Andrew M

Because he thought Pais was nuts. Anyway, physicist David Mermin has since resolved the question to everyone's satisfaction. :-)

I normally think of them as: Subject: A person or thing that is being discussed, described, or dealt with. Object: A person or thing to which a specif...

It's like a "choose your own adventure" book. You fill in the details and then answer that. :-)

:up:

Performative contradiction? Or do you mean other people generally see the world that way, but not you?

It's worth noting the grammatical origin of those two terms which have often acquired different meanings in the history of philosophy (including with ...

OK. Suppose Bob (who she believes to be honest and reliable) told her that it wasn't raining earlier and that he was hosing water on the window. Thus ...

I think so. The Church–Turing–Deutsch thesis takes this a step further and states that the universe itself is mathematically isomorphic to a quantum T...

Alice has formed a belief about the state of the weather (in H1 and H2). We are talking about the state of her knowledge (in terms of K1, K2 and K3). ...

I've presented three models (K1, K2, and K3) that each provide a potential answer. Hypothetical's H1 and H2 demonstrate the consequences of each model...

I didn't. There's a difference between making a claim that it is raining (which I did not do) and presenting a hypothetical within which Alice makes a...

There is no guarantee. Alice can show that her claim is true in H1 by pointing out the window since that is what justifies her belief. She can't show ...

OK, let's test our claims. I'll outline the three distinct models for knowledge that we've discussed here (K1, K2 and K3) and what they imply for two ...

We know when to use the word "truth" when we have a justifiable belief for when to use it and our belief is true. Note that you keep presuming that on...

As far as scientists can tell, all physical systems are quantum and so will produce the same quantum behavior as microscopic particles (one example is...

It's not so straightforward. While a position measurement makes the position definite (within the measured range), it also makes the momentum indefini...

You don't. Knowledge doesn't require proof. It requires that one's belief is both justified (a standard that is lower than proof) and true. Ordinarily...

Part of a quantum particle's identity is that it can have amplitude for two or more positions (i.e., a superposition). This is just a different notion...

See identical particles which are indistinguishable in principle.

In the Alice/rain hypothetical, the state of affairs is that the window is being hosed with water (i.e., it is not raining). When Alice looks out the ...

:up:

From an operational perspective, "true" randomness would come from outside the system of interest (such as from thermal noise or quantum phenomena tha...

Yes, so does any puzzle remain for you? BTW here's a quick-and-dirty example. Suppose my algorithm for 1000 dice throws is to take the first 1000 prim...

Yes, that is my view. We can be mistaken about whether we know it is raining just as we can be mistaken about whether it is raining. With the rain exa...

It doesn't imply that. A number-generating algorithm simulating 1000 throws can be completely deterministic. Given the algorithm, I could correctly pr...

That 2 and 4 are true is completely consistent with determinism. A deterministic algorithm is able to produce pseudorandom numbers that follow a proba...

We are trying to describe a particular state of affairs - the way the world is. If our claim is true then we have been successful in that endeavor. Su...

Because people can make a mistake when they deploy those terms to describe a state of affairs. Alice looks out the window and claims it is raining. It...

I've been saying it from the beginning of our exchange, but I'm glad you've finally caught up! ;-) That people are fallible means that they sometimes ...

Fair enough. How would you explain it?

There is no getting around the fact that no-one has an infallible guarantee that any specific claim is true. So there's no point criticizing the model...

We seem to be in essential agreement. My main point about prior beliefs is that Bob would presumably just glance at the clock and automatically form a...

I think so, at least in principle. What I was referring to here is the idea that Bob first needed to think about whether the clock was working before ...

I'm curious whether you think there can ever be justified but false beliefs. If not, then the T condition in JTB would be redundant since the J would ...

I have a model for what knowledge is. For example, my model says that knowledge is always true. So if Alice says that she knows it is raining, but it'...

Bob looks at the clock and forms the belief that it is 3pm. That's a basic or rudimentary belief with no implication that he needed another belief pri...

That's the intention, but there is no guarantee of success. Compare with using the word "raining". Alice might look out the window and say, "It's rain...

I don't think so. You, as a language user, could in principle identify the premises of any belief and check if they're true (and thus whether the beli...

Yes, where well-grounded means that the belief as well as all the premises that the belief depends on are true.

Yes, exactly. Particular conventions have emerged because they are useful. They represent the pragmatic middle ground between infinite checking and no...

Yes, for a true claim to be knowledge it must be well-grounded (i.e., all the premises that the claim depends on must themselves be true). But it's im...

I think that people would ordinarily think that your belief was justified (reasonable, warranted, etc.). Here's a filled-out example to illustrate. Al...

Yes, exactly. No. Just above you were talking about our usage of knowledge terms ("know", "knowledge", etc.), but now you're talking about our knowled...

We didn't agree on this and it's the key issue. People use the term "know" correctly if their belief is justifiable. It need not be true. They only mi...

Indeed. The following Wittgenstein anecdote seems apt here. OK, though SEP notes that "The debate about conventionality of simultaneity seems far from...

The way I think of it is that every object has a present moment, just as every object has a location. People on Earth (as with most matter in the univ...

In order to justifiably believe that it is raining, Alice needs to look out the window. If her belief that it is raining is true then she knows that i...

If Alice looks out the window before claiming that she knows that it is raining, then her use of the term "know" is justifiable. If her claim is false...

Yes. It's the standard dictionary definition, so it shouldn't be surprising to people.

Correct and that's important. But to say that a duck is all those things together that make a duck leaves us none the wiser about what a duck is. Neit...