Dialethetic is not found in any dictionary, nor Phrontistery nor logolepsy, the last two into abstruse, rarely used words. That makes it still a THEORY and Logical as a means to REPRESENT or model the world, rather than digging into reality perse or 'an sich' though not any kind of social system reality. As such it amounts to no more than dialectic waffle of the obfuscating kind, relying on initially undefined dog-Greek. PARA-consistent with what or merely within what? Based deductively on which universals? Words are very tricky as they can be made to mean any whatever, as done by about 6 billion people around now who each represent what their senses tell them in language. The adoption of axiomatised dogma is no cure for that. Just because D. denies it's trivial does not mean that's true or valid. Popes have done it for centuries, verbal rescue operations to the contrary.
adrian archytas wrote: > THe LHC has not yet performed the experiments with lead nuclei that > caused some to fret about black holes. There are plenty of arguments > around that fall into trivialisation.Dialetheism should be clearly > distinguished from trivialism. This is the view that all > contradictions are true (and hence, assuming that a conjunction > entails its conjuncts, it is also the view that everything is true). > Though a trivialist must be a dialetheist, the converse is not the > case: a dialetheist typically claims that some (and, usually, very > specific) sentences are dialetheias, not that all of them are. How one > can do the former without being committed to the latter is one of the > main topics in the dialetheic theory, since trivialism is considered > by most philosophers theoretically repugnant, if anything is. The > standard solution for the dialetheist consists in subscribing to the > view that entailment (deductively valid inference) is paraconsistent. > Rigourous derivation is needed to avoid trivialisation, as I think > Georges has just pointed out, or else, frankly, we can make anything > mean what it does not and become trivial. > > > > On 3 Oct, 09:26, Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> NOTE: It's a warning to non-physicists, who could be >> muddled by this bullshit. >> >> --- On Fri, 10/3/08, socratus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> .> Einstein’s formula E =mc^2 belong to behavior of micro >>> particle >>> ( light quanta/ electron). >> According to Quantum physics the> energy >>> ( force/ power) of body ( particle ) in the rest is not >>> equals to >>> zero, >>> but equals E= mc^2. >>> When E =mc^2 changes according to" The Law of >>> conservation >>> and transformation energy / mass " the body begin its >>> moving. >>> It is Potential force which changes in the Kinetic force >>> and this >>> power >>> is hiding in the micro particle: light quanta/ electron. >> =================== >> G: >> E=MC2 concerns Special Relativity and has been conceived >> before Quantum Theory. I happen to know it, as I have >> developed its rigorous derivation, which Einstein used >> at the end of his life. >> >> http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/RELATIVISTIC_DIALECTIC/D_OUTLINE_OF_EINST... >> >> It has nothing to do with >> "behavior"(?) of any particles, especially with light >> quanta, nor with "transformation energy / mass" and moving >> bodies, nor with any Potential force which changes in the >> Kinetic force(?), nor with any "power"(?) hiding(?) in >> "light quanta/ electron". >> BTW energy is not "( force/ power)" which they teach in >> elementary high school classes. >> >> E=MC2 states equivalence of mass and energy and that's >> all. In practice when some nuclear transformation results >> in decrease of mass, the difference transforms to EM >> radiation, like in Hiroshima, or in radioactive >> treatment of cancer. >> >> Georges. >> =================== > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
