Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 02/14/05 

Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 23:26:23 GMT

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:24:28 -0500, Tony Orlow (aeo6)
<aeo6@cornell.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>Lester Zick said:
>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:07:09 -0500, Tony Orlow (aeo6)
>> <aeo6@cornell.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>
>> >Lester Zick said:
>> >> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:25:06 -0500, Tony Orlow (aeo6)
>> >> <aeo6@cornell.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Lester Zick said:
>> >> >> On 10 Feb 2005 18:29:10 GMT, stephen@nomail.com in comp.ai.philosophy
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >In sci.math Albert <albertwagner@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >: stephen@nomail.com wrote:
>> >> >> >:> In sci.math Albert <albertwagner@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >:> : stephen@nomail.com wrote:
>> >> >> >:> : <snip>
>> >> >> >:> :> Not according to the definition of cardinality. Cardinality is well
>> >> >> >:> :> defined, and it logically follows that |A + B| can equal |A| even
>> >> >> >:> :> when |B|!=0. You are not appealing to logic, but to intuition.
>> >> >> >:> :> What does your intuition think infinity+1 equals?
>> >> >> >:>
>> >> >> >:> : Appealing to illogic is not more correct than an appeal to intuition.
>> >> >> >:>
>> >> >> >:> : <snip>
>> >> >> >:>
>> >> >> >:> What appeal to illogic? Cardinality is well defined. It
>> >> >> >:> logically follows from that definition that |A+B| can equal |A|
>> >> >> >:> even when |B|!=0. Point to an error in the logic.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >: Show me the logic from which the definition follows.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Two sets have the same cardinality if there exists a bijection
>> >> >> >between them. That is the definition. Like most definitions,
>> >> >> >it is just assigning a name to a longer concept. Can you
>> >> >> >give me an example of a definition that logically follows
>> >> >> >from something? I cannot think of any examples in math or logic.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The universal truth of contradiction is defined by the self
>> >> >> contradictory nature of alternatives to contradiction.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Regards - Lester
>> >> >>
>> >> >Does consistency, as an alternative to contradiction, contradict itself?
>> >> >How is consistency self-contradictory?
>> >>
>> >> Well, consistency is defined by the absence of contradiction, Tony.
>> >> It's the result of contradiction and not an alternative.
>> >Cosnsistency is the absence of contradiction.
>>
>> That's what I said. But mechanically it results from contradiction and
>> isn't a mechanical alternative to contradiction.
>
>Yes it is. The tautology "contradiction OR ~contradiction" is always
>true, like any tautology. Consistency=~contradiction. Therefore
>Contradiction OR Consistency is a tautology and therefore always true.

Do you see any way consistency or the absence of contradiction can
cause anything, Tony? That's the point I was making.
 
>> >> It can't
>> >> contradict itself because the absence of something can't contradict
>> >> anything any more than the addition of zero can change magnitude.
>> >The absence of something contradicts the presence of it.
>>
>> Not mechanically. Only in descriptive language. I doubt you'd find the
>> absence of anything causing anything much less contradiction.
>
>Try the absence of logical consistency. That seems to be causing
>unending contradiction and other ill effects as far as I can see, in
>this very NG.

Of course. The absence of consistency logical or not is contradiction.

>Besides, if you read carefully, you will see that I never said the
>absence of anything alone is a contradiction, but the concurrent absence
>AND presence of something is a contradiction. mechanically, logically,
>and really.

Sure. But the presence of something is not defined in terms of the
absence of difference but by the presence of difference.

Regards - Lester

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... Lester Zick said: ... >>Contradiction OR Consistency is a tautology and therefore always true. ... >>Try the absence of logical consistency. ... But the presence of something is not defined in terms of the ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... Lester Zick said: ... >>Contradiction OR Consistency is a tautology and therefore always true. ... >>Try the absence of logical consistency. ... But the presence of something is not defined in terms of the ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... Lester Zick said: ... >>Contradiction OR Consistency is a tautology and therefore always true. ... >>Try the absence of logical consistency. ... But the presence of something is not defined in terms of the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >> isn't a mechanical alternative to contradiction. ... >Contradiction OR Consistency is a tautology and therefore always true. ... Do you see any way consistency or the absence of contradiction can ... But the presence of something is not defined in terms of the ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >> isn't a mechanical alternative to contradiction. ... >Contradiction OR Consistency is a tautology and therefore always true. ... Do you see any way consistency or the absence of contradiction can ... But the presence of something is not defined in terms of the ...
    (sci.physics)