Philosophy Now Forum

Moyo wrote:viewtopic.php?f=26&t=16036

that thread.

BTW, i am not gunning for the church system.

I realize. I was just stating limited systems are safe. No problem.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Moyo wrote:viewtopic.php?f=26&t=16036

that thread.

BTW, i am not gunning for the church system.

I realize. I was just stating limited systems are safe. No problem.

Not when the limitation is in them being a system.

When i said "a way" it was not a grand refference. I meant a procedure.

Moyo wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

Moyo wrote:viewtopic.php?f=26&t=16036

that thread.

BTW, i am not gunning for the church system.

I realize. I was just stating limited systems are safe. No problem.

Not when the limitation is in them being a system.

As we both know, the Church-Turing system represents the limits of computability. It is the test of limitation in computing. It doesn't pretend to solve that which lays outside.

So, you are gunning for the system, then.

Lol...i thought you meant religious system.

I mean nothing about computability.
I mean a thing cannot be totaly equivalent with itself because total equivalence is not possible.Equivalence implies order, one coming before "itself".

Its simply says that we cannot guarantee "a = a" because they can be differentiated by order. If we say they are the same we step into an infinte regress be cause we are "swapping" the "a's" to prove this,But what do we mean by the swapping if not

Statement 1;"(a = a) != (a = a)".

And then we have to ask whether (statemen 1 = statement 1) so we have a viscious infinite regress

On the surface it may seem trivial but the axiom of identity was all we really ever had , but now, not even.

Order is not taken from stating the axiom but from the definition of a (equivalence) relation, i.e.orderd pair.
The form a =a is not off its own a problem to deal with But its basis (and thefore itself in a way) is.

Moyo wrote:I mean nothing about computability.
I mean a thing cannot be totaly equivalent with itself because total equivalence is not possible.Equivalence implies order, one coming before "itself".

Its simply says that we cannot guarantee "a = a" because they can be differentiated by order. If we say they are the same we step into an infinte regress be cause we are "swapping" the "a's" to prove this by invoking the axiom all over again as in"(a = a) = (a =a)" so the regress is viscious.

On the surface it may seem trivial but the axiom of identity was all we really ever had , but now, not even.

As long as (eq a a) comes out true in my system, I'll be satisfied, and leave the doubt to others.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Moyo wrote:I mean nothing about computability.
I mean a thing cannot be totaly equivalent with itself because total equivalence is not possible.Equivalence implies order, one coming before "itself".

Its simply says that we cannot guarantee "a = a" because they can be differentiated by order. If we say they are the same we step into an infinte regress be cause we are "swapping" the "a's" to prove this by invoking the axiom all over again as in"(a = a) = (a =a)" so the regress is viscious.

On the surface it may seem trivial but the axiom of identity was all we really ever had , but now, not even.

As long as (eq a a) comes out true in my system, I'll be satisfied, and leave the doubt to others.

That result would then be trivial since (eq a b) where (!eq a b) would also be in this system (and "in my sytem" = "not in my system" so its not exactly clear (by defn) what you mean.

Moyo wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

Moyo wrote:I mean nothing about computability.
I mean a thing cannot be totaly equivalent with itself because total equivalence is not possible.Equivalence implies order, one coming before "itself".

Its simply says that we cannot guarantee "a = a" because they can be differentiated by order. If we say they are the same we step into an infinte regress be cause we are "swapping" the "a's" to prove this by invoking the axiom all over again as in"(a = a) = (a =a)" so the regress is viscious.

On the surface it may seem trivial but the axiom of identity was all we really ever had , but now, not even.

As long as (eq a a) comes out true in my system, I'll be satisfied, and leave the doubt to others.

That result would then be trivial since (eq a b) where (!eq a b) would also be in this system (and "in my sytem" = "not in my system" so its not exactly clear (by defn) what you mean.

My Lisp system, on a practical level.

Doubt is the biggest cause of (good) philosohy.
I am trying to make this a debate on metaphysics ultimately.

Something really wierd is going on, an echo without the original sound ever having sounded. That is what "reality" is. We try to paint the whole universe with the brush of logic but cant seem to be able to paint the handle, we cant "bend that way" it seems.

Perhaps we need to use "2' brushes that simultaneously paint each others handle.

Any idea what that second brush could be?...faith ..perhaps?

Moyo wrote:Doubt is the biggest cause of (good) philosohy.
I am trying to make this a debate on metaphysics ultimately.

Something really wierd is going on, an echo without the original sound ever having sounded. That is what "reality" is. We try to paint the whole universe with the brush of logic but cant seem to be able to paint the handle, we cant "bend that way" it seems.

I understand I can't perceive reality as it is. But I tackle it through other means; neurophysiology and philosophy of mind.

It seems to me that there comes a time when we must just say "This we accept as true" and go on from there. Any thing can be doubted, and a definition can be demanded for any word, but this only leads to an endless regression and no conclusions. "For sake of Argument" can save a lot of time on terms and Ideas that are relatively well understood, but different backgrounds must be accounted for and cleared up in the beginning.

thedoc wrote:It seems to me that there comes a time when we must just say "This we accept as true" and go on from there. Any thing can be doubted, and a definition can be demanded for any word, but this only leads to an endless regression and no conclusions. "For sake of Argument" can save a lot of time on terms and Ideas that are relatively well understood, but different backgrounds must be accounted for and cleared up in the beginning.

Agree in full.