X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Message-ID: <34C653F4.669F@locke.ccil.org> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 15:00:52 -0500 From: John Cowan Organization: Lojban Peripheral X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lojban List Subject: Re: knowledge and belief References: <199801211839.NAA03138@locke.ccil.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From-Space-Date: Wed Jan 21 15:00:52 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - Rob Zook wrote: > >What we're saying is that "x1 knows that x2 at time X" and "x2 is false" are > >contradictory statements. If x2 turns out to be false, then x1 didn't > >know x2 at any time, no matter what x1 or anyone else believed at time X. > > Then in Lojban terms it seems you want to mix a jetnu claim and a fatcu > claim. That seems like a main problem here. Again I think we must > regard truth as a measurable quantity relative to the instrument or > it makes no sense. Not so. I will rephrase as "x1 knows that x2 at time X by system S" and "not-x2 is true by system S". These two are contradictory, unless there are specific magical references to time within system S that cause the statements to cancel out, such as "S = statements believed false by x1 at time X" > What it looks to me we have here are two camps, one who wants to base > djuno claims on fatci and one who wants to base djuno claims on jetnu. > I think the baseline implies jetnu rather than fatci. So do I, and in fact I belong to the fatci-is-useless clique. Again, when I say in English that something "is true" or "is false", I mean with respect to an unspecified but internally consistent truth model. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (FW 16.5)