WJ

Hi John!

Let me take one at a time.

You said: "Presumably you perceived that "logical necessity" exists, how does that come about?"

"There is at least one true proposition". Call this proposition A. Is A necessarily true? Suppose I contend that A is false. Call this proposition B: 'A is false'. But if A is false so is B, because B is a proposition. And if A is false, there are no true propositions. So A *must* be true. It is therefore logically impossible for there to exist no true propositions.

So I'm saying that that little exercise proves 'a' resolution of a truth [true paradox] from propositional logic (language) is achieved thru logical necessity. Or, thru other empirical means, perceptions, sciences, yada yada as you've alluded. So, logical necessity exists.

(?)

Walrus

John Page

Zeit equates to "contemporary", spirit refers to an aggregate "essence" that people sense as others' overall attitudes and mood changes toward their life's circumstances.

I think the "something in the air" interpretation of zeitgeist is pure metaphor. Attitudes, feelings etc are abstract entities. If you're looking for a phenomenal explanation, perhaps consider a common external reality (e.g. economic depression + war) having a similar effect on people's thoughts and feelings. The people communciate these thoughts and feelings so you start to get a feedback loop. Panic and hysteria could be an extreme result.

In summary, I consider zeitgeist as current sentiment. Pollsters have ways of measuring it.

Cheers!

John Page

First, the following sentence of my response further stated Second, you have not defined 'true' as it relates to your system and to entities outside your system.

Third, you have demonstrated your definition of a "logical necessity" that results from your system but have not proved it. It does not follow that all existence is part of or subject to the results of your system.

For example, if physicists should arrive at new measurements that demonstrate an "identity" can appear more than once (and the LoI infers identities are unique) one would have to reconsider logic theory. I think this is why some intellectuals were upset with Heisenberg's theory that we can't know an electron's mass and position simlutaneously.

From the perspective of logic, the Axiom of Choice is fun. Here's a definition:
It was such axioms that drove me to consider and conclude that such "choice" is merely an interpretation in the mind and not a phenomenon of external reality - concluding the latter would violate the LoI.

In section 5.9 of my paper I propose a new axiom for set theory that the "identities" of all things exist in 1:n relationships with their representational form. Note: Identity confusion can arise when the same representation is used for different "identities". Example, the verbal forms of maid and made are similar but mean different things. See also my explanation of the Barber Paradox in section 5.7 of my paper.

Am I accurate? I don't know - relativism strikes again

Finally, a question for you. Did your "logical necessity" exist before your system of logic was devised?

Cheers!

WJ

Hi John!

Well, we agree, basically. But just some more interesting thoughts. You said:

First, the following sentence of my response further stated

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A system of formal logic is an abstract entity that may or may not be a good model for understanding reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We agree! Then you said:

"Second, you have not defined 'true' as it relates to your system and to entities outside your system."

True, we agree. Truth in the cases of paradox from language is that which is found in the relationship between words. Just like 1+1=1 exists, but is not 'axiomatically' true (at least in our minds).

Then you said:

"Third, you have demonstrated your definition of a "logical necessity" that results from your system but have not proved it. It does not follow that all existence is part of or subject to the results of your system."

True. Was I talking about all existence? The problem is the emergence of paradox when one talks about it. For instance, the analogy to the spinning ball being a blur results in a statement "that ball is red and green all over", which may or may not be true; or a half truth. Time has made it that way. And since we can't stop time [the ball from spinning] we can't know the nature of its existence [or the thing] and/or verify its true color(s).

John, your last question was awsome! I'll say no, because we must first exist to logicize! The intellectual's hate when I say that. (Of course the real answer is that it is unknown. Nevertheless, intellectual's, rationalist's, and those types despise it just the same.)



Otherwise, is there existence outside the conscious mind? And if there is, who would know it? Who is capable of that type of knowledge? I'm afraid we are back to the observations/perceptions of certain sides/forms/angles from the painted balls again (or some other metaphysical phenomena that exists in our minds but can't be logically... ). I must give initial credit to Tempest on that one!


As always, I've enjoyed the chat. Now, when is someone going to come by and rain on our parade?

Walrus

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

WJ

John!

Speaking of existence, just a little fodder for thought.

We talked about how time viz. the spinning balls of color precluded determination of certain truth to its existing nature, but what about biological paradox? Say during the period in early stages of life where the sex is not yet determined? One could say that perhaps there exists a true paradox, but in this case, instead of stopping time in order to make a true determination, you would want to use time so that the determination [of truth] can avail itself to the observer. (Perhaps another form of logical necessity, but am not sure.)

Point is, in the aforementioned example, at a given snapshot in time, the physically observed 'thing' [or nature of the thing-Being] is both male and female. Do you have any concerns relative to that logic; truth, paradox, and time?

Existentialism is fun, isn't it

Walrus

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

John Page

No. Truth is an abstract value in the mind of the perceiver....the outcome is determined by comparison with our axiomatic concepts of male and female.

We can describe something as both blue and square because these characteristics are not defined as mutually exclusive. Now, supposing that the definitions of male and female in your example are mutually exlusive:

1. If the sex is not yet determined then the "thing" is neither male nor female upon first observation.
2. At the point when gender is determined by the observer, the "thing" will appear as male or female but not both.

The observer's (subjective) definition is the key. You might think differently if your concepts of male and female were not mutually exclusive, joined in the conception of a hermaphorodite, for example.

So, the explanation goes back to the posts we swapped about continuity. Our minds contain the definition of "things" and a transformation is simply a conclusion from two observations.

I'd be interested to know if physicists have a proof that something can literally be continuous i.e. at all times. If so, I wonder how they observed it and perhaps we could see the data....

John Page

The answer is no. My reasoning is that I asked "Did your "logical necessity" exist...." thus the necessity in question could not have existed because the "your system of logic" had not been devised.

Whether the logical necessity in question (repeatedly observed and commonly acknowledged as) was true is a different question. i.e. Was your "logical necessity" true before your system of logic was devised?

The answer to this one is "don't know" because we are unable to detect whether that truth-functional value existed in a mind in relation to the proposition. Note: Since all points in spacetime appear to be unique, what we really mean by the above is an "equivalent" truth value and an "equivalent" proposition. This is how imaginations can be stretched.

Reconciliationism is fun! Try to believe everything and nothing at the same time. this is how the mind works. n:n

Cheers!

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

WJ

Hi John!

As always I find your explainations and distinctions right on the mark. I believe physics can demonstrate this-your latter concern-but let me do some checking and report back.

In the meantime, I really appreciate your view/distinction regarding 'mutual exclusiveness'. I guess the issue of existence and, as you and other mentioned-continuity, is that they *are not* mutually exclusive.

Therein lies the paradox. A paradox resolved in time. As some things, being dependent on time, require it for its sustained existence. Yet in some cases, a slowing of time or stoppage could theoretically resolve a percieved paradox emminating from physical objects.
So, it seems 'truth' has a relationship with time, (or that 'continuity' you and other's mentioned).

I wonder if there exists anything that does not require time to know its truth? And if not, if time stops, what would or could we learn [in the philosophic sense of course]? My head is spinning...

I think there is a thread somewhere about the stoppage of time...?

Walrus

WJ

Oops, we crossed. I do want to respond briefly to how it is we arrive at logical necessity thru use of time, but it would only prove the obvious; sense perception/experience is needed for some level of truth to exist. Let me re-group here... .

Walrus

John Page

I think no because:
a) Our knowledge is contained within our thoughts.
b) Thoughts are process-bound and therefore time-dependent.
c) Truth is the result of a thought process that compares two different values for equivalence.

Therefore, arriving at a "truth" requires time.

Cheers, John