Definition of a Thing:
If a Thing is to exist, it must be, by necessity, at the very least ‘not’ that-from-which-it-exists. This ‘not’ is what enables it to exist, and as such is the transformation by which it exists. This transformation is the defining boundary of a Thing; the Thing is fully-bounded by “not”. But the existence of a boundary gives rise to there being two sides. And so we understand that for a bounded Thing to exist, there must exist that Thing’s complement – that is, the that-from-which-it-exists. “not” is an involutory transformation in that a second “not” cancels both. However, in normal speech, this cancellation is referred to as “is” – where “is” is “not not”. So we understand that by being defined by ‘not’, an extant Thing is absolutely unique. If it was not, then it would not exist – because it would not not-be something else (it is not-not something else – thus it ‘is’ something else).
Continue reading “Set Theory 2.0 – a first attempt”
The human mind, I am convinced, operates in terms of sameness and difference*. From this conviction I have recently come to label two modes of thinking – ways which the mind ‘makes sense’ of the world:
Continue reading “Understanding Understanding: Two modes of mind”
[This is a repost of a comment I’d made on http://thephilosophyforum.com]
The Emotional argument for Atheism
This topic of discussion has piqued my interest and so I humbly attempt a contribution:
I understand an ’emotional appeal’ not to be an outburst of irrational emotion on behalf of the orator, but rather an oration intended to appeal to the audience’s emotions – that is, intended to arouse specific emotions within the listener. The manner in which this is done can vary, but a well-reasoned and logical argument, if successfully ‘appealing to the emotions’ has the benefit of being sound and able to withstand attempts to de-construct it.
Continue reading “The emotional appeal for Atheism”
If ever there was something which merited the name “God” in my eyes, it would be the Mobius Strip. But I don’t believe in a personal, let-alone sentient, god. I’d be far more inclined to call it “Tao” instead. Buddhists might call it “Om” (or “Aum”). Mathematicians should call it “i” (the square root of negative one), but there are even more examples in Mathematics (the involution, the half-rotation, inconsistency, contradiction, “not” or the symbol ¬). Electronics circuits represent it as the inverter whose ouput feeds back into its input. Philosophers might call it “contradiction” or more formally the “paradox of self-reference” epitomized in the Liar Paradox:
“This statement is False.”
Continue reading “The Deep Symbolism of the Mobius Strip”
The circle is a strange creature, and most definitely not as simple as it seems. In fact, you will see that a circle in the plane doesn’t enclose anything – that ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ are completely arbitrary and in the end, meaningless. Hold on to your seats!
Continue reading “The Circle in the Plane: How bizarre is this?”
On Infinity and Boundaries:
You have to understand that if you have an infinite “expanse” of sameness that is unchanging, and that you (I say ‘you’, but I mean ‘it’ or ‘unknown’ for the time being) cause a Thing to exist from that sameness, if it is to ‘exist’, then it must necessarily be perfectly bounded; and if it is perfectly bounded, then, reciprocally, so too is the ‘infinite’ sameness (which is now clearly not infinite).
Continue reading “Strange and relative thinking: two examples”
“The Tao that can be named is not the Eternal Tao”
“He who knows does not speak; He who speaks does not know.”
I speak now, because I do not know. I’m wondering aloud.
Continue reading “On the Ethics of Silence”
These ideas are a work in progress.
Axiom 1: A Thing “exists” if and only if it also defines what it is “not”, which is also a Thing.
Continue reading “Adjacent Existents – A Theory”
To my previous post, Louis Kauffman, himself, generously took the time to reply. I have included his reply in the comments section of that post. In that comment, I’d promised to continue the discussion in a new post. Here it is, with the brief continuation of the dialogue I had begun with Mr. Kauffman. I have copied the discussion here below:
Continue reading “Mathematics and the Real”
I’m troubled by a recent realization of a fundamental error that my until-now near-idolized inspiration, George Spencer-Brown, has made ab initio and which has unravelled my deepest convictions about the soundness of mathematics…
Continue reading “Spencer-Brown is wrong: The distinction is not ‘perfect continence’!”