From pycyn@aol.com Sun Oct 07 12:47:23 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 7 Oct 2001 19:44:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 5112 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2001 19:44:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.220 with QMQP; 7 Oct 2001 19:44:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m08.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.163) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Oct 2001 19:47:22 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.7d.1c03697f (18710) for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 15:47:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7d.1c03697f.28f20b46@aol.com> Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 15:47:18 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] "knowledge as to who saw who" readings To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_7d.1c03697f.28f20b46_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_7d.1c03697f.28f20b46_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/6/2001 10:15:30 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > >And SA3b is pretty likely false, since it is unlikely that he knows -- even > >believes, even conceives -- all the true answers. > > In And's version, he knows the full extension, and knows that > it is the full extension, so that would involve knowing all > the true answers. The question occured in a context, and in that > context the true answers were not inconceivably unknowable. > And's case is largely unrealistic and cooked up to make his theory look good and ours less so. He may know the extension of the property, but he far less likely to know that he knows than to know -- the evidence that there are no further cases is much harder to get than the evidence for the cases (Nero Wolfe is always saying, with some considerable justification, that you can't prove a negative -- except by proving something incompatible with the corresponding positive, which is hard to come by for this case). In any case, knowing all the answers isn't the solution, since most of the answers are false -- not that you use this solution. But trying to sort them out with {le} won't work either, for all the usual reasons. If this is a real situation, I would just add that he knows that what he knows is enough -- though I would be sceptical of the claim. --part1_7d.1c03697f.28f20b46_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/6/2001 10:15:30 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


>And SA3b is pretty likely false, since it is unlikely that he knows -- even
>believes, even conceives -- all the true answers.

In And's version, he knows the full extension, and knows that
it is the full extension, so that would involve knowing all
the true answers. The question occured in a context, and in that
context the true answers were not inconceivably unknowable.

And's case is largely unrealistic and cooked up to make his theory look good and ours less so.  He may know the extension of the property, but he far less likely to know that he knows than to know  -- the evidence that there are no further cases is much harder to get than the evidence for the cases (Nero Wolfe is always saying, with some considerable justification, that you can't prove a negative -- except by proving something incompatible with the corresponding positive, which is hard to come by for this case). In any case, knowing all the answers isn't the solution, since most of the answers are false -- not that you use this solution.  But trying to sort them out with {le} won't work either, for all the usual reasons.  If this is a real situation, I would just add that he knows that what he knows is enough -- though I would be sceptical of the claim. --part1_7d.1c03697f.28f20b46_boundary--