On 5/7/2012 2:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
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
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.
"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.

They don't have language either. "Bottle and not-bottle" can only occur in language, there is no fact corresponding to "bottle and not-bottle".

An insane person or just irrational
person may not care about avoiding contradiction even though they
understand negation.

They may not care to make sense.  But then why should we listen to them.

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.

Yes, but not logic alone. You're using it to connect facts and values and actions that you know about in other ways.

   The 'laws' of quantum mechanics also follow from simple
assumptions about the world having symmetries (c.f. Russell Standish's "Theory of 
and Vic Stenger's "The Comprehensible Cosmos") and having a symmetry is a kind 
'nothing', i.e. having no distinguishing characteristic under some 
Invariance is one aspect of symmetry,
It's an essential aspect. A symmetry is a property that is invariant under some
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

You seem to think of symmetry a as single thing. Of course all properties are invariant under the identity transformation. But some things are invariant under discrete translations, some under continuous translation, some under reflection, some under interchange,...

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.

Symmetry isn't a thing and asymmetry isn't either.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to