Actually I still don't see how I am or was attempting to finesse anything.
See below. And my questions are far from being answered.
Remember we started with "All statements of truth are embedded a particular
frame of reference from which they cannot be separated without becoming
suppositions." I could not for the life of me see how a statement could
become a supposition simply by changing the "frame of reference". I
formulated an example, trying to pick as simple a "statement of truth" as
possible, and everyone here, for whatever reason started shooting at the
idea of using symbolic logic. So before doing anything else lets look at the
example in more detail for a moment:
Suppose we say:
Now if I take the above "true statement" in a particular frame of reference,
(true in many ways, including physics (TRW) and symbolic logic, though
Physics:Optics:Properties of Light:(The wavelength of blue light) = (475 nm)
There was a table set out under a tree in front of the house, and the March Hare and the Hatter were having tea at it: a Dormouse was sitting between them, fast asleep, and the other two were using it as a cushion, resting their elbows on it, and the talking over its head. "(The wavelength of blue light) = (475 nm)" thought Alice; `only, as it's not a rhinestone, I suppose it doesn't mind.' (Apologies to Lewis Carrol).
There now; the statement has been removed from its frame of reference and placed in another frameset, that of madness. Is "(The wavelength of blue light) = (475 nm)" in the above phrase a supposition? You might argue that the contents, "The wavelength of blue light" and "475 nm" provides a context. It was to avoid that argument that I chose the following form in my initial argument.
So we use the law of substitution in System 0 and say:
"The wavelength of blue light" = A
"475 nm" = A
Physics:Optics:Properties of Light:A=A
Even without the definition of A or the context of "Physics:Optics:Properties of Light", this would of course still be a true statement, but it requires the above equivalences to make it mean what I want it to mean...
Now try the second form again.
There was a table set out under a tree in front of the house, and the March Hare and the Hatter were having tea at it: a Dormouse was sitting between them, fast asleep, and the other two were using it as a cushion, resting their elbows on it, and the talking over its head. "A = A" thought Alice; `only, as it's not a supposition, I suppose it still doesn't mind.'
Get the point yet? Why does a "true statement" supposedly become a "supposition" when removed from its "frame of reference"? Unless some of the other words in that sentence no longer carry the generally accepted English meaning. I have provided a "true statement". I have changed its reference. It does not seem to me to be a supposition. It seems I have provided an example where:
"All statements of truth are embedded a particular frame of reference from which they cannot be separated without becoming suppositions."
is falsified. And given the nature of logic, and the "All" dangling at the beginning of it; if I have falsified one instance, it is proven to be a false statement. Unless I have misunderstood something about what is being said.
If it is still asserted that this statement is true, an example will probably do a lot to explain it.
TheHermit <Determining to go out and strangle his mentat>
P.S. Set theory tells us that all things are things, and all real things have attributes. Would you call an attribute a name? Or a boundary? We also know that there are big differences between "real things" with attributes (boundaries?) and "imaginary things" (like sets of things) which need not have boundaries. Please say more to this issue.
P.P.S. Finally, re symbolic logic. If you cannot write a "true statement" in the format of a valid symbolic logic equation then it is not a valid proposition. The reverse is of course not necessarily true. But to rephrase your "may give us insight into operating in reality", the act of putting a statement into symbolic form often brings out the falsities of a position in ways that simple argument does not. It is a fact that any statement, true or false, can be encoded that allows us to simplify and test the structure of a statement. Where I disagree with your conclusion that "ultimately do not yield any truth about reality" is that, it should be evident that, if you discover an error of logic, or if you discover that the equation does not equate, then you have discovered that the statement cannot be true. And if the statement purported to be a statement about reality, that symbolic logic proves that your "reality" was flawed.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com
> [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
> Of Richard Brodie
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 8:40 AM
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: RE: virus: maxims and ground rules
>
>
> Statements made in and about symbolic logic may give us insight into
> operating in reality, but ultimately do not yield any truth
> about reality.
> Saying that A, or A=A, are obvious and unarguable axioms
> attempts to finesse
> the philosophical question about whether parts of reality
> have intrinsic
> names and boundaries. Much power and elucidation can be
> gained by taking the
> position that they do not.
>
> I hope this answers your question and I apologize if the
> brevity of my prior
> comment was received as a slap.
>
> Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com
> Author, "Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme"
> Free newsletter! http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com
> [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
> Of TheHermit
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 1999 11:08 PM
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: RE: virus: maxims and ground rules
>
>
> There are sooo very many of them Richard... Please narrow it
> down a bit.
>
> Remember, I am not a Randist.
>
> I excluded the "omission of measurement", through stipulation
> of "the same"
> or "absolute equivalence (for whatever purpose)" (in
> otherwords, for the
> application where "A=A" is relevant - no excluded middle) and "errors
> through application" by reporting only a truth about the operator,
> stipulating the relationship of A to A. In other words, my
> context was to do
> with the nature of the equivalence ("=") operator. And my
> question was "How
> can this statement about the nature of an operator, become a
> supposition,
> when removed from the given frame of reference?"
>
> Is it implied that somehow "=" becomes a conditional
> conjunction? In which
> case please reflect this in a suitable logic, because I don't get it.
>
> Stating that I have produced "the objectivist fallacy"*,
> simply because I
> used a phrase that the Randists appropriated from logic without
> understanding the limitations of its application, smacks of
> special pleading
> at best.
>
> TheHermit <Not fighting, but puzzled>
>
>
> *The use of the definite article to describe something I had
> never noticed
> being used that way before, made me think I was joining the "Color me
> stupid" group. So I did a search on AltaVista for
> "Objectivist fallacy"
> which turned up exactly one URL - and that one did not define
> it. While
> "objectivist fallacy" turned up 6 hits, some with broken links, it did
> yield, "We have been educated, not in the requirements of contextual
> relevance, but in what is coming to be called the
> "objectivist fallacy" in
> language. We are encouraged to see things objectively,
> neglecting context.
> This objectivist view implies the law of excluded middle, by
> which objects,
> attributes, and categories are two-valued, bivalent,
> black-or-white. (They
> and their attributes either exist or do not exist, are either
> true or false
> but not both, not fuzzy.) This contradicts our natural experience; yet
> objectivist assumptions underlie most educational models of
> information use,
> and all tabular-form data structures. The problem is not simply
> theoretical."
>
> As I dealt carefully with value, placed the "True" statement
> in context, and
> queried only how removing it from context could convert it into a
> supposition, I don't suppose that this is "the" objective
> fallacy you were
> thinking of? So which one was it?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-virus@lucifer.com
> > [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
> > Of Richard Brodie
> > Sent: Monday, May 10, 1999 11:26 PM
> > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > Subject: RE: virus: maxims and ground rules
> >
> >
> > You are making the Objectivist fallacy, Carl.
> >
> > Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com
> > Author, "Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme"
> > Free newsletter! http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-virus@lucifer.com
> > [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
> > Of TheHermit
> > Sent: Monday, May 10, 1999 8:08 PM
> > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > Subject: RE: virus: maxims and ground rules
> >
> >
> > [1] A
> > [2] A=A
> >
> > [1] States that an entity which can be represented by A
> > exists. In the above
> > tautology [2], the entity symbolized by 'A' on the left is
> > the same entity
> > or an absolutely equivalent entity (for whatever purpose)
> > represented by 'A'
> > on the right. The operator placed between them is that of
> > equivalence. This
> > is a true "referenceless" statement of truth about the nature of the
> > equivalence operator. You may argue that it has as referent,
> > the context of
> > symbolic logic, yet the "referenceless" statement of truth,
> > that "A=A", does
> > not become a supposition when removed from the "frame of reference"
> > described above. It becomes meaningless, or takes on some
> > other meaning -
> > e.g. it could represent a polar bond between two molecules.
> > So unless you
> > wish to redefine English at the same time as we redefine
> > everything else,
> > your statement requires revision or rephrasing.
> >
> > TheHermit
> > PS Prof. Tim, how did I guess you would?
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-virus@lucifer.com
> > > [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
> > > Of psypher
> > > Sent: Monday, May 10, 1999 8:53 PM
> > > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > > Subject: Re: virus: maxims and ground rules
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ...anybody else have any comments on this one?
> > >
> > > >> All statements of truth are embedded a particular frame of
> > > > reference from which they cannot be separated without becoming
> > > > suppositions.
> > > >
> > > > Ooo! I like that!
> > > >
> > > > -Prof. Tim
> > >
> >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> > > http://fastmail.ca Fastmail's Free web based email for
> > Canadians
> > >
> >
> >
>
>