In a setting in which animals talk and have tea parties, little girls shrink to
a tiny fraction of their previous size after drinking potions, and grinning cats
can disappear from sight while leaving their smiling mouths in view, I wouldn't
be at all surprised to learn that Alice is dead wrong in her conjecture that
(The wavelength of blue
light) = (475 nm).
-KMO
TheHermit wrote:
> 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:
> Physics:Optics:Properties of Light:(The wavelength of blue light) = (475 nm)
>
> 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 not
> perhaps complete - what is the deviation? What is the cut-off? That could of
> course be represented in symbolic logic form too. SL does not have to be
> over simplistic) and place it into the midst of "A Mad Tea-Party" in
> "Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There", does the statement
> become a supposition?
>
> 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >