.com writes:
>The main content of evolutionary theory is that *random* mutation is the
>only input to this process.  So another sense of "survival of the
fittest"
>is a negative one: survival of the fittest is the only thing driving
>evolution.  This would not be true, for example, of Lamarckian evolution.

A point of clarification:

"Recent" evolutionary biology (post-synthetic) admits of several
different inputs to evolution: drift, non-genetic heredity, and so forth.
I think the point is that the variation that results has to be random
with respect to the selection pressures active on a population (is that
the point of your scare quotes?)

My $1/50th worth: Sober has argued that fitness is a supervenient
property that sums the total vector propensity of a trait (or gene) in a
given selective environment. It is, in other words, a statistical,
stochastic and probabilistic measure. It neither requires nor allows
non-natural selection in a purely Darwinian evolutionary process, and to
that extent, Darwinism *is* tautological -- it is definitionally true
that if a process of populational hereditable change over time has only
fitness as a relevant proprty contributing to the continuation of traits
(genes, etc), it is Darwinian. If not, it isn't. [A Lamarckian process
could be partly Darwinian, for example.]

A terminological suggestion (to avoid emotive displays): a process that
results in the (qualified as above) survival of the most fit is a
"D-process". One that results in the survival of the most desired (ie, an
intentionally driven process) is an "L-process"; one attracted to a goal
of excellence is a "T-process" (Teilhardian, see Rescher's 1990 book _A
Useful Inheritance_); and one driven by an entelechical unfolding of
pre-existing form, a "B-process" (Bergsonian -- if you don't follow this
last, don't worry about it). So far as I can ascertain, this exhausts the
evolutionary process spectrum.

John Wilkins
Manager, Publishing & Advertising
Monash University, Melbourne Australia
Internet: john@publications.ccc.monash.edu.au
Tel: (+613) 573 2099
--Monash and I agree on several matters: this may, or may not, be one of
them
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Commitment to logic; was ...  
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 19 Nov 92 23:58:20 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

> In article <1992Nov17.214321.18500@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.
> >In article <1992Nov17.175227.20588@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.ug
> >>  
> >>Indeed.  Logical reasoning tells me that if I walk out in front of a bus, 
> >>I'll get run over.  Does he mean that in the Far East this doesn't hold?  
  
In Egypt it holds like this:  
if you don't look left first before you get on the bus, then you are dead.   
  
In such a place if you say:  
if I walk out in front of a bus, I'll get run over.  
  
that would be a clever joke, rather than some important result of logical   
reasoning....  
  
> >LOGIC tells you this?!?!? Astounding! I'd love to see that logic. I've  
> >always thought this was contingent; true, but contingent. The things  
> >you learn on the net...  
>   
> Of course it's contingent and is arrived at BY LOGICAL REASONING FROM PREMIS
> I never said it was analytic.  
> :-  Michael A. Covington     internet mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu   
Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.tech:4119 comp.ai.philosophy:6819 talk.philosophy.misc:2496 sci.lang:8049
From: cacst9+@pitt.edu (Cecelia A Clancy)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.lang
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.philosophy.language
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:26:37 GMT
Followup-To: sci.philosophy.tech
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: cacst9@unixd2.cis.pitt.edu


I would like to see this or a similar newsgroup be established.

Would it also include psycholingustics ?


Cecelia   <muller+@pitt.edu>

       Cecelia Mu"ller        (412) 682-2798
       P.O. Box 71222
       Pittsburgh, PA 15213
       USA 
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech