| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Lester Zick" |
| Date: |
09 Apr 2007 10:57:55 AM |
| Object: |
Two Place Self Contradiction |
Two Place Self Contradiction
~v~~
The average mathematiker or logician can produce four place self
contradiction through the use of conjunctions in expressions such as
"A and not A". And conceivably we can see self contradiction in such
three place expressions as "A not A". However is self contradiction
using only two places possible?
If so it must be a rare bird indeed because if self contradiction must
include one term in "not" the other term cannot be just any specific
subject such as "A" because "A not" or "not A" is only contradictory
in the denial of any subject such as A without denying all possible
other subjects such as "B" etc. and must really represent some rather
peculiar kind of universal subject in the form of "not" as well if it
is to be a universal self contradiction in the denial of all subjects.
In other words the only two place self contradiction conceivable must
be "not not" because it cannot entail any more specific subject and we
must perforce conclude that the only two place self contradiction is
also universal in scope because it is the only one possible and cannot
subsume any more particular subject.
~v~~
.
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
19 Apr 2007 07:18:58 PM |
|
|
Lester Zick wrote:
The average mathematiker or logician can produce four place self
contradiction through the use of conjunctions in expressions such as
"A and not A". And conceivably we can see self contradiction in such
three place expressions as "A not A". However is self contradiction
using only two places possible?
Learn how to punctuare with - and , and ;.
Self-contradiction is nonpossibil with three primitivs. "A not A" is
not, as "A" is not positive but stative. It must call for /four/
primitivs, such as "so A not A".
Dumb-***** l=F2gicists.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
20 Apr 2007 11:51:34 AM |
|
|
On 19 Apr 2007 17:18:58 -0700, "Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
The average mathematiker or logician can produce four place self
contradiction through the use of conjunctions in expressions such as
"A and not A". And conceivably we can see self contradiction in such
three place expressions as "A not A". However is self contradiction
using only two places possible?
Learn how to punctuare with - and , and ;.
Self-contradiction is nonpossibil with three primitivs. "A not A" is
not, as "A" is not positive but stative. It must call for /four/
primitivs, such as "so A not A".
Dumb-***** lògicists.
Or you could learn to spell.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
20 Apr 2007 01:47:12 PM |
|
|
Lester Zick wrote:
On 19 Apr 2007 17:18:58 -0700, "Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
The average mathematiker or logician can produce four place self
contradiction through the use of conjunctions in expressions such as
"A and not A". And conceivably we can see self contradiction in such
three place expressions as "A not A". However is self contradiction
using only two places possible?
Learn how to punctuare with - and , and ;.
Self-contradiction is nonpossibil with three primitivs. "A not A" is
not, as "A" is not positive but stative. It must call for /four/
primitivs, such as "so A not A".
Dumb-***** l=F2gicists.
Or you could learn to spell.
I spell finer.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David R Tribble" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
09 Apr 2007 05:52:39 PM |
|
|
Lester Zick wrote:
Two Place Self Contradiction
In other words the only two place self contradiction conceivable must
be "not not" ...
"Not not".
"Who's there?"
"Not."
"Not who?"
"Not not."
"Who's there?"
(and so on.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Carmody" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
09 Apr 2007 06:37:16 PM |
|
|
"David R Tribble" <david@tribble.com> writes:
Lester Zick wrote:
Two Place Self Contradiction
In other words the only two place self contradiction conceivable must
be "not not" ...
"Not not".
"Who's there?"
"Not."
"Not who?"
"No, who's on 1st"
Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
10 Apr 2007 11:46:27 AM |
|
|
On 10 Apr 2007 02:37:16 +0300, Phil Carmody
<thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"David R Tribble" <david@tribble.com> writes:
Lester Zick wrote:
Two Place Self Contradiction
In other words the only two place self contradiction conceivable must
be "not not" ...
"Not not".
"Who's there?"
"Not."
"Not who?"
"No, who's on 1st"
Well I'm on first. And last. You're nowhere. Ever notice arguments
which can't be invalidated turn to examples and jokes which can?
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
10 Apr 2007 10:28:14 PM |
|
|
On Apr 10, 11:46 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 10 Apr 2007 02:37:16 +0300, Phil Carmody
<thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"David R Tribble" <d...@tribble.com> writes:
Lester Zick wrote:
Two Place Self Contradiction
In other words the only two place self contradiction conceivable must
be "not not" ...
"Not not".
"Who's there?"
"Not."
"Not who?"
"No, who's on 1st"
Well I'm on first. And last. You're nowhere. Ever notice arguments
which can't be invalidated turn to examples and jokes which can?
You can invalidate a joke? Cool! Give me an example.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
11 Apr 2007 12:03:12 PM |
|
|
On 10 Apr 2007 20:28:14 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 10, 11:46 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 10 Apr 2007 02:37:16 +0300, Phil Carmody
<thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"David R Tribble" <d...@tribble.com> writes:
Lester Zick wrote:
Two Place Self Contradiction
In other words the only two place self contradiction conceivable must
be "not not" ...
"Not not".
"Who's there?"
"Not."
"Not who?"
"No, who's on 1st"
Well I'm on first. And last. You're nowhere. Ever notice arguments
which can't be invalidated turn to examples and jokes which can?
You can invalidate a joke? Cool! Give me an example.
You?
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
11 Apr 2007 12:18:38 PM |
|
|
On Apr 11, 12:03 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 10 Apr 2007 20:28:14 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 10, 11:46 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 10 Apr 2007 02:37:16 +0300, Phil Carmody
<thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"David R Tribble" <d...@tribble.com> writes:
Lester Zick wrote:
Two Place Self Contradiction
In other words the only two place self contradiction conceivable must
be "not not" ...
"Not not".
"Who's there?"
"Not."
"Not who?"
"No, who's on 1st"
Well I'm on first. And last. You're nowhere. Ever notice arguments
which can't be invalidated turn to examples and jokes which can?
You can invalidate a joke? Cool! Give me an example.
You?
Ah, very funny. I laugh. Ha.
And you have invalidated this joke?
Please demonstrate. (Or just don't bother doing it at all, and declare
that you have instead.)
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
11 Apr 2007 05:35:22 PM |
|
|
On 11 Apr 2007 10:18:38 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 11, 12:03 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 10 Apr 2007 20:28:14 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 10, 11:46 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 10 Apr 2007 02:37:16 +0300, Phil Carmody
<thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"David R Tribble" <d...@tribble.com> writes:
Lester Zick wrote:
Two Place Self Contradiction
In other words the only two place self contradiction conceivable must
be "not not" ...
"Not not".
"Who's there?"
"Not."
"Not who?"
"No, who's on 1st"
Well I'm on first. And last. You're nowhere. Ever notice arguments
which can't be invalidated turn to examples and jokes which can?
You can invalidate a joke? Cool! Give me an example.
You?
Ah, very funny. I laugh. Ha.
And you have invalidated this joke?
Please demonstrate.
I've certainly invalidated you. And your complaint would be?
(Or just don't bother doing it at all, and declare
that you have instead.)
And emulate you? Why bother.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
12 Apr 2007 07:55:11 AM |
|
|
On Apr 11, 5:35 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 11 Apr 2007 10:18:38 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 11, 12:03 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 10 Apr 2007 20:28:14 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 10, 11:46 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 10 Apr 2007 02:37:16 +0300, Phil Carmody
<thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"David R Tribble" <d...@tribble.com> writes:
Lester Zick wrote:
Two Place Self Contradiction
In other words the only two place self contradiction conceivable must
be "not not" ...
"Not not".
"Who's there?"
"Not."
"Not who?"
"No, who's on 1st"
Well I'm on first. And last. You're nowhere. Ever notice arguments
which can't be invalidated turn to examples and jokes which can?
You can invalidate a joke? Cool! Give me an example.
You?
Ah, very funny. I laugh. Ha.
And you have invalidated this joke?
Please demonstrate.
I've certainly invalidated you.
You have?? Good Lord, I must not exist then!
(But in that case, you would be spending all this time responding to
someone whose existence is a falsehood.)
Honestly, Lester, what passes for truth in your head is what passes
for chili-inspired dreams in most people's heads. Have at it, then,
and please remember that your time for walking the institutional
grounds and planting pansies is between 2 and 4pm on odd-numbered
days.
And your complaint would be?
(Or just don't bother doing it at all, and declare
that you have instead.)
And emulate you? Why bother.
~v~~- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
12 Apr 2007 12:39:25 PM |
|
|
On 12 Apr 2007 05:55:11 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
You can invalidate a joke? Cool! Give me an example.
You?
Ah, very funny. I laugh. Ha.
And you have invalidated this joke?
Please demonstrate.
I've certainly invalidated you.
You have?? Good Lord, I must not exist then!
Well I've been meaning to ask why you exist on this particular thread
since you seem prefer to discuss everything except its subject matter.
Then of course there's the larger question of why you exist at all
since your opinions would appear to be all you have to justify your
existence? I mean I'm sure a great percentage of the American people
rely on your opinions but so far you haven't offered any insight as to
why they're germane to this or other threads on which they regularly
appear.
(But in that case, you would be spending all this time responding to
someone whose existence is a falsehood.)
Occupational hazard I expect. Cops deal with crooks and I deal with
you.
Honestly, Lester, what passes for truth in your head is what passes
for chili-inspired dreams in most people's heads.
No doubt. I'm just trying to determine what passes for truth in your
head which wouldn't seem to be very much beyond philosophical reveries
and dialectical fantasies having no bearing whatsoever on issues of
truth raised here or much of anywhere else that I've been able to
determine.
Have at it, then,
and please remember that your time for walking the institutional
grounds and planting pansies is between 2 and 4pm on odd-numbered
days.
You sprouted in the allotted time didn't you?
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
13 Apr 2007 06:57:27 AM |
|
|
On Apr 12, 12:39 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 05:55:11 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
You can invalidate a joke? Cool! Give me an example.
You?
Ah, very funny. I laugh. Ha.
And you have invalidated this joke?
Please demonstrate.
I've certainly invalidated you.
You have?? Good Lord, I must not exist then!
Well I've been meaning to ask why you exist on this particular thread
I apparently don't. You've invalidated me, per your claim. Wait...
whom were you meaning to ask, then?
since you seem prefer to discuss everything except its subject matter.
What subject matter? Oh, you mean that stuff about third-rate
interstitial self proliferation?
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
13 Apr 2007 05:53:18 PM |
|
|
On 13 Apr 2007 04:57:27 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 12, 12:39 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 05:55:11 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
You can invalidate a joke? Cool! Give me an example.
You?
Ah, very funny. I laugh. Ha.
And you have invalidated this joke?
Please demonstrate.
I've certainly invalidated you.
You have?? Good Lord, I must not exist then!
Well I've been meaning to ask why you exist on this particular thread
I apparently don't. You've invalidated me, per your claim. Wait...
whom were you meaning to ask, then?
Youm.
since you seem prefer to discuss everything except its subject matter.
What subject matter? Oh, you mean that stuff about third-rate
interstitial self proliferation?
No actually the subject of this thread which was clearly stated.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
10 Apr 2007 11:43:04 AM |
|
|
On 9 Apr 2007 15:52:39 -0700, "David R Tribble" <david@tribble.com>
wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
Two Place Self Contradiction
In other words the only two place self contradiction conceivable must
be "not not" ...
"Not not".
"Who's there?"
"Not."
"Not who?"
"Not not."
"Who's there?"
(and so on.)
Not bad for a comedian. A little worse for a mathematiker with
pretensions to infinity. Positively awful for a mathematiker who can't
produce better examples of two place self contradiction.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "David R Tribble" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
17 Apr 2007 06:10:28 PM |
|
|
Lester Zick wrote:
Two Place Self Contradiction
In other words the only two place self contradiction conceivable must
be "not not" ...
David R Tribble wrote:
"Not not".
"Who's there?"
"Not."
"Not who?"
"Not not."
"Who's there?"
(and so on.)
Lester Zick wrote:
Not bad for a comedian.
Glad you liked it.
A little worse for a mathematiker with pretensions to infinity.
Sorry, don't follow you.
Positively awful for a mathematiker who can't
produce better examples of two place self contradiction.
"not" is an operator taking one operand.
Your statement "not not" is therfore ill-formed:
it's missing an operand. It's "not(not(?))",
where the '?' indicates a missing operand.
Unless you're assuming that "not" can stand as an
operand by itself. In which case, what is the meaning
of the statement "not"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
18 Apr 2007 12:29:35 PM |
|
|
On 17 Apr 2007 16:10:28 -0700, David R Tribble <david@tribble.com>
wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
Two Place Self Contradiction
In other words the only two place self contradiction conceivable must
be "not not" ...
David R Tribble wrote:
"Not not".
"Who's there?"
"Not."
"Not who?"
"Not not."
"Who's there?"
(and so on.)
Lester Zick wrote:
Not bad for a comedian.
Glad you liked it.
A little worse for a mathematiker with pretensions to infinity.
Sorry, don't follow you.
You have a tough time defining "infinity".
Positively awful for a mathematiker who can't
produce better examples of two place self contradiction.
"not" is an operator taking one operand.
Thanks for opining. Wherever would modern mathematkers be without
their opinions. Probably be doing mathematics instead of modern math.
Your statement "not not" is therfore ill-formed:
it's missing an operand. It's "not(not(?))",
where the '?' indicates a missing operand.
You mean I can't ask about the "alternative to alternatives"?
Unless you're assuming that "not" can stand as an
operand by itself.
Aha! A dim light dawns.
In which case, what is the meaning
of the statement "not"?
"Not" specifies the mechanism of tautological regression or the
mechanism of defining alternatives. All the proposition "not not"
states is the "alternative to alternatives" is self contradictory. And
if "not not" is self contradictory and thus false the alternative to
"not not" must perforce be true of everything and universally so
because "not not" is self contradictory and universally false.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "David R Tribble" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
19 Apr 2007 05:53:27 PM |
|
|
David R Tribble wrote:
"not" is an operator taking one operand.
Unless you're assuming that "not" can stand as an
operand by itself. In which case, what is the meaning
of the statement "not"?
Lester Zick wrote:
"Not" specifies the mechanism of tautological regression or the
mechanism of defining alternatives. All the proposition "not not"
states is the "alternative to alternatives" is self
contradictory. And if "not not" is self contradictory and thus false
the alternative to "not not" must perforce be true of everything and
universally so because "not not" is self contradictory and
universally false.
So would that universally true alternative to "not not" be
"not not not"? Or not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
19 Apr 2007 06:21:42 PM |
|
|
On 19 Apr 2007 15:53:27 -0700, David R Tribble <david@tribble.com>
wrote:
David R Tribble wrote:
"not" is an operator taking one operand.
Unless you're assuming that "not" can stand as an
operand by itself. In which case, what is the meaning
of the statement "not"?
Lester Zick wrote:
"Not" specifies the mechanism of tautological regression or the
mechanism of defining alternatives. All the proposition "not not"
states is the "alternative to alternatives" is self
contradictory. And if "not not" is self contradictory and thus false
the alternative to "not not" must perforce be true of everything and
universally so because "not not" is self contradictory and
universally false.
So would that universally true alternative to "not not" be
"not not not"? Or not?
Yes.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charlie-Boo" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
13 Apr 2007 04:45:55 PM |
|
|
On Apr 9, 6:52 pm, "David R Tribble" <d...@tribble.com> wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
Two Place Self Contradiction
In other words the only two place self contradiction conceivable must
be "not not" ...
"Not not".
But in English a double negative is a no-no.
C-B
"Who's there?"
"Not."
"Not who?"
"Not not."
"Who's there?"
(and so on.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
14 Apr 2007 06:10:32 PM |
|
|
On 13 Apr 2007 14:45:55 -0700, "Charlie-Boo" <shymathguy@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Apr 9, 6:52 pm, "David R Tribble" <d...@tribble.com> wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
Two Place Self Contradiction
In other words the only two place self contradiction conceivable must
be "not not" ...
"Not not".
But in English a double negative is a no-no.
Which is probably why English is the language of choice in science.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charlie-Boo" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
16 Apr 2007 12:19:24 AM |
|
|
On Apr 14, 7:10 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 13 Apr 2007 14:45:55 -0700, "Charlie-Boo" <shymath...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Apr 9, 6:52 pm, "David R Tribble" <d...@tribble.com> wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
Two Place Self Contradiction
In other words the only two place self contradiction conceivable must
be "not not" ...
"Not not".
But in English a double negative is a no-no.
Which is probably why English is the language of choice in science.
You're right. ~P becomes P instead of ~~P. Much nicer.
C-B
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
16 Apr 2007 01:37:06 PM |
|
|
On 15 Apr 2007 22:19:24 -0700, "Charlie-Boo" <shymathguy@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Apr 14, 7:10 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 13 Apr 2007 14:45:55 -0700, "Charlie-Boo" <shymath...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Apr 9, 6:52 pm, "David R Tribble" <d...@tribble.com> wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
Two Place Self Contradiction
In other words the only two place self contradiction conceivable must
be "not not" ...
"Not not".
But in English a double negative is a no-no.
Which is probably why English is the language of choice in science.
You're right. ~P becomes P instead of ~~P. Much nicer.
The plot becomes a little thicker however if we consider the actual
mechanical significance of "~" alone instead of considering "~P" in
combination where "~" would indicate "not" in the tautological sense
of "different from" "alternatives to" or "contradiction of".
Then we find "~ ~" cannot just be replaced by " " because there are no
tautological alternatives to "~" since "~" represents the mechanism of
tautological alternation per se.
Which is why I'm concerned with the consideration of "~" and "~ ~"
rather than "~P" because "~P" represents particular negation even
though non specific whereas "~" represents tautological mechanics and
which is why the law of contradiction reads "~v~~" to establish the
truth of "~" universally with respect to all things.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
17 Apr 2007 02:00:07 AM |
|
|
On Apr 9, 10:57 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
In other words the only two place self contradiction conceivable must
be "not not" because it cannot entail any more specific subject and we
must perforce conclude that the only two place self contradiction is
also universal in scope because it is the only one possible and cannot
subsume any more particular subject.
Compare with the two place self confirmation "is is", which is a much
happier place than "not not", is it not? And shorter, too. Must count
for something. As well as being as old as Parmenides. Were you under
the impression you were doing something interesting or novel?
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
17 Apr 2007 02:18:39 PM |
|
|
On 17 Apr 2007 00:00:07 -0700, PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 9, 10:57 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
In other words the only two place self contradiction conceivable must
be "not not" because it cannot entail any more specific subject and we
must perforce conclude that the only two place self contradiction is
also universal in scope because it is the only one possible and cannot
subsume any more particular subject.
Compare with the two place self confirmation "is is", which is a much
happier place than "not not", is it not? And shorter, too. Must count
for something.
Okay, Izzy. So according to you "is is" demonstrates the truth of or
at least self confirms "is". So what demonstrates the truth of or self
confirms "is is" "is is is" regressus ad infinitum?Or as mathematikers
are wont to proclaim a perfectly acceptable definition in modern math
the ratio of logic to proposition being 3.14159 . . . more or less.
The difference between your, or rather Parmenides, approach and mine
is that your regressions are circular and infinite, or undefined, and
I regress universal truth to alternatives to finite tautological
regressions to universally self contradictory alternatives, which are
limited, defined, and finite only because they're self contradictory
and admit of no further tautological regression.
Not so happy a place for those who like modern mathematikers and
empirics prefer to assume the truth of their assumptions but a much
happier place I daresay for those who prefer to demonstrate the truth
of their assumptions instead.
As well as being as old as Parmenides. Were you under
the impression you were doing something interesting or novel?
Not interesting or novel indeed if you consider truth uninteresting.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
17 Apr 2007 04:49:25 PM |
|
|
On Apr 17, 2:18 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 17 Apr 2007 00:00:07 -0700, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 9, 10:57 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
In other words the only two place self contradiction conceivable must
be "not not" because it cannot entail any more specific subject and we
must perforce conclude that the only two place self contradiction is
also universal in scope because it is the only one possible and cannot
subsume any more particular subject.
Compare with the two place self confirmation "is is", which is a much
happier place than "not not", is it not? And shorter, too. Must count
for something.
Okay, Izzy. So according to you "is is" demonstrates the truth of or
at least self confirms "is".
Did I say that? Gee, and it was so simply said, much shorter and more
direct than what you wrote in your original post, and yet you still
managed to read it as something other than what was said.
So what demonstrates the truth of or self
confirms "is is" "is is is" regressus ad infinitum?Or as mathematikers
are wont to proclaim a perfectly acceptable definition in modern math
the ratio of logic to proposition being 3.14159 . . . more or less.
The difference between your, or rather Parmenides, approach and mine
is that your regressions are circular and infinite, or undefined, and
I regress universal truth to alternatives to finite tautological
regressions to universally self contradictory alternatives, which are
limited, defined, and finite only because they're self contradictory
and admit of no further tautological regression.
Let me see if I have this right:
"Is is" is circular and infinite, or undefined,
and
"not not" is limited, defined, and finite because it is self-
contradictory.
Have I got that right?
Not so happy a place for those who like modern mathematikers and
empirics prefer to assume the truth of their assumptions but a much
happier place I daresay for those who prefer to demonstrate the truth
of their assumptions instead.
As well as being as old as Parmenides. Were you under
the impression you were doing something interesting or novel?
Not interesting or novel indeed if you consider truth uninteresting.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
18 Apr 2007 05:49:42 PM |
|
|
On 17 Apr 2007 14:49:25 -0700, PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 17, 2:18 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 17 Apr 2007 00:00:07 -0700, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 9, 10:57 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
In other words the only two place self contradiction conceivable must
be "not not" because it cannot entail any more specific subject and we
must perforce conclude that the only two place self contradiction is
also universal in scope because it is the only one possible and cannot
subsume any more particular subject.
Compare with the two place self confirmation "is is", which is a much
happier place than "not not", is it not? And shorter, too. Must count
for something.
Okay, Izzy. So according to you "is is" demonstrates the truth of or
at least self confirms "is".
Did I say that? Gee, and it was so simply said, much shorter and more
direct than what you wrote in your original post, and yet you still
managed to read it as something other than what was said.
Of course it was.
So what demonstrates the truth of or self
confirms "is is" "is is is" regressus ad infinitum?Or as mathematikers
are wont to proclaim a perfectly acceptable definition in modern math
the ratio of logic to proposition being 3.14159 . . . more or less.
The difference between your, or rather Parmenides, approach and mine
is that your regressions are circular and infinite, or undefined, and
I regress universal truth to alternatives to finite tautological
regressions to universally self contradictory alternatives, which are
limited, defined, and finite only because they're self contradictory
and admit of no further tautological regression.
Let me see if I have this right:
"Is is" is circular and infinite, or undefined,
and
"not not" is limited, defined, and finite because it is self-
contradictory.
Have I got that right?
Yes or no.
Not so happy a place for those who like modern mathematikers and
empirics prefer to assume the truth of their assumptions but a much
happier place I daresay for those who prefer to demonstrate the truth
of their assumptions instead.
As well as being as old as Parmenides. Were you under
the impression you were doing something interesting or novel?
Not interesting or novel indeed if you consider truth uninteresting.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
17 Apr 2007 12:27:52 PM |
|
|
On 17 Apr 2007 00:00:07 -0700, PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 9, 10:57 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
In other words the only two place self contradiction conceivable must
be "not not" because it cannot entail any more specific subject and we
must perforce conclude that the only two place self contradiction is
also universal in scope because it is the only one possible and cannot
subsume any more particular subject.
Compare with the two place self confirmation "is is", which is a much
happier place than "not not", is it not? And shorter, too. Must count
for something. As well as being as old as Parmenides. Were you under
the impression you were doing something interesting or novel?
I was under the impression you were not doing anything interesting and
novel and if indeed anyone knew anything about self confirmation it
would be a self righteous cow like you.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
17 Apr 2007 04:45:51 PM |
|
|
On Apr 17, 12:27 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 17 Apr 2007 00:00:07 -0700, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 9, 10:57 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
In other words the only two place self contradiction conceivable must
be "not not" because it cannot entail any more specific subject and we
must perforce conclude that the only two place self contradiction is
also universal in scope because it is the only one possible and cannot
subsume any more particular subject.
Compare with the two place self confirmation "is is", which is a much
happier place than "not not", is it not? And shorter, too. Must count
for something. As well as being as old as Parmenides. Were you under
the impression you were doing something interesting or novel?
I was under the impression you were not doing anything interesting and
novel
So you can't answer a yes or no question...
and if indeed anyone knew anything about self confirmation it
would be a self righteous cow like you.
Ah, so if you say it, it's ok. (See OP) If someone else says it, it's
being self-righteous. Let's see. That would be you being self-
righteous, no?
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Place Self Contradiction |
18 Apr 2007 05:48:22 PM |
|
|
On 17 Apr 2007 14:45:51 -0700, PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 17, 12:27 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 17 Apr 2007 00:00:07 -0700, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 9, 10:57 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
In other words the only two place self contradiction conceivable must
be "not not" because it cannot entail any more specific subject and we
must perforce conclude that the only two place self contradiction is
also universal in scope because it is the only one possible and cannot
subsume any more particular subject.
Compare with the two place self confirmation "is is", which is a much
happier place than "not not", is it not? And shorter, too. Must count
for something. As well as being as old as Parmenides. Were you under
the impression you were doing something interesting or novel?
I was under the impression you were not doing anything interesting and
novel
So you can't answer a yes or no question...
Certainly I can answer a yes or no question. . .
and if indeed anyone knew anything about self confirmation it
would be a self righteous cow like you.
Ah, so if you say it, it's ok. (See OP) If someone else says it, it's
being self-righteous. Let's see. That would be you being self-
righteous, no?
Yes or no.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
