Why the clumsier fibonacci, "The truth values of all statements are embedded in and dependant upon a frame of reference." rather than the more elegant "All statements of truth are embedded in a frame of reference."?
A "truth value" is a defined result, usually {0 or 1 in classical logic; values ranging between -1 and 1 in fuzzy logic} which can be obtained from the analysis of any statement including a non-absolute statement. A "statement of truth" is not a defined term (unless you have a go at it) and implies by its name that it supposed to be true. Yet as we have seen, it as a falsifiable statement - meaning that we have seen false values of "statements of truth". I think the clumsy version wins for accuracy every time. Of course the "elegant" version smacks more of the intellectual dishonesty usually attendent on the founding of a church.
Secondly, the idea of "embedding" does not imply "dependency" which is what we have removed from the maxim. I am quite willing to aver that the "truth value" (or at least the measurement of the "truth value" which is not the same thing entirely) is dependent on a context. So that formulation returns a "lost" meaning to the fibonacci which enhances its utility.
Of course, this is simply a loose verbal construction and it will need to be "proved" and full definitions provided for the words used (Bearing in mind that we are re-establishing "everything" from a tabula rasa according to a prior unvoted but unopposed resolution?). This includes the need for a statement of utility, applicability and definition for "fibonacci" and for the "almost-a-maxim" above.
> To attempt to argue that an imaginary thing (a non-existent entity) is
> a member of the universe *I* view as self-evidently incorrect. You
> might say that my definition of the universe (and "contain") is based
> on existence. However, since this is clearly a definitional kinda
> thing, I guess we can agree to disagree.
>From the definition of Universe in the WWWebster "1 : the whole body of
things and phenomena observed or postulated" What is a postulate other than
an imaginary thing? "4 : a set that contains all elements relevant to a
particular discussion or problem." I know you don't think that imaginary
elements are not needed in these discussions, and to address these problems.
Where do you imagine they come from? All right, how do you explain that I am
not inside your head, yet I know what you are thinking :-)
Unless you are prepared to redefine "Universe", away from the accepted and needed definition, the universe contains imaginary things. Including you and the imaginary things within you. Especially including "shared imaginary things" like the the definitions of words and the concept of sets, which are two very seperate kinds of animals. You certainly make use of them all the time in your discussions and statements. How do other people understand you unless the body of information about definitions, classes, objects and methods is shared? By definition, they can only be shared if they exist within the universe as it is not possible to interact with something if it is not within the same universe as yourself.
While I support the development of specialized languages when needed, people
doing it need to be very aware of some factors:
Don't redefine perfectly good words unnecessarily. Like "Universe".
Don't define new words which already have acceptable synonyms. Like
"Universe".
Don't overload existing words - it only leads to confusion. Especially when
the words are already overloaded. Like "Universe".
Where words are conventionally overloaded, add qualifiers to denote which
context the word is defined in where this is not evident from the context.
Like ""real" Universe".
Use "{" and "}" to indicate usage of a defined range of acceptable values
and quotes to indicate the use of specially defined words. e.g. "True"
Don't create specialized words unless they are really required.
IMO, redefining the "Universe" will cause many more problems than it solves.
Hermit
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com
> [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
> Of Eric Boyd
> Sent: Saturday, May 15, 1999 11:34 AM
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: Re: virus: maxims and ground rules and suppositions
{snip}
>
> ERiC