Re: logical paradoxes

From: patty (pattyNO_at_SPAMicyberspace.net)
Date: 08/17/04 

Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 22:38:16 GMT

Traveler wrote:
> In article <E7tUc.32190$TI1.19831@attbi_s52>, patty
> <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Traveler wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <gwqUc.25867$mD.23792@attbi_s02>, patty
>>><pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dan michaels wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And as Bateson would say, the reason why classical Aristotelian logic
>>>>>doesn't do a very good job at describing causal systems is because
>>>>>it's static and doesn't account very well for temporal effects. As
>>>>>Bateson sees it, once you take into account temporal, then the usual
>>>>>logical paradoxes go away.
>>>>
>>>>Right on! To be more specific examine the sentence:
>>>>
>>>>"P and If this sentence is true, then it is false;
>>>> if the sentence is false, then it is true."
>>>>
>>>>where P is any proposition. Not that P blinks back and forth between
>>>>true and false relative to some observer *if* their logic is not static
>>>>but allows for temporal changes in truth functionality.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes. The problem is that "sentence" cannot refer to itself because the
>>>sentence is sequential construct that does not exist at the time of
>>>the reference.
>>>
>>
>>Within some system, yes. But there are more systems in this world than
>>are dreamt of in your philosophy.
>
>
> I am sensing hostility. In what system is a sentence not a sequence or
> a sequence not temporal?
>

True a sentence can be decomposed into a sequence of symbols. But a
sentence can be referred to by citing the address at which we stored the
entire sentence. There is no problem with self reference here
whatsoever. An agent can cop an attitude toward the entire sentence
stored at a particular address. If that agent originally assumes the
sentence to be true, then after it reads the sentence it must assume it
is false, etc. Assume that P is "The light is on" and that the light
is on. Then it is child's play to write an algorithm that will read my
sentence and turn the light off, then on, then off .... That would be
one system that puts a lie to your assertion.

>
>>>As an aside, the same temporal/causal considerations can be used to
>>>invalidate Godel's famous Incompleteness Theorem. Although Godel
>>>occupies an important place in the parthenon of the cult of modern
>>>science, the man was a total nut case. Godel is one of the most often
>>>quoted mathematicians of the world, yet his work is completely
>>>inconsequential. But then again, what can one expect from a believer
>>>in time travel. As I write somewhere on my site, the only thing
>>>incomplete was Godel's frontal lobe.
>>>
>>
>>It seems that every time i quote a sentence like that i get that same
>>response. I wonder if adding the P (pay load) changes Godel's theorem any.
>
>
> Would you care to provide examples of responses similar to mine that
> were made by others in reply to this quote of yours?
>

<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6e2f1d09.0408030252.66b906bd%40posting.google.com>

>
>>>Having said that, pardon me while I fetch my flame retardant suit.
>>>
>>
>>No need, im hot, but i won't set you on fire :)
>
>
> Yep. It's hostility, alright.

Only in your eyes, my friend, only in your eyes :)

patty