Helmut - I don't think that we can 'want' both democracy and
capitalism. Neither emerges due to our 'wanting'.
Capitalism is an economic mode that enables a growth economy and
population growth. No other economic mode enables either. And
democracy is simply a political system that privileges the majority,
which in the case of capitalism, means the majority of the population
who, in this economy, are engaged in its wealth production. .
I think that knowledge is incomplete. I can certainly understand the
rule that knowledge is incomplete of the system of which we are a
part, but, isn't it also incomplete of external systems. We can
certainly know everything about a simple mechanical system, but, in
more complex systems, which is what the world really is - I don't
know that knowledge can ever be complete, since the system is,
itself, never complete.
Edwina
On Fri 25/12/20 2:15 PM , Helmut Raulien [email protected] sent:
Edwina, so, if we want both democracy and capitalism, we should
support individual private enterprises, I agree. And for companies
bigger than an individual co-operatives. Otherwise the
business-owners cannot become majority. I don´t think, that all
knowledge is incomplete. Due to Goedel, as far as I have understood,
merely the knowledge about a system of which the knower is part of,
is. Best, Helmut 25. Dezember 2020 um 19:10 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
Helmut - No, I don't think that Godel's incompleteness theory has
anything to do with democracy. After all, if we take as a given, that
all knowledge is incomplete [and Peirce would be the first to say
this!], then, we'd have to question other historical forms of
governance - such as a hereditary leadership, or small-group
consensus.
Democracy, like the other forms of governance, is based around
economics. Which ever section of the population ensures the economic
productive capacity of the population - also must be the section of
the population that gets to make the rules for the society.
Democracy is found within capitalism, an economic mode based around
individual private enterprise. When this section of the population
becomes the dominant and most numerous economic mode - then,
democracy becomes the political mode, because it 'privileges' the
majority.
Edwina
On Fri 25/12/20 12:41 PM , Helmut Raulien [email protected] sent:
Jon, you wrote "except as...", yes, these exceptions are what I was
talking about. I think, Goedel´s Incompleteness Theorem even is the
justification for democracy: No king can have complete information
about the system he governs, because he is part of it. Incomplete
information is not-knowledge is belief. Belief has to be handled
democraticly, because the belief of one person may be erratic. Isn´t
that great, to have a relevant mathematical piece of advice for
politics?? Happy Christmas, Helmut 25. Dezember 2020 um 03:09
Uhr
"Jon Alan Schmidt"
wrote: Helmut, List: I am still having trouble following you
here. Intuitionistic logic does not have anything to do with belief
or truth, except as a formal system for drawing valid deductive
inferences such that the conclusion is true as long as the premisses
are true. Its main difference from classical logic is that the
negation of a false proposition is not necessarily true, such that
proof by contradiction (reductio ad absurdum ) is invalid. Again,
Gödel's theorems also do not have anything to do with belief or
truth, except as demonstrations that certain kinds of sentences are
undecidable within any sufficiently powerful formal system.
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural
Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 3:50 AM Helmut Raulien wrote:
Jon, List, the fallacy of intuitionistic logic in my hypothesis
is, that it first includes belief into the concept of truth, then
sees, that belief is not two-valued, and then denies the law of the
excluded middle for both. But the NOT-operator can only be applied
for truth-problems, and so for knowledge-problems, not for
belief-problems. It is meant like that. The fallacy is based on the
hypothesis, that truth in general is not detectable. But I think, that
Steven has shown with Goedel, that there is a clear, noncontinuous
distinction between belief and truth, meaning, that truth exists, the
only thing, that the NOT-operator applies to, due to the agreement
about this symbol. The clear distinction -mathematically proven by
Goedel- between belief and truth is, that, if the proposition is
about a system the propositioner is part of, it must be belief, and
therefore (I think), if the propositioner is not part of the
proposition´s object, the proposition may be true or false, such as:
"This bucket is made of zinc.". Even if it was so, that
intuitionalistic logic would admit, that it throws belief and
knowledge (of truth) in one basket, this would be a performative
fallacy, because, since there is a clear distinction between both,
and both exist, blending both together, and widening the symbolic
meaning of the NOT-operator, is an unnecessary, confusing thing to
do. At least, they should not use the NOT-operator, but invent a new
one, such as MNOT (maybe not), like Peirce has done with not using
the normal cut, but a dotted cut for insecurity-problems. Best,
Helmut
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected]
with no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
