An extension of Watching Apocalypse



    Posts : 72
    Join date : 2016-09-18


    Post by dleet on Tue Sep 27, 2016 5:51 pm

    + comments  by Maarten Maartensz    

    Tractatus 3.031
    It used to be said that God could create anything except what would be contrary to the laws of logic.The truth is that we could not say what an 'illogical' world would look like.

    Of course we could: one replete with contradictions, teeming with square circles, living dead, married spinsters etc. That is: we could certainly say what an illogical world would look like, though we may have some trouble imagining it. Yet even this may be done, as shown by e.g. Escher and Magritte.

    And since this is a philosophical work, let's also note that many philosophers have asserted many oxymorons with an air and often with a belief that they asserted something true and important.
    We do not have to imagine an illogical world if we saw the debate last night.

    Gödel proved the propositions in Russell's predicate calculus were true. Proof requires statements to be coherent and complete. Usually one might get one or the other, or one and part of the other, but last night was nothing coherent, and certainly not complete. Therefore, last night was not a debate but an image of a debate and not a billionaire but a picture of a billionaire painted by the picture itself, like Escher.  Gödel's 'coherent and complete' is the gold standard (to borrow a line from the theater production just mentioned) to establish before any consideration of truth should begin.

    btw, Wolf's book is not cheap, even in the states. I was ordering it delivered to my mom's in FL to pick up when we go there in Dec. I looked at it earlier when we were on Thom's boards, but I was in the middle of another sociology book on failed state actions and saw the targets in it as a people without a state, but only within a broad application. My mental Venn diagram had less overlap than I thought. I'm looking forward to it, and might Kindle it, too. Is Kindle now allowed to be verbified? It's a promotion for sure, like Google it, and in the UK they Hoover, they don't vacuum and they 'bin it' when they toss something into a bin. Trump is already a verb, but a positive one. Destructive nouns become verbs, too. A bomb is used in the act of bombing, trumping a society or hierarchy, could be a sociological bombing or sabotage, or societal mole, or bull in a china shop. A Trump Tautology or T&T could be constructed but will likely be unstable or verifiable. B or ¬B is where B is a) Billionaire or not Billionaire, and/or b)  Buffoon,  or not Buffoon.

    I saw an illogical example represented in the guise of a focus group of undecideds. One guy said, "Neither one of them said anything that will get me to vote for them".  I think his expectations are illogical and many have no idea what civics is or how it works and what the puzzle pieces look like, let alone the picture those jigsaw pieces are supposed to create. Trump comes along and puts a corner piece smack dab in the middle and no one challenges it because all are working on the frame. The corner will never fit, but his crowd is trying to force it into a match with pieces where the shapes don't match, and the colors definitely clash.

      Current date/time is Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:51 am