Just so I can have a clearer view of what logics you use, the “A cannot be and not be” that you attribute to Russell, is this the same thing as Aristotle’s Formal Logic? Here I am talking about his three axioms addressing: A is A (identity) A is not not-A (contradiction) A is not both A and not-A (excluded middle)
...this can be applied in Euclidean Geometery, however if we move to Einstein's Geometry, the point of view becomes relativised and we lose universality. I'll wait to address Heisenberg until I get a response. On Sep 11, 10:47 am, Simon Ewins <[email protected]> wrote: > No, I am referring to such things as 'A cannot be and not be'. > Etcetera. As provided by Russell. > > If that is subjective then anything can be or not be regardless of actuality. > > Mathematics would crumble, language would no longer make sense. I can > be really tolerant of the strange and weird aspects of concepts and > ideas but subjective logic is pushing things too far. > > Even under Bayesian network analysis or the belief functions of > Dempster-Shafer belief theory or opinion application to a collection > of propositions, that can be represented as a Dirichlet distribution, > which are all sometimes referred to very narrowly as 'subjective > logic' because the statements measured are opinions and not argued as > facts... at its root the arguments still rely on the three basic > aspects of Logic which cannot be subjective without loss of all > rational meaning for everything. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" 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/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
