Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!umd5!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!bill
From: bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Free Will-Randomness and Question-Structure
Message-ID: <304@proxftl.UUCP>
Date: 12 Jun 88 16:44:06 GMT
References: <22533@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> <194@proxftl.UUCP> <1214@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Distribution: comp.ai
Organization: Proximity Technology, Ft. Lauderdale
Lines: 18

In article <1214@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>, gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes:
> In article <194@proxftl.UUCP> bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes:
> >(N.B.  The mathematician's "true" is not the same thing as the
> > epistemologist's "true".
> Which epistemologist?  The reality and truth of mathematical objects
> has been a major concern in many branches of philosophy.  Many would
> see mathematics, when it succeeds in formalising proof, as one form of
> truth.  Perhaps consistency is a better word, and we should reserve
> truth for the real thing :-)

Actually, the point was just that: when I say that something is
true in a mathematical sense, I mean just one thing: the thing
follows from the chosen axioms; when I say that something is
epistemologically true (sorry about the neologism), I mean one
thing, someone else means something else, and a third declares
the idea meaningless.

Thus the two kinds of truth need to be considered separately.