|
Hi Aurino,
I would like to clarify aspects of Dr. Dick's paper; it is quite likely discussion on it would be constructive. A while ago you wrote a post about a "treasure" post from me (you later said I blew it) (but I didn't blow it; that one was just a quick attempt to deal with strange-logics being tested by Harv- later I solved the issue re: those "logics").
You said that my understanding of his paper would equal yours, (because of the 'treasure' post), if I knew where the LNC came from. So I ask you: where does the LNC (Law Of Non-contradiction) come from?
My guess is what you really mean is "Where does its APPLICATION come into effect? Answer: when you make a definition. When You MATCH two patterns. Like in a dictionary: match two words and a chain-reaction of logical consistency (freedoms and constraints) spreads throughout the whole dictionary.
If you really mean "Where does LNC come from?"; one response could be "Aristotle's three laws of thought". These are: Law of Identity, Law of Non-Contradiction, Law of Excluded Middle. (According to a philosophy textbook).
Strictly, I would say LNC comes from EXISTENCE.
To exist at all, is to BE. Non-contradiction is inherent in Existence.
Even the ability to contradict relies on LNC. If you say "tall; not-tall", trying to contradict here; the PAIR "tall; not-tall" must be conserved as you jump from the one "tall" to the other "not-tall". The PAIR must apply to both sides that make up the pair. So the PAIR must not contradict during this two-item event.
If the PAIR did not conserve but changed; the contradiction would disconnect and there would be no contradiction. So the ability to lie is reliant on the sustenance of truth. Interesting that.
Example: Item 1: tall
Item 2: not-tall
Bringing 1 and 2 together from 1's perspective: TALL: tall:not-tall
Bringing 1 and 2 together from 2's perspective: NOT-TALL: tall:not-tall
In the contradiction of 1 and 2, tall: not-tall, there is the double occurence of the pairing that brought the contradictory elements together; a double occurence of tall: not-tall
A double occurence means a conserved pattern, a pattern that stays the same for both occurences, a pattern that does not contradict! So the ability to contradict requires LNC to operate. But we agree on LNC.
Of course, if the double occurence of tall:not-tall DID contradict, you get:
item 1: tall
item 2: not-tall
item 1's view of contradictory pairing now: tall: tall: tall
Item 2 view of contradictory pairing: not-tall: tall: tall? No, because we've got a pair of tall:tall conserved as that was 1's new view?; try:
2 view of contradictory pairing and contradicting again: not-tall: not-tall: not-tall
Oh! The contadiction disconnected into two independent objects: tall: tall: tall
and not-tall: not-tall: not-tall
I forgot to try: 2 view as: not-tall (view): tall: not-tall which describes a SEPARATE object from the tall: tall object described by the tall view, a view that tried to contradict but ended out on its own as tall: tall: tall.
There may be more logic water to flow under the above bridge? It's obvious that LNC is the deal on reality, anyway.
Quote: "Do you still object to reality being defined as a set of numbers? If you do, then you can't understand Dick's paper, and in that case I think Dick's silence is somewhat justified. "
This doesn't stack up with the evidence. Of course we agree that what sound you use for a word is arbitrary- if Dick wants to define the sound "dots" for "reality" that is a matter of choice.
Harv and I have both voiced objection to the strategic aspects of Dr. Dick calling "reality" a "set of numbers". He talked at length to Harv, so the numbers objection isn't the problem. If you look at the context of Dr. Dick's silence and some of the bizarre-looking comments he has made, and the track record of inconsistency; he just seems to be not open to argument. That is dissapointing.
I do not see why Dr. Dick doesn't just use five words: "Suppose that for argument's sake..."
He could then continue with his particular definition.
As Harv has pointed out, there is another, English-language everyday meaning for "reality"; basically: "what exists". If someone wants to for argument's sake use this word "reality" to mean "a set of numbers"- well, they could just ditch "reality" and just talk about "a set of numbers".
But whatever they do; they must not commit the fallacy of equivocation. I caught Dick swapping his own definition "reality is a set of numbers" with the everyday "reality is what is", in a post at Counterbalance.
It causes unnecessary confusion to invent alternative definitions of words at variance to their usual meaning. The issue is a storm in a teacup.
Yes, I would like to talk to anyone about Dr. Dick's paper; even the math doesn't look that hard to figure out once you get more used to it.
But I'm not in a financial position to post very often, so the pace may be slow.
-dolphin |
