Sorry Joe, I ain't much of a mathmetician. Nor a metaphysician neither. I'm interested in logic, the game of it with its rigorous rules and all. It's a fun hobby. Metaphysics definitely does have a different sort of logic than scientific. I'd sure agree with you there. Metaphysical logic is tied up with human desire and need whereas scientific logic doesn't care a hoot about that humanity stuff. All math cares about is math. And if you think that metaphysical truth trumps math truth then you and I are on the same page, same book and same chapter so far. Math truth is a subspecies of metaphysical truth. And completion of this tome is in the realization that all truth is a subspecies of Quality. Viola. It doesn't sound stupid to say at all. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but NOT ONLY in the eye of the beholder.
J Carl On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John, > > Thanks for pointing out my inexact use of Œerror¹! I was trying to > exemplify a difference between metaphysical logic and scientific logic to > emphasize that physics has a different standard for truth than metaphysics. > Imho in a metaphysical setting a mathematical logic of dividing 1 by SQ > would produce DQ by analogy since SQ, 1 are defined and DQ is undefined . > The point I am trying to make is that mathematical logic, is not the same > as metaphysical logic. I know it sounds stupid to say that logic is not > logic, but up to now there is no provision for evolution in a rigid logic > of > numbers. Metaphysics trumps numbers to use a different metaphor. ³Where > did > the beauty go?² > > Joe > > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
