Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

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

Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:23:33 GMT

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.

>> 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.

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
    ... >Lester Zick wrote: ... >> Well, consistency is defined by the absence of contradiction, Tony. ... Tony appears totally unrelated to anything you say here. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >Lester Zick wrote: ... >> Well, consistency is defined by the absence of contradiction, Tony. ... Tony appears totally unrelated to anything you say here. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
Quantcast