Re: Eternal Verities
From: patty (pattyNO_at_SPAMicyberspace.net)
Date: 10/23/04
- Next message: Josh Purinton: "Re: New countable infiniity logic"
- Previous message: Chris Menzel: "Re: CH Question"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Eternal Verities"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Eternal Verities"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:30:46 GMT
Lester Zick wrote:
> Eternal Verities
> -------
>
> Lester's opinion -
>
> Everything is differences because alternatives are self contradictory
> since anything different from differences is an oxymoron.
>
> patty's opinion -
>
> Lester's opinion is wrong because philosophers don't like tautologies
> and patty isn't nearly as stupid as this argument suggests.
>
What is gained and what is lost why someone misstates another's position?
To set the record straight: Lester's assertion is not wrong because it
is a tautology; rather it is just inconsequential.
Let's code Lester's statement as a logical predicate to see what i am
talking about:
(forevery X) (X isa difference)
or perhaps we could try another word:
(forevery X) (X isa Thing)
or maybe the one used in RDF:
(forevery X) (X isa Resource)
In fact what we put at the top of any ontology tree is just a token that
fits into that axiom of class theory. Now does Lester see why his
statement is of no consequence ? Nope, he will not comprehend this.
patty
- Next message: Josh Purinton: "Re: New countable infiniity logic"
- Previous message: Chris Menzel: "Re: CH Question"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Eternal Verities"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Eternal Verities"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|