Re: (OT) Re: Object identity
- From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:42:40 +0200
On 30 Jun 2006 10:07:47 -0700, Mark Nicholls wrote:
Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
Contradiction can be introduced in different ways. That depends on the
measure of truth (truth value).
For example, if you take "necessity" as the measure, then you'd come to
Belnap logic where
T = true V false (contradiction)
_|_ = true & false (uncertainty)
If you'd take "possibility" as a measure it would turn into:
T = true & false (contradiction)
_|_ = true V false (uncertainty)
These two are complementary.
1. A V not A
2. not (A & not A) [+/- de Morgan's rules]
And, also, what is A.
In intuitionistic logic you can't get not A from A. So you can't say
anything about A V not A without knowing A.
If I correctly remember the result, for any logic like above, you can build
a meta-logic system in which statements would be again either true or
false. I.e. things aren't that bad. You replace A with m(A)=true, where m()
is the measure, and everything is nice again, except for the philosophy.
Because m(A) is not A, and where is A?
for any C...I can prove anything....no axioms except "A & not A".
I am my own grandpa.
You can believe in it. Others might believe in the opposite. But the
question if you indeed are, becomes meaningless. You say:
"It seems I am my own grandpa"
It seems I am not.
I'll stick to bog standard logic.
Ah, but what makes you think that "I am my own grandpa" is any better than
"Continuum hypothesis is true". At the very moment you start to play with
axioms, you automatically become a grandson of yourself. Consider it as a
relativity theory of truth. Once you let the conditional tense in, it will
stay forever...
--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
.
- References:
- Object identity
- From: David Barrett-Lennard
- Re: Object identity
- From: H. S. Lahman
- Re: Object identity
- From: David Barrett-Lennard
- Re: Object identity
- From: H. S. Lahman
- Re: Object identity
- From: David Barrett-Lennard
- (OT) Re: Object identity
- From: Gabriel Claramunt
- Re: (OT) Re: Object identity
- From: Dmitry A. Kazakov
- Re: (OT) Re: Object identity
- From: David Barrett-Lennard
- Re: (OT) Re: Object identity
- From: Dmitry A. Kazakov
- Re: (OT) Re: Object identity
- From: Mark Nicholls
- Re: (OT) Re: Object identity
- From: Dmitry A. Kazakov
- Re: (OT) Re: Object identity
- From: Mark Nicholls
- Object identity
- Prev by Date: Re: Bob's 'Self-aggrandizing ignorant' Count: Was: What databases have taught me
- Previous by thread: Re: (OT) Re: Object identity
- Next by thread: Re: Object identity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|