Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: Chris Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 16:51:06 +0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:54:30 +0100, John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
said:
Modus Ponens:
If P, then Q.
P. Therefore, Q.
The "If" announces a truth value. So "if P" requires the consideration
of another element or object through which a truth value may be
ascertained. If we eliminate the ontological and existential status
with which the term "if" baptises its objects, then modus ponens
reduces to
P and R, then Q
P. Therefore, Q
Wow. Just....wow.
DISCUSSIONS
Modus Ponens doesn't get off the ground - it describes two different
object events. But let's take a closer look at its subjective or
existential argumentative form which may yield something of worth.
Modus ponens
If P, then Q = P. Therefore, Q
Which reduces to
If, then = then, therefore
This says that existential possibility is equivalent to existential
reality when each identifies the same object. It also says that
reference to an object (which is the way that "possibility" presents its
objects) is equivalent to the object itself.
Modus ponens, in that case, is a convoluted form of the transcendentally
real notion that reference and self-reference are the same. Accordingly,
(Godellians take note) any proof which employs modus ponens and which
also relies on the distinction between self-reference and reference is
scuppered from the outset.
I'm sure "Godellians" the world over are reeling.
.
- References:
- An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- An argument against modus ponens
- Prev by Date: Re: An argument against modus ponens
- Next by Date: Re: An argument against modus ponens
- Previous by thread: Re: An argument against modus ponens
- Next by thread: Re: An argument against modus ponens
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
