On 7/1/09 12:23 AM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Ham
[Ham]
A computer is programmed by human beings to process digits according to
man's mathematical precepts. Zero is an irrational (unreal or imaginary)
number. The Sumerians invented it 5000 years ago as a "placeholder" for
inscribing numbers larger than 60, and it re-emerged in 5th century India as
a multiplying integer of the decimal system. Divison by zero is disallowed
in conventional mathematics because its reciprocal function as a multiplier
of any number (0 times X) always equals zero. Infinity is also an
irrational number. Although it is used in Calculus and Algebra, Aristotle
rejected infinity as an existing reality on the premise that a whole number
cannot be infinite because one can never count to infinity.
[Ham]
These restrictions do not hold for metaphysical theory, however, since
Unity, Nothingness and Infinity are not physical quantities but conceptual
aspects of reality. The theoretician cannot define ultimate reality in
numerical terms, but he can use equations to symbolize the concepts he is
trying to articulate. Thus, while 1/0 is an unknown quantity in
mathematics, Unity/Nothingness represents Infinity in metaphysics.
[Joe]
0 is not irrational! It is a marker for the point between addition and
subtraction. This discussion is eternal unless we both realize that the
perceptions we post from are undefined in the concepts we use. Infinity is
not irrational merely no limit for counting.
[Ham]
Machines are not capable of intuitive thought or abstract conceptualization..
"Rigorously logical" only means that your computer is consistent in
computing to the prescribed program. How could it possibly do more?
[Joe]
Imho physics and metaphysics do not share a common logical boundary. They
are infinitely different.
[Ham}
Evolution is the process of change in a system, generally in the direction
of greater complexity. The assumption that evolution has an esthetic or
moral component is a speculative theory fostered largely by Pirsig. I see
no support for the notion that goodness or betterness is more complex than
evil or worseness. "Higher" and "lower" applied to moral standards are
poetic aphorisms used to support a theoretical hierarchy that has no
empirical foundation. In short, there is nothing in the order of existence
that implicates human morality, and I have never bought into the idea that
the universe is inherently moral.
[Joe]
Imho Evolution is not a process of change in a system, it is an order in
existence. I compare it to the AW GI concept of Krimel.
[Ham]
According to Runes' Dictionary of Philosophy, the definition of mind in
terms of "intentionality" originated with the Scholastics and was later
revised by Brentano to become a theory of German phenomenology. Since I
don't distinguish intentional and real existence, I can't answer your
question as to whether truth can be atttributed to such a division.
However, I will say that metaphysical propositions can be validated on their
own merits, which typically are cogency or consistency with the theory as a
whole, logical construction of the major postulates, and accommodation to
(non-violation of) empirical principles. The value of a metaphysical
proposition is a subjective determination, inasmuch as metaphysics
transcends experiential evidence.
[Joe]
Aquinas was a scholastic. His claim was that he was merely interpreting the
writings of Aristotle. At the end of his life he declared that what he had
written was as straw. There is not much food value in straw.
[Ham]
Way beyond my comprehension. Again, you lost me at "intentional".
[Joe]
I was merely describing Aquinas¹ interpretation of Aristotle¹s
³PSYCHOLOGY.² Argue with him! No! he¹s dead.
[Ham]
Thanks for making it all so clear, Joe.
[Joe]
Thanks for responding, Ham.
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/
