Hi Ham and all, 1/1=1 1/0=? A computer programmed with the most logical language possible will not answer 1/0.
On 6/29/09 2:29 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: > > To the two 'J's -- > > On 6/29/09 2:14 PM, AM, Joseph Maurer wrote to John Carl: > >> As far as logic goes, mathematics 1+1=2 is the most rigorous logic. >> Even a creator cannot program a computer to divide 1 by 0. >> There is a fault line in such a perception, leading to an error message. >> Mathematical logic is not metaphysical logic. Which one is more >> comprehensive? > > Here's my solution to your "fault line" error. (I suppose John will call > this "picking and defining my game.") But here goes ... > > Mathematical values are valid only within the scope of finite dimensions. > Therefore, in existential logic, one divided by nothing remains a unity > because no division is consummated. However, in metaphysical logic, unity > represents an absolute source and zero represents "nothingness", a negation > of that unity. This negation represents existence -- a relational world of > infinitely differentiated phenomena. > Mathematical logic does not declare finite dimensions false in any rational sense, except division by 0 which is irrrational. Mathematical logic has a sign of infinity for unending computations. Dimensions are the domain of physics. "Therefore" is imaginary. Mathematical values are logical; Otherwise????? 1/0=i After writing the above my computer which is programmed by the most rigorously logical program refuses to do any more computations on the key pad. Since: 1/1=1 I have no idea how you divide logic into metaphysical, existential, absolute? Evolution describes an order in existence yes or no. If yes then the order is moral lower to higher? >> Aristotle tried to cross that fault line by describing a divided >> existence. >> In his psychology he proposed an intentional existence for S, a real >> existence for O, thereby creating SOM metaphysics. Pirsig, in a >> Metaphysics Of Quality, accepts DQ as perceivable, but indefinable. >> Where is the logic in that? > > Existence IS divided. This is true whether the relational world is "real" > or only experiential (i.e., perceivable). Therefore any logic applied to > metaphysics must accommodate that truth. Is it then a logical error to > conclude that 1 divided by 0 = Infinity? If so, I take full credit for the > error. > > Would you kindly explain what you mean by "an intentional existence"? Who > or what is the "intendor"? > Existence is divided by Aristotle into a real existence for the body and immaterial soul. Intentional existence was derived from a perception that thoughts and decisions are immaterial, that the soul has a separate existence from the body. Is it logical to attribute truth to a perception that existence is divisible into intentional and real existence? Is a simple metaphysical declaration valid without further evidence?. I answer Mu! Un-ask the question about a "logical error"!. How can nonsense be an error? >> I accept Pirsig¹s description of evolution, and conclude that evolution >> can be perceived as a moral hierarchy in existence. He proposes four >> levels, but I prefer to use the musical scale for 7 levels of evolution. >> I think Aristotle had the right idea of dividing existence, but he got it >> wrong. >> Evolution, MOQ, is a fuller concept than SOM. I do not perceive logic >> in a hierarchy of existence. The perception of DQ is of the moment, the >> thousand-tongued Hydra. > > Evolution can be perceived as a hierarchy of any number of levels. But why > do we need a level hierarchy? I can't see any relation of the seven-tone > musical scale to Pirsig's hierarchy of Quality levels. This reminds me of > the infamous "string theory" of the universe which went from 5 dimensions to > 11, and then 12, before it was replaced by the theory of parallel universes. > Have you ever defined what these levels represent? > > Also, in what way did Aristotle or Descartes get it wrong by positing > existence as a subject/object dualism? > For the sentient being he proposed a body/soul division. This complicates metaphysics. For the body cosmic existence. For the soul, a mind/will combination, which requires the capability of creating ideas with intentional existence for the comprehension of differing realities. The mind becomes a creator from nothing by abstracting the essence from the image and giving it intentional existence in a mind from the intentional existence of the soul which is beyond materiality. Way beyond Occam's Razor. How do you perceive levels in existence? From a moral sense of lower to higher! Existence comes in 7 flavors, colors of the rainbow, the musical scale from Do through Ti, etc! Morality! Occam's razor. No need to complicate things. > Thanks, gentlemen, > Ham > Thanks, Ham Joe > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > > On 6/29/09 7:55 AM, "John Carl" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Huh? There's all kinds of logic in evolution: can't have two fathers >> simultaneously, genetic rules, etc. I guess its how you look at "logic". >> Considered as "the rules of the game" then its just a matter of picking >> and >> defining your game. > > > 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/ 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/
