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" <tabor...@primus.ca>
wrote:
"Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
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 h.raul...@gmx.de 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, Helmut25. 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, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran ChristianOn Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 3:50 AM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> 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
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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.
