mist42nz comments on Belief in Belief - Less Wrong

66 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 29 July 2007 05:49PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (164)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: mist42nz 23 November 2011 09:10:52AM *  0 points [-]

You have declared B(X) and B(~X) as is often done (re: P=P, Q=~P)

yet you have not proven (or examined) that X is properly (and only) dividable into X, ~X for all cases of "X" for practice: "this sentence is not true". is easily correct, if one realises that it -assumes- that the only possible values of the sentence are covered by X OR ~X. (ie the B(X)= TRUE || B(~X)=FALSE). When one realises that "a square circle" looks exactly like 'a square circle', and thus can be "real" then one starts to understand the a priori assumptions one has created when looking at conditions tested by B(X) and B(~X) as proof tests.

:) Not believing in belief (or faith) is a belief.