On May 7, 3:44 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 5/7/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On May 7, 1:25 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > >> The 'laws' of logic are just the rules of language that ensure we don't > >> issue > >> contradictory statements. > > You have to have logic to begin with to conceive of the desirability > > of avoiding contradiction. Something has to put the 'contra' into our > > 'diction'. > > No, you only need to understand negation, to have a language with the word > 'not'. Then if > someone says to you "X" and "not-X" you immediately realize the need to avoid > contradiction, because a contradiction fails to express anything.

## Advertising

"You immediately realize" = logic. A baby doesn't immediately realize that there is a need to avoid contradiction, even though they may understand bottle and not-bottle. An insane person or just irrational person may not care about avoiding contradiction even though they understand negation. Any anticipation of an outcome which results in a modification of one's intention is a form of logic. If I avoid something for a reason, I am using logic. > > > > > The 'laws' of quantum mechanics also follow from simple > >> assumptions about the world having symmetries (c.f. Russell Standish's > >> "Theory of Nothing" > >> and Vic Stenger's "The Comprehensible Cosmos") and having a symmetry is a > >> kind of > >> 'nothing', i.e. having no distinguishing characteristic under some > >> transformation. > > Invariance is one aspect of symmetry, > > It's an essential aspect. A symmetry is a property that is invariant under > some > transformation. All properties are invariant under some transformation, that's what makes them a property. Symmetry is a very specific sense of combined variance, invariance, but most of all a sense of conjugation by opposition. > > > but you cannot reduce symmetry > > to being a 'kind of nothing'. Symmetry cannot be anything less than a > > feature of sense. > > I can if I explicitly say what kind it is - which I did. Your reduction reduces symmetry to be no different from asymmetry. Asymmetry is invariant under some transformation also. You have only made the word symmetry meaningless. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.