Re: The Free Logic Foundation

[Mateusz Kowalczyk]

On 09/17/2014 09:29 PM, Ian Grant wrote:
> Here's some more logic that they don't teach kids these days.
> 
> It is now nearly a month since I posted an 8 page text explaining how
> to vastly extend the life-expectancy of the Free Software Foundation.
> 
> In that time I have received a total of three items of evidence (let's
> call them exhibits) which show that there may indeed be some genuinely
> intelligent people reading these lists. Two of these indications were
> messages from the same person, but that's OK.
> 
> Here they are: the exhibits:
> 
>  1  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lightning/2014-09/msg00015.html
>  2  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lightning/2014-09/msg00008.html
>  3  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lightning/2014-09/msg00028.html
> 
> What is interesting is that to many, these indications, exhibits 1&2
> on the one hand, and exhibit 3 on the other, are of a remarkably
> different character. One of them agrees with me, and the other does
> not. Yet I claim that they both show clearly that they have read and
> understood everything I wrote.
> 
> Now the question for the people who think they are logicians, or at
> least, those that think they are _rational human beings,_ is this:
> 
> How is it that I can claim these people both understand what I wrote,
> when one of them agrees with me, but the other doesn't?
> 
> And since I am pretty sure that no-one on these lists other than these
> two people will understand this, I am just going to spoil it for
> everyone else and tell you how it is.
> 
> It's because, although Stefan doesn't agree with me, he clearly
> understands what I have said. The reason he doesn't agree is simply
> that his personal experience, by which he judges truth, is different
> from mine. The experience of Taylan on the other hand, concurs with
> mine, and so Taylan and I make the same judgement of the truth of what
> I say.
> 
> No one else who responded to anything I have said on these lists in
> the past month has been able to demonstrate any understanding
> whatsoever of what I wrote.
> 
> So when you think about the importance of something like PROOF,
> whether in a court of law, or a mathematics book, or proof in coq or
> Isabelle/HOL, then think about this example. What does a proof really
> tell you about the truth?
> 
> Ian
> 

Your essays are not related to guile-devel and only a fraction of your
posts have anything to do with Guile itself. Please take it elsewhere.

Thanks.

-- 
Mateusz K.