Quote:Quote:<hr>A cat is a cat; I am myself; you are you; human nature is human nature; things are as they are. The emptiness of such assertions stands out in all its uncouthness. It is the consummate expression of one-sided, formalistic, dogmatic thinking.<hr>
More irony. I can't cope.
Personally, I think that's a very intelligent answer. What do I care if a teacher can't figure out what a friggen cat is!
And then there's emptiness...
Reality
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Re: Reality
Quote:Quote:<hr>
DQ writes:
Moreover, nothing can ever be perceived without A=A, and nothing can ever exist without A=A. It is fundamental to everything.
<hr>
Does DQ = DQ ?
DQ is constantly morphing with time. DQ learns new things mentally. DQ is also physically changing from moment to moment, therefore DQ at time t1 is not equal to DQ at time t2.
Anything undergoing change through time is not equal to its former self in the next moment...
Aha! you say, since time can also be described as a dimension, DQ's entire four dimensional self does not change! 3 physical dimensions plus time dimension, using squareroot[-1] = 4D.
Think again.
There may be ever higher dimension where 4D changes relative to 5D and 5D changes relative to 6D ... etc.
Is there only a finite number of dimensions where this apparently endless nightmare stops?
We hope ;)
Of course infinity itself does not obey the law of identity:
infinity + infinity = infinity
aleph_0 + aleph_0 = aleph_0
A+A = A
A = 2A
A = not-A
:hat :hat :hat
DQ writes:
Moreover, nothing can ever be perceived without A=A, and nothing can ever exist without A=A. It is fundamental to everything.
<hr>
Does DQ = DQ ?
DQ is constantly morphing with time. DQ learns new things mentally. DQ is also physically changing from moment to moment, therefore DQ at time t1 is not equal to DQ at time t2.
Anything undergoing change through time is not equal to its former self in the next moment...
Aha! you say, since time can also be described as a dimension, DQ's entire four dimensional self does not change! 3 physical dimensions plus time dimension, using squareroot[-1] = 4D.
Think again.
There may be ever higher dimension where 4D changes relative to 5D and 5D changes relative to 6D ... etc.
Is there only a finite number of dimensions where this apparently endless nightmare stops?
We hope ;)
Of course infinity itself does not obey the law of identity:
infinity + infinity = infinity
aleph_0 + aleph_0 = aleph_0
A+A = A
A = 2A
A = not-A
:hat :hat :hat
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Reality
The comedy continues .....
analog wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: Moreover, nothing can ever be perceived without A=A, and nothing can ever exist without A=A. It is fundamental to everything.
analog: Does DQ = DQ ?
DQ is constantly morphing with time. DQ learns new things mentally. DQ is also physically changing from moment to moment, therefore DQ at time t1 is not equal to DQ at time t2.
Anything undergoing change through time is not equal to its former self in the next moment... <hr> Yes, and that is because the DQ of that given moment is only equal to the DQ of that given moment, and not the DQ of any other moment.
In other words:
DQ(t1) does not equal DQ(t2) because:
DQ(t1)=DQ(t1)
and
DQ(t2)=DQ(t2)
That is to say, because A=A.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Aha! you say, since time can also be described as a dimension, DQ's entire four dimensional self does not change! 3 physical dimensions plus time dimension, using squareroot[-1] = 4D.
Think again.<hr> If DQ's entire four-dimensional self does not change, then it lacks the identity of a changeable self. The reason why it lacks the identity of a changeable self, or indeed of any other self, is because it is only identical to its own self.
In other words:
DQ(4Dself)=DQ(4Dself)
A=A
Give it away, analog. You'll never win this battle.
Quote:Quote:<hr>There may be ever higher dimension where 4D changes relative to 5D and 5D changes relative to 6D ... etc.<hr>Irrelevant.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Is there only a finite number of dimensions where this apparently endless nightmare stops? <hr> It does not matter either way.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Of course infinity itself does not obey the law of identity:
infinity + infinity = infinity<hr> You cannot add anything to infinity by definition. So this equation is invalid.
Quote:Quote:<hr>aleph_0 + aleph_0 = aleph_0<hr> I have no idea what this means, but given your track record, I'm sure it will be irrelevant.
analog wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: Moreover, nothing can ever be perceived without A=A, and nothing can ever exist without A=A. It is fundamental to everything.
analog: Does DQ = DQ ?
DQ is constantly morphing with time. DQ learns new things mentally. DQ is also physically changing from moment to moment, therefore DQ at time t1 is not equal to DQ at time t2.
Anything undergoing change through time is not equal to its former self in the next moment... <hr> Yes, and that is because the DQ of that given moment is only equal to the DQ of that given moment, and not the DQ of any other moment.
In other words:
DQ(t1) does not equal DQ(t2) because:
DQ(t1)=DQ(t1)
and
DQ(t2)=DQ(t2)
That is to say, because A=A.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Aha! you say, since time can also be described as a dimension, DQ's entire four dimensional self does not change! 3 physical dimensions plus time dimension, using squareroot[-1] = 4D.
Think again.<hr> If DQ's entire four-dimensional self does not change, then it lacks the identity of a changeable self. The reason why it lacks the identity of a changeable self, or indeed of any other self, is because it is only identical to its own self.
In other words:
DQ(4Dself)=DQ(4Dself)
A=A
Give it away, analog. You'll never win this battle.
Quote:Quote:<hr>There may be ever higher dimension where 4D changes relative to 5D and 5D changes relative to 6D ... etc.<hr>Irrelevant.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Is there only a finite number of dimensions where this apparently endless nightmare stops? <hr> It does not matter either way.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Of course infinity itself does not obey the law of identity:
infinity + infinity = infinity<hr> You cannot add anything to infinity by definition. So this equation is invalid.
Quote:Quote:<hr>aleph_0 + aleph_0 = aleph_0<hr> I have no idea what this means, but given your track record, I'm sure it will be irrelevant.
-
Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: Reality
Sapius,Quote:Quote:<hr>What has 1+1=2 or 1+1=3 as a whole complex formula got to do with the basic fact of identification of each character which is A=A?<hr>
Traditionaly from the law of identity flows the law of non-contradiction: A cannot be anything else than A. This introduces dualism, making distinction possible and as such defines other things than A possible as appearances. Now it's possible e.g. to have another identity added to the first one, like 'A + NOT A'. One couldn't really do 'A + A' as stated by the 'law of excluded middle' which concludes naturaly from the other laws that it's not possible to have two equal but seperate identities. In other words you cannot duplicate A to 'another A' creating an entity which would be A and NOT A at the same time. If we duplicate A we get something like A'. Of course illusion might do the trick.
So the logicaly imaginary sum A + A is really just A.
In mathematics x + x = 2x, only when x has no fixed identity /value!
2A does not equal A, as does 2 not equal 1.
When 1+1=3, the second natural number will simple defined as '3' and we'll skip the '2'. Otherwise we'll end up with 1=2 or 2=3. This all follows from the one identity law we started with.
Analog,Quote:Quote:<hr>a quantum entity leaves a physical signature corresponding to a wave, and a particle, simultaneously.<hr>
Quantum physics does not interpret something as wave and particle at the same time. One has to choose first what property one measures. This is why some use quantum physics to imply it's our decision that 'influences' the observed. Even if the quantum particle would really be part of a system where A is not A, then it can only be observed by a system where A isA. This is why scientists start talking about 'potential' existing of an unobserved quantum particle, since A=A has to be the case in all cases of meaningful existence. Theories about these 'potential unknown realities' are really handy speculation to cover a lack in current understanding and impossible to use to disqualify A=A.
Traditionaly from the law of identity flows the law of non-contradiction: A cannot be anything else than A. This introduces dualism, making distinction possible and as such defines other things than A possible as appearances. Now it's possible e.g. to have another identity added to the first one, like 'A + NOT A'. One couldn't really do 'A + A' as stated by the 'law of excluded middle' which concludes naturaly from the other laws that it's not possible to have two equal but seperate identities. In other words you cannot duplicate A to 'another A' creating an entity which would be A and NOT A at the same time. If we duplicate A we get something like A'. Of course illusion might do the trick.
So the logicaly imaginary sum A + A is really just A.
In mathematics x + x = 2x, only when x has no fixed identity /value!
2A does not equal A, as does 2 not equal 1.
When 1+1=3, the second natural number will simple defined as '3' and we'll skip the '2'. Otherwise we'll end up with 1=2 or 2=3. This all follows from the one identity law we started with.
Analog,Quote:Quote:<hr>a quantum entity leaves a physical signature corresponding to a wave, and a particle, simultaneously.<hr>
Quantum physics does not interpret something as wave and particle at the same time. One has to choose first what property one measures. This is why some use quantum physics to imply it's our decision that 'influences' the observed. Even if the quantum particle would really be part of a system where A is not A, then it can only be observed by a system where A isA. This is why scientists start talking about 'potential' existing of an unobserved quantum particle, since A=A has to be the case in all cases of meaningful existence. Theories about these 'potential unknown realities' are really handy speculation to cover a lack in current understanding and impossible to use to disqualify A=A.
Re: Reality
Diebert,
Thanks for the explicit and well-articulated explanation above. I am not academically trained, just basic schooling, but that adheres to what I meant in my original post, and know it in my own simple way.
Thanks for the explicit and well-articulated explanation above. I am not academically trained, just basic schooling, but that adheres to what I meant in my original post, and know it in my own simple way.
Re: Reality
Quote:Quote:<hr>
DQ writes:
Yes, and that is because the DQ of that given moment is only equal to the DQ of that given moment, and not the DQ of any other moment.
<hr>
Defining what constitutes any particular "given moment" becomes impossible due to the limits of physically measuring such infinitesimal parameters.
The mathematics of infinitesimals also becomes uncertain. The combination of two infinitesimals can also still be equivalent to a single infinitesimal 8o
Say that one wishes to define a moment of time as being an instant with zero duration. This appears to create problems also:
0+0 = 0
0+0+0 = 0
0+0+0+0 = 0
0+0+0+...+0 = 0
Each instant in time is different from other instants but there exists an infinite number of instants between each and every instant.
With an infinite number of such moments between each and every moment, the logic breaks down.
Uncertainty remains.
Ergo, absolute certainty probably does not apply to all possible worlds, or it might :lol We cannot be certain of certainty or uncertainty ;)
DQ writes:
Yes, and that is because the DQ of that given moment is only equal to the DQ of that given moment, and not the DQ of any other moment.
<hr>
Defining what constitutes any particular "given moment" becomes impossible due to the limits of physically measuring such infinitesimal parameters.
The mathematics of infinitesimals also becomes uncertain. The combination of two infinitesimals can also still be equivalent to a single infinitesimal 8o
Say that one wishes to define a moment of time as being an instant with zero duration. This appears to create problems also:
0+0 = 0
0+0+0 = 0
0+0+0+0 = 0
0+0+0+...+0 = 0
Each instant in time is different from other instants but there exists an infinite number of instants between each and every instant.
With an infinite number of such moments between each and every moment, the logic breaks down.
Uncertainty remains.
Ergo, absolute certainty probably does not apply to all possible worlds, or it might :lol We cannot be certain of certainty or uncertainty ;)
Re: Reality
Take a photo.
Look it over.
Wait!
Take another photo.
Look it over.
Look it over.
Wait!
Take another photo.
Look it over.
-
Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Reality
Quote:Quote:<hr>Each instant in time is different from other instants but there exists an infinite number of instants between each and every instant.
With an infinite number of such moments between each and every moment, the logic breaks down.
<hr>
I would say that time is an illusion, that your concept of time breaks down, before I would say that logic breaks down.
With an infinite number of such moments between each and every moment, the logic breaks down.
<hr>
I would say that time is an illusion, that your concept of time breaks down, before I would say that logic breaks down.
-
Dave Toast
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
Re: Reality
Quote:Quote:<hr>On 6/27/05 at 3:38, Anal writes
Defining what constitutes any particular "given moment" becomes impossible due to the limits of physically measuring such infinitesimal parameters.<hr>
Defining what constitutes any particular "given moment" becomes impossible due to the limits of physically measuring such infinitesimal parameters.<hr>
-
Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Reality
The only way I can see someone falsifying A=A is by proving that definitions cannot be used to find truth. Of course, they would have to prove that without using any linguistic or symbolic system whatsoever... or risk unintentionally providing a counter-example to their argument.
Out of idle curiousity, is there any way of finding truth that does not require definitions?
Out of idle curiousity, is there any way of finding truth that does not require definitions?
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Reality
analog wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>DQ: Yes, and that is because the DQ of that given moment is only equal to the DQ of that given moment, and not the DQ of any other moment.
analog: Defining what constitutes any particular "given moment" becomes impossible due to the limits of physically measuring such infinitesimal parameters. <hr>I should point out that you were the one who brought up this example in this first place, as an attempt to refute the universality of A=A. Are you now suddenly turning around and criticizing your own behaviour here? If you are, it would certainly be a positive step.
Quote:Quote:<hr> The mathematics of infinitesimals also becomes uncertain. The combination of two infinitesimals can also still be equivalent to a single infinitesimal
Say that one wishes to define a moment of time as being an instant with zero duration. This appears to create problems also:
0+0 = 0
0+0+0 = 0
0+0+0+0 = 0
0+0+0+...+0 = 0
Each instant in time is different from other instants but there exists an infinite number of instants between each and every instant.
With an infinite number of such moments between each and every moment, the logic breaks down.<hr> I know you really want to believe this, but it's not the case. What we call a "moment in time" is purely a conceptual creation on our parts. It never really exists out "there" in the physical world; it's simply our abstract mind's way of dealing with what is essentially a seamless phenomenon. A bit like the lines of longitude and latitude breaking up the seamlessness of the earth's surface.
This is why an infinite regression is immediately created in these circumstances. As soon as the mind begins to cut things up (and thus falsify what is really out there), it becomes immersed in a purely abstract realm in which the cutting up process could conceiveably go on forever. There is no physical law within this realm which would put an end to this cutting up process. It all depends on the whim of the person doing it.
And needless to say, whatever cuttings we finally decide to finish with will always conform to the principle of A=A, as I demonstrated with the DQ(t1) and DQ(t2) example. So alas, there is no breaking down of logic at all.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Uncertainty remains.<hr> Only in your head. What shines through in all of this is that uncertainty is your God and it distorts all of your thinking.
Edited by: DavidQuinn000 at: 6/27/05 10:12
Quote:Quote:<hr>DQ: Yes, and that is because the DQ of that given moment is only equal to the DQ of that given moment, and not the DQ of any other moment.
analog: Defining what constitutes any particular "given moment" becomes impossible due to the limits of physically measuring such infinitesimal parameters. <hr>I should point out that you were the one who brought up this example in this first place, as an attempt to refute the universality of A=A. Are you now suddenly turning around and criticizing your own behaviour here? If you are, it would certainly be a positive step.
Quote:Quote:<hr> The mathematics of infinitesimals also becomes uncertain. The combination of two infinitesimals can also still be equivalent to a single infinitesimal
Say that one wishes to define a moment of time as being an instant with zero duration. This appears to create problems also:
0+0 = 0
0+0+0 = 0
0+0+0+0 = 0
0+0+0+...+0 = 0
Each instant in time is different from other instants but there exists an infinite number of instants between each and every instant.
With an infinite number of such moments between each and every moment, the logic breaks down.<hr> I know you really want to believe this, but it's not the case. What we call a "moment in time" is purely a conceptual creation on our parts. It never really exists out "there" in the physical world; it's simply our abstract mind's way of dealing with what is essentially a seamless phenomenon. A bit like the lines of longitude and latitude breaking up the seamlessness of the earth's surface.
This is why an infinite regression is immediately created in these circumstances. As soon as the mind begins to cut things up (and thus falsify what is really out there), it becomes immersed in a purely abstract realm in which the cutting up process could conceiveably go on forever. There is no physical law within this realm which would put an end to this cutting up process. It all depends on the whim of the person doing it.
And needless to say, whatever cuttings we finally decide to finish with will always conform to the principle of A=A, as I demonstrated with the DQ(t1) and DQ(t2) example. So alas, there is no breaking down of logic at all.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Uncertainty remains.<hr> Only in your head. What shines through in all of this is that uncertainty is your God and it distorts all of your thinking.
Edited by: DavidQuinn000 at: 6/27/05 10:12
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Reality
mookestink wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>Out of idle curiousity, is there any way of finding truth that does not require definitions?<hr> We certainly wouldn't be able to uncover any deep truths about the Universe without the use of definitions. Definitions are the building blocks of all abstract thinking, and the great truths of life can only be accessed through a process of high-level abstraction.
Without the ability to consciously formulate definitions, we would exist in a state of animal consciousness populated by crude categories such as "food", "enemies", "pleasure", "pain". There's not much we could do with this kind of consciousness. At best, we could formulate some simplistic empirical truths such as "cold is unpleasant", "food is good", etc, but that's about it.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Out of idle curiousity, is there any way of finding truth that does not require definitions?<hr> We certainly wouldn't be able to uncover any deep truths about the Universe without the use of definitions. Definitions are the building blocks of all abstract thinking, and the great truths of life can only be accessed through a process of high-level abstraction.
Without the ability to consciously formulate definitions, we would exist in a state of animal consciousness populated by crude categories such as "food", "enemies", "pleasure", "pain". There's not much we could do with this kind of consciousness. At best, we could formulate some simplistic empirical truths such as "cold is unpleasant", "food is good", etc, but that's about it.
Re: Reality
milquetoast, er ...davetoast, quotes this:
Quote:Quote:<hr>
Defining what constitutes any particular "given moment" becomes impossible due to the limits of physically measuring such infinitesimal parameters.
<hr>
Re: Reality
Quote:Quote:<hr>
David Quinn wrote:
And needless to say, whatever cuttings we finally decide to finish with will always conform to the principle of A=A, as I demonstrated with the DQ(t1) and DQ(t2) example. So alas, there is no breaking down of logic at all.
<hr>
The conformation can only be an approximation.
Yes, absolutes are necessary for any type of logical analysis but to blindly state that our objective reality conforms exactly to some logical derivation or principle is a mistake in reasoning.
Quote:Quote:<hr>
DQ unthinkingly asserts:
Only in your head. What shines through in all of this is that uncertainty is your God and it distorts all of your thinking.
<hr>
Blind absolutism appears to be your god David Quinn. You so blindly and religiously adhere to some dogmatic mantra "A=A is the absolute" that ya can't even see the forest fer the trees. ;) Just blindly accept it as a universal truth for all possible worlds OK.
Quote:Quote:<hr>
Richard Feyman wisely stated:
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong."
<hr>
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Re: Reality
Quote:Quote:<hr>You so blindly and religiously adhere to some dogmatic mantra "A=A is the absolute" that ya can't even see the forest fer the trees. <hr>
Aw, now, see what you've gone and done? I reckon you've completely blown it with that one.
I can't wait to see the purely female persona, frankly! I wonder what she will talk about...
Aw, now, see what you've gone and done? I reckon you've completely blown it with that one.
I can't wait to see the purely female persona, frankly! I wonder what she will talk about...
Re: Reality
Quote:Quote:<hr>
Leyla Shen wrote:
Aw, now, see what you've gone and done? I reckon you've completely blown it with that one.
I can't wait to see the purely female persona, frankly! I wonder what she will talk about...
<hr>
:rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes
I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about...
Knowledge is incomplete.
Absolutes pertain to that which is known.
New knowledge can, and will learned, thus, possibly invalidating the previous absolute principles.
Therefore we cannot have absolute faith in absolutes ...which may be invalidated in the future. We can only assert a reasonable, probabilistic assurance, that they are true for any particular objective reality in question.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Reality
analog wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>Therefore we cannot have absolute faith in absolutes ...which may be invalidated in the future.<hr> Again, it cannot be invalidated because anything that might constitute an invalidation will necessary have an identity of some kind and thus conform to A=A. This point of logic will always override your concerns about our incomplete knowledge of the empirical world.
At root, you are wanting the invalidation to have both an identity and not an identity at the same time. On the one hand, you want it to have an identity because otherwise it cannot serve as an invalidation, and yet, at the same time, you want it not to have an identity because otherwise, rather than refuting A=A, it would actually confirm it. This means that your objection to the universality of A=A is contradictory in nature and meaningless.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Yes, absolutes are necessary for any type of logical analysis but to blindly state that our objective reality conforms exactly to some logical derivation or principle is a mistake in reasoning.<hr> There's nothing blind about it. It is a perfectly obvious truth that can be easily grasped by anyone who is perceptive and doesn't have an agenda to protect. The only blindness existing here is on your part.
Anyway, I think we've exhausted this subject for the time being. I'm happy to let readers make up their own mind.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Therefore we cannot have absolute faith in absolutes ...which may be invalidated in the future.<hr> Again, it cannot be invalidated because anything that might constitute an invalidation will necessary have an identity of some kind and thus conform to A=A. This point of logic will always override your concerns about our incomplete knowledge of the empirical world.
At root, you are wanting the invalidation to have both an identity and not an identity at the same time. On the one hand, you want it to have an identity because otherwise it cannot serve as an invalidation, and yet, at the same time, you want it not to have an identity because otherwise, rather than refuting A=A, it would actually confirm it. This means that your objection to the universality of A=A is contradictory in nature and meaningless.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Yes, absolutes are necessary for any type of logical analysis but to blindly state that our objective reality conforms exactly to some logical derivation or principle is a mistake in reasoning.<hr> There's nothing blind about it. It is a perfectly obvious truth that can be easily grasped by anyone who is perceptive and doesn't have an agenda to protect. The only blindness existing here is on your part.
Anyway, I think we've exhausted this subject for the time being. I'm happy to let readers make up their own mind.
Re: Reality
Quote:Quote:<hr>
David Quinn wrote:
At root, you are wanting the invalidation to have both an identity and not an identity at the same time. On the one hand, you want it to have an identity because otherwise it cannot serve as an invalidation, and yet, at the same time, you want it not to have an identity because otherwise, rather than refuting A=A, it would actually confirm it. This means that your objection to the universality of A=A is contradictory in nature and meaningless.
<hr>
Of course, one cannot invalidate logic with logic. I am merely asserting that there may exist certain meta-systems of reasoning, where the law of identity A=A is a sub-principle.
The new meta-principle would not necessarily conform to A=A, only its own meta-identity, which supercedes A=A.
A=A applies to certain systems of reasoning but one cannot assert that it is the most universal principle if our knowledge is incomplete.
We only use a finite and limited amount of knowledge. Yet, knowledge is potentially infinite.
It is unknown whether or not A=A applies to all possible systems of thought/knowledge.
David Quinn wrote:
At root, you are wanting the invalidation to have both an identity and not an identity at the same time. On the one hand, you want it to have an identity because otherwise it cannot serve as an invalidation, and yet, at the same time, you want it not to have an identity because otherwise, rather than refuting A=A, it would actually confirm it. This means that your objection to the universality of A=A is contradictory in nature and meaningless.
<hr>
Of course, one cannot invalidate logic with logic. I am merely asserting that there may exist certain meta-systems of reasoning, where the law of identity A=A is a sub-principle.
The new meta-principle would not necessarily conform to A=A, only its own meta-identity, which supercedes A=A.
A=A applies to certain systems of reasoning but one cannot assert that it is the most universal principle if our knowledge is incomplete.
We only use a finite and limited amount of knowledge. Yet, knowledge is potentially infinite.
It is unknown whether or not A=A applies to all possible systems of thought/knowledge.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Reality
analog wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>Of course, one cannot invalidate logic with logic. I am merely asserting that there may exist certain meta-systems of reasoning, where the law of identity A=A is a sub-principle.
The new meta-principle would not necessarily conform to A=A, only its own meta-identity, which supercedes A=A.<hr> A system of reasoning in which there are no concepts, no existences of any kind, and no logic? I don't think so.
The word "meta" doesn't mean anything in this context. If something is beyond or above something else, then it automatically has an identity by default. There is no way around this.
I'm telling you bluntly that it is impossible to transcend A=A in any way at all. If you think it can be transcended, then it means that you don't really understand it.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Of course, one cannot invalidate logic with logic. I am merely asserting that there may exist certain meta-systems of reasoning, where the law of identity A=A is a sub-principle.
The new meta-principle would not necessarily conform to A=A, only its own meta-identity, which supercedes A=A.<hr> A system of reasoning in which there are no concepts, no existences of any kind, and no logic? I don't think so.
The word "meta" doesn't mean anything in this context. If something is beyond or above something else, then it automatically has an identity by default. There is no way around this.
I'm telling you bluntly that it is impossible to transcend A=A in any way at all. If you think it can be transcended, then it means that you don't really understand it.
Re: Reality
Quote:Quote:<hr>
David Quinn wrote:
I'm telling you bluntly that it is impossible to transcend A=A in any way at all. If you think it can be transcended, then it means that you don't really understand it.
<hr>
I am certainly glad that you are so certain.
I agree that it is impossible to conceptualize transcendence of identity.
Thanks for the logic lesson ;)
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Reality
It has nothing to do with our ability to conceptualize transcendence or not. Just the fact that this transcendent "meta-realm" is being distinguished from the rest of existence is enough.
Re: Reality
Quote:Quote:<hr>
David Quinn wrote:
It has nothing to do with our ability to conceptualize transcendence or not. Just the fact that this transcendent "meta-realm" is being distinguished from the rest of existence is enough.
<hr>
It is impossible for our minds to conceive of a thing that both simultaneously exists and non-exists. Reality is perceptual, perceived by the mind. Ultimately there is no difference between thought and reality[your words basically] So conception is relevant.
The "meta-realm" subsumes A=A. In that respect it is not dependent on A=A.
Are you stating that A=A is the most general principle of all?
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Reality
Quote:Quote:<hr>Knowledge is incomplete. <hr>
Therefore we can safely ignore that statement, since it must necessarily be wrong.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Absolutes pertain to that which is known.<hr>
Therefore that very statement must be false.
Quote:Quote:<hr>New knowledge can, and will learned, thus, possibly invalidating the previous absolute principles.<hr>
That statement too, must be wrong, according to your own reasoning.
. . . etc.
Therefore we can safely ignore that statement, since it must necessarily be wrong.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Absolutes pertain to that which is known.<hr>
Therefore that very statement must be false.
Quote:Quote:<hr>New knowledge can, and will learned, thus, possibly invalidating the previous absolute principles.<hr>
That statement too, must be wrong, according to your own reasoning.
. . . etc.
Re: Reality
Quote:Quote:<hr>
ksolway writes:
Therefore...
Therefore...
Therefore...
<hr>
Again, are you stating that A=A is the most general principle of all?
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Reality
analog57 wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>Again, are you stating that A=A is the most general principle of all?<hr>
I am writing that all your statements are necessarily false, according to your own reasoning.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Again, are you stating that A=A is the most general principle of all?<hr>
I am writing that all your statements are necessarily false, according to your own reasoning.