Reply
Thu 2 Dec, 2010 07:53 am
0. The universe is the set of objects, entities, things.
1. For all x, if x is a member of U, then necessarily there exists an x such that x is a member of U.
1.∀x[((x ε U)→ □∃y(y ε U)) & (x=y)]
note: x=y is added because I wanted to be proper in my symbolization. I could have simply said "1.∀x[((x ε U)→ □∃x(x ε U))" . I am pretty sure that it would not have changed anything. But then again I could be wrong.
2. For every x, if x has constituent parts, then those parts are members of U as well.
3. The ontic status of x is positive, i.e, we cannot say that x does not exist in U (beacause we are assuming that some x necessarily exists in U if it is a member of U), but that it can exist in particular states-of-affairs.
4. x can exist in all states-of-affairs in U iff all other members are dependent upon it.
5. x is independent of all other members of U iff x is not necessary for other members. x is dependent iff there exists at least one member of U that is needed in order to bring about x.
5.1. x can be independent of some members of U and dependent upon some members of U.
6. x need not be any particular object, entity, or thing; the only criterion is that it be a member of U and that necessarily there is some x that is a member of U.
7. A state-of-affairs tells us something about the world. That it is constructed in such-and-such a way.
*This is about as far as I got concerning states-of-affairs (which is not very far). I wanted to establish the existence of the objects, entities, and things before starting off with states-of-affairs.
The relationship between Logic and the world is what I am trying to get at here. But it seems very difficult for me to show it. Language lands itself right smack dab in the middle of the two so that is something I will have to reconcile at a later date. For now I will stick with the thoughts given, and maybe present more as I go along.
If I screwed up somewhere, let me know. Thank you.
What sort of madness is this about: "relationship between Logic and the world"? Elsewhere you refer to overthinking. Do you understand this issue could be more about misdirected thinking?
How are you trying to use formal expressions of logic and math to deal with some vague reference to logic and understanding events(?) and human behaviors(?) in the world? Your reference is far to open-ended and vague.
Perhaps you might gain some success by limiting use of formal logic and math to sticking to understanding of physics and statistcs. Human behavior is nearly impossible to predict unless (as an eample) you're referring to some aspects of crowd control, retail or vehicular traffic.
Human behavior and expression of emotions and psyschology which uses language is not something that is quantifiable using logic and math tools you want to apply. The neaest analogy I can think of would be akin to attempting to pick up a tool such as a hammer when you need a saw.
@Ding an Sich,
The only part I disagree with is with the possibility of independence of X in 5 and 5.1
I see all X as functions. (things are functions and functions are things)
Functions that as a set become things (System) which bring about more functions which turn to emerge as bigger things again and again layer upon layer, until all potential is exhausted...they all are dependent of each other.
@Ragman,
Ragman wrote:
What sort of madness is this about: "relationship between Logic and the world"? Elsewhere you refer to overthinking. Do you understand this issue could be more about misdirected thinking?
How are you trying to use formal expressions of logic and math to deal with some vague reference to logic and understanding events(?) and human behaviors(?) in the world? Your reference is far to open-ended and vague.
Perhaps you might gain some success by limiting use of formal logic and math to sticking to understanding of physics and statistcs. Human behavior is nearly impossible to predict unless (as an eample) you're referring to some aspects of crowd control, retail or vehicular traffic.
Human behavior and expression of emotions and psyschology which uses language is not something that is quantifiable using logic and math tools you want to apply. The neaest analogy I can think of would be akin to attempting to pick up a tool such as a hammer when you need a saw.
Im not dealing with the emotive aspect of a natural language, only the descriptive and logical aspect of it. It would be nonsense to deal with the former aspect. Why would you think I am doing that?
@Ding an Sich,
How can you conceive independent objects ? in what possible sense ?
@Ding an Sich,
Sorry, this discussion is so full of pretense that I must bow out.
@Ding an Sich,
0. There are only universes
of discourse. A universe of discourse is the
dynamic set of inter-relationships between entities called "thingers" and entities called "things". Since the ontological basis of such universes is dynamic rather than static,
static set theoretic formalisms are inapplicable.
@Ragman,
How is the opening thread full of pretense? I start off with a universe and I try to derive what I can from that universe; in this way I try and show states-of-affairs and what they work with. How is that pretentious? All that is being demonstrated is assumptions and derivations from that one assumption.
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
0. There are only universes of discourse. A universe of discourse is the dynamic set of inter-relationships between entities called "thingers" and entities called "things". Since the ontological basis of such universes is dynamic rather than static, static set theoretic formalisms are inapplicable.
A universe of discourse can simply be the domain of real numbers, or men, or statements in propositional logic, etc, etc. What does it mean for a universe of discourse to be dynamic? I am interested, but I need to know more about where you are coming from good sir.
And apologies for not saying a "universe of discourse". I will be more explicit the next time. That what was I meant by "universe".
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
How can you conceive independent objects ? in what possible sense ?
No I cannot. I am already seeing problems in my assertions.
@Ding an Sich,
That is a bit vague...you start of well and then you just don´t develop...
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
That is a bit vague...you start of well and then you just don´t develop...
Like I said Fil I cannot conceive of an object that is independent of other objects. My assertion on it was lackluster.
What is a generalist? A person who makes generalizations? Does not everyone do that?
Here is a statement that is not a generalization.
Lrc : Robbie loves Clarece.
Oh yea and you cannot expect to someone to develop something over night. Philosophy does not work that way good sir.
@Ding an Sich,
Fair...my apologies.
...I just thought this was sort of an introduction to a more complete idea that you had in mind...
@Fil Albuquerque,
It may be. But I have a long way to go before you see anything massive. There is lot that I am taking in right now so all I am really trying to do is test the waters with the skills I have obtained (Logic, Math, Analytic skills, etc.). For right now though, I cannot do as much as I would like to. So my hinderances are keeping me from doing anything major.
In the future you may see more. But I cannot guarantee that good sir.
I just leave the language thing out of this not because its not pertinent, you just gave the example on real numbers, but essentially because some people tend to look at language to arrive on to a mind...
I rather think that mind emerges out of order then to think that a mind produces any order for itself, which is a bit of an Anthropocentric and convenient way of looking at it...why should I divide U between minds and things, when I could look at it all as a set of self organized functional entity's distributed by several gravitational layers of relation between themselves in which "mind" is just a progressive stance of complexity given critical mass for awareness as we know it...in such a world language is previous to mind, in fact originating mind and not the other way around...
Quote: There are only universes of discourse. A universe of discourse is the dynamic set of inter-relationships between entities called "thingers" and entities called "things". Since the ontological basis of such universes is dynamic rather than static, static set theoretic formalisms are inapplicable.
If you decode that it is utterly banal. The words are a camouflage behind which a plan is unfolding. The plan is the promotion of the power and control of the class of people behaviouristically trained to use such language so that their "clients" (us in this case) are awed and rendered supine and sullen.
It is impossible, in my view, to deny that students learning such control-speak should be charged for the privilege of such an education. And plenty. It is out of date anyway.
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
Quote: There are only universes of discourse. A universe of discourse is the dynamic set of inter-relationships between entities called "thingers" and entities called "things". Since the ontological basis of such universes is dynamic rather than static, static set theoretic formalisms are inapplicable.
If you decode that it is utterly banal. The words are a camouflage behind which a plan is unfolding. The plan is the promotion of the power and control of the class of people behaviouristically trained to use such language so that their "clients" (us in this case) are awed and rendered supine and sullen.
It is impossible, in my view, to deny that students learning such control-speak should be charged for the privilege of such an education. And plenty. It is out of date anyway.
What the hell are you talking about?
@Ding an Sich,
...money makers, speeches, bureaucrats, and sheep paying the party in most University´s around...
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
...money makers, speeches, bureaucrats, and sheep paying the party in most University´s around...
Well that is not what I am here for. I certainly hope Fresco is not here for that either.
@Fil Albuquerque,
That's how elementary it was DS. A racket. Beating the taxpayer up with brilliantine words.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace