The Definition of Points
in [Logic]
|
Prev: On Ultrafinitism
Next: Modal logic example
From: Lester Zick on 28 Apr 2007 14:44 On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:20:13 -0700, Bob Cain <arcane(a)arcanemethods.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: > >> How can truth in mechanically reduced universal terms not be useful? > >That could be. Why don't you give it a try? Provide a demonstration >of such a truth using the mechanics of the world ("not" is not >mechanics.) "Not" is NOT mechanics hey? Boolean conjunctions aren't mechanics hey? Which "mechanics of the world" did you have in mind exactly, Stringfellow? The mechanics where you mechanize angular mechanics with a piece of string? The mechanics where you mechanize Michelson- Morley without FLT? The mechanics where you mechanize Einstein's isotropy without anisometry? I'd like to see you mechanize anything without "not" or some equivalent such as contradiction, alternatives, or differences. Even more curious I'd like to see you provide a demonstration for such a "mechanics of the world" without "not", contradiction, or differences. I define a universally exhaustive mechanics between "not" which is true of everything and "not not" which is self contradictory. And all you can do is whine and snivel that "not" is NOT mechanics. Maybe you'd like to explain why the "contradiction of contradiction" is not self contradictory for a change? Go right ahead give it a try. I see all the bully boys NOT demonstrating the truth of the mechanics they advocate so why should you be any DIFFERENT? Let's see you demonstrate the truth of all the mechanics, logic, and conjunctions you use without regression to "not" "contradiction" and "differences". > Given a demonstration we might be able to assess its >usefulness. How? >Until then the meaning of "truth in mechanically reduced universal >terms" has meaning only to you (if to you.) Well I can readily appreciate you and others are too lazy or stupid to grasp the implications of mechanically reduced exhaustive truth in universal terms. Somehow that's just not very surprizing. What's more surprizing however is the willingness with which you abandon the very concepts of truth and demonstrable truth. Or maybe you never had it to begin with. You don't even argue the concept. You just say it ain't so. But the question is how do you know? You're mighty long on arbiter dicta and mighty short on demonstrations of truth for what you say. All you've got is a pissant philosophy which says you aren't required to demonstrate the truth of what you opine. Then the moment you get beyond the primitive level of "one, two, three, . . . many" or as Asimov said "One, Two, Three . . . Infinity" words and interrelated concepts, empirics surrender any attempt at scientific argument and are reduced to the incoherent babble of psychological motivational analysis instead of critical arguments. One thing's for sure. You may think I'm wrong. But you sure as hell aren't right because you definitely aren't the arbiter of truth in any terms at all, mechanically reduced exhaustive universal or otherwise. ~v~~
From: Ben newsam on 28 Apr 2007 16:55 On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:44:13 -0700, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:20:13 -0700, Bob Cain >>> How can truth in mechanically reduced universal terms not be useful? >> >>That could be. Why don't you give it a try? Provide a demonstration >>of such a truth using the mechanics of the world ("not" is not >>mechanics.) > >"Not" is NOT mechanics hey? Boolean conjunctions aren't mechanics hey? >Which "mechanics of the world" did you have in mind exactly, >Stringfellow? The mechanics where you mechanize angular mechanics with >a piece of string? The mechanics where you mechanize Michelson- Morley >without FLT? The mechanics where you mechanize Einstein's isotropy >without anisometry? I'd like to see you mechanize anything without >"not" or some equivalent such as contradiction, alternatives, or >differences. > >Even more curious I'd like to see you provide a demonstration for such >a "mechanics of the world" without "not", contradiction, or >differences. I define a universally exhaustive mechanics between "not" >which is true of everything and "not not" which is self contradictory. >And all you can do is whine and snivel that "not" is NOT mechanics. >Maybe you'd like to explain why the "contradiction of contradiction" >is not self contradictory for a change? Go right ahead give it a try. >I see all the bully boys NOT demonstrating the truth of the mechanics >they advocate so why should you be any DIFFERENT? Let's see you >demonstrate the truth of all the mechanics, logic, and conjunctions >you use without regression to "not" "contradiction" and "differences". > >> Given a demonstration we might be able to assess its >>usefulness. > >How? > >>Until then the meaning of "truth in mechanically reduced universal >>terms" has meaning only to you (if to you.) > >Well I can readily appreciate you and others are too lazy or stupid to >grasp the implications of mechanically reduced exhaustive truth in >universal terms. The whole world except you might well be lazy or stupid, but the trouble remains that you are the only person allegedly to know what the term "truth in mechanically reduced universal terms" means, and you seem unable to explain yourself. > You're mighty long on arbiter dicta and mighty short on >demonstrations of truth for what you say. What does "arbiter dicta" mean? Do you mean "obiter dicta"?
From: Bob Cain on 28 Apr 2007 17:32 Lester Zick wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:20:13 -0700, Bob Cain > <arcane(a)arcanemethods.com> wrote: > >> Lester Zick wrote: >> >>> How can truth in mechanically reduced universal terms not be useful? >> That could be. Why don't you give it a try? Provide a demonstration >> of such a truth using the mechanics of the world ("not" is not >> mechanics.) > > "Not" is NOT mechanics hey? Boolean conjunctions aren't mechanics hey? Of course not. [Lester's effete dance of avoidance snipped] Oops, nothing left. Still waiting for you to demonstrate some "truth in mechanically reduced universal terms." Don't forget the mechanics part. Being one of your obsessions, I know you will take the last word here. So why not make it effective? Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein
From: Lester Zick on 28 Apr 2007 19:31 On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:55:51 +0100, Ben newsam <ben.newsam.remove.this(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:44:13 -0700, Lester Zick ><dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >>On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:20:13 -0700, Bob Cain >>>> How can truth in mechanically reduced universal terms not be useful? >>> >>>That could be. Why don't you give it a try? Provide a demonstration >>>of such a truth using the mechanics of the world ("not" is not >>>mechanics.) >> >>"Not" is NOT mechanics hey? Boolean conjunctions aren't mechanics hey? >>Which "mechanics of the world" did you have in mind exactly, >>Stringfellow? The mechanics where you mechanize angular mechanics with >>a piece of string? The mechanics where you mechanize Michelson- Morley >>without FLT? The mechanics where you mechanize Einstein's isotropy >>without anisometry? I'd like to see you mechanize anything without >>"not" or some equivalent such as contradiction, alternatives, or >>differences. >> >>Even more curious I'd like to see you provide a demonstration for such >>a "mechanics of the world" without "not", contradiction, or >>differences. I define a universally exhaustive mechanics between "not" >>which is true of everything and "not not" which is self contradictory. >>And all you can do is whine and snivel that "not" is NOT mechanics. >>Maybe you'd like to explain why the "contradiction of contradiction" >>is not self contradictory for a change? Go right ahead give it a try. >>I see all the bully boys NOT demonstrating the truth of the mechanics >>they advocate so why should you be any DIFFERENT? Let's see you >>demonstrate the truth of all the mechanics, logic, and conjunctions >>you use without regression to "not" "contradiction" and "differences". >> >>> Given a demonstration we might be able to assess its >>>usefulness. >> >>How? >> >>>Until then the meaning of "truth in mechanically reduced universal >>>terms" has meaning only to you (if to you.) >> >>Well I can readily appreciate you and others are too lazy or stupid to >>grasp the implications of mechanically reduced exhaustive truth in >>universal terms. > >The whole world except you might well be lazy or stupid, but the >trouble remains that you are the only person allegedly to know what >the term "truth in mechanically reduced universal terms" means, and >you seem unable to explain yourself. Or, heaven forbid, you could just brush up on the relevant literature. >> You're mighty long on arbiter dicta and mighty short on >>demonstrations of truth for what you say. > >What does "arbiter dicta" mean? Do you mean "obiter dicta"? "Arbiter" not "obiter". Do you imagine you're the only person in the world with a dictionary? What's curious is that you could easily have faulted me for "Asimov" instead of "Gamow" but you chose instead to question a phrase which is intuitively obvious to the casual observer. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 28 Apr 2007 19:31
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:32:45 -0700, Bob Cain <arcane(a)arcanemethods.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:20:13 -0700, Bob Cain >> <arcane(a)arcanemethods.com> wrote: >> >>> Lester Zick wrote: >>> >>>> How can truth in mechanically reduced universal terms not be useful? >>> That could be. Why don't you give it a try? Provide a demonstration >>> of such a truth using the mechanics of the world ("not" is not >>> mechanics.) >> >> "Not" is NOT mechanics hey? Boolean conjunctions aren't mechanics hey? > >Of course not. Good. Evasion noted. ~v~~ |