--- On Tue, 10/28/08, Joseph Polanik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Georges Metanomski wrote: >>Now, the Set Theory is founded in the intuitive concept "Collection" >>. What could you say about "Collection" in this sense of foundation of >>the Set Theory? ================== Chris: >this is a focus on symmetry. The anti-symmetric focus covers the >mereological and so recognition of the unique - set theory cannot >reduce past a PAIR (a collection must contain the empty set etc) >Neurologically any focus on difference/sameness WITHIN a context of >sameness (as in 'sets') is a symmetry-dependent system and so as a >methodology will find all meaning in symmetries (or reduce to) and so >we find the attraction of group theory etc etc etc =================== JP: there *is* an issue of symmetry here; but, it not mereological. it is a 'saucy' symmetry --- sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. in the context of the present discussion concerning the relevance of Bachelard to an evaluation of Georges' axiomatic system, it is clear that the relevance relation between fact and system is either non-symmetric or symmetric. if the relation of fact and system is symmetric (as it is according to Joe); the, facts can be offered to support the system and to undermine the system. if the relation of fact and system is nonsymmetric (as it is according to Georges); the, facts can be offered to support the system but not to undermine the system (the defense against the challenging facts is that faith ... er, I mean 'axioms' ... can not be challenged by facts). =================== G: 1.The whole lucubration of Chris and Joe is a pile of bullshit: About an INTUITIVE foundation of Set or any theory one can't say a word. It can only be intuited and contemplated. By definition. 2. Joe's "if the relation of fact and system is nonsymmetric (as it is according to Georges); the, facts can be offered to support the system but not to undermine the system (the defense against the challenging facts is that faith ... er, I mean 'axioms' ... can not be challenged by facts)." is a blatant idiocy and a barefaced, shameless lie. Blatant idiocy, because since Galileo and Descartes all rational epistemology and science is axiomatic and defines "Axiom" as: **Arbitrary deductive foundation of a theory, inductively FALSIFIABLE BY FACTS and taken provisorily as granted until falsified.** Barefaced, shameless lie, because I clearly share this definition, which underlies my Relativistic Phenomenology and which I repeated hundred times in my posts. This slander is malignant enough to be submitted to http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/most_malignant_absurdities/ for a Malignant Absurdity Award. It's true that they refuse flat idiocies unworthy of Absurdity, but now the jury is debating the submission of Predicate Logic and Linguistic Foundations for the general Award, so that Joe has a chance to get an individual Award in the wake of that general one. Think about the WEB-wide immortal glory. Anybody clicking "Joe Polanik" will get him in the full splendor of his Absurdity. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
