A=A

[tjohnson]

An idea;

In light of more modern, general semantic, considerations, the 'law of thought' commonly expressed as A=A should be replaced with one such as this S(A)=S(A), in natural language. In mathematics, a=a is fine, but in non-mathematics we do not deal with objects directly, we only know them by their structure, hence the law should be modified to s(a)=s(a). So when one hears the saying 'you never step into the same river twice' this may be true but the important structural characteristics of that river can be the same for all practical purposes.

[BaalChatzaf]

An idea;

In light of more modern, general semantic, considerations, the 'law of thought' commonly expressed as A=A should be replaced with one such as this S(A)=S(A), in natural language. In mathematics, a=a is fine, but in non-mathematics we do not deal with objects directly, we only know them by their structure, hence the law should be modified to s(a)=s(a). So when one hears the saying 'you never step into the same river twice' this may be true but the important structural characteristics of that river can be the same for all practical purposes.

Which is why conservation laws, symmetries and invariants are at the heart of modern physics.

The physicists were several light years ahead of The Count (Kortzibsky) and the mathematics used by physicists can readily handle the concept of the structural invariant and conserved quantities.

Physics has solved the problem of The One and The Many for at least three centuries. The ancient Greek philosophers had an inkling but had not developed the mathematical machinery necessary to do the job. The Greek thinkers, unfortunately, separated discrete counting and geometrical compactness (continuity and connectivity) early on and these were not fully joined (or rejoined) until the 19th century C.E.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Which is why conservation laws, symmetries and invariants are at the heart of modern physics.

The physicists were several light years ahead of The Count (Kortzibsky) and the mathematics used by physicists can readily handle the concept of the structural invariant and conserved quantities.

Physics has solved the problem of The One and The Many for at least three centuries. The ancient Greek philosophers had an inkling but had not developed the mathematical machinery necessary to do the job. The Greek thinkers, unfortunately, separated discrete counting and geometrical compactness (continuity and connectivity) early on and these were not fully joined (or rejoined) until the 19th century C.E.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes, I realize physics and science in general have moved in this direction for many centuries, yet philosophy and much of lay people's point of view still retain this attitude, for example, objectivism seems to rely heavily on this A=A idea. Korzybski's main work, Science and Sanity, is an attempt to use the methods of physical science that work so well in a science of man, which is sadly lagging behind.

[BaalChatzaf]

Yes, I realize physics and science in general have moved in this direction for many centuries, yet philosophy and much of lay people's point of view still retain this attitude, for example, objectivism seems to rely heavily on this A=A idea. Korzybski's main work, Science and Sanity, is an attempt to use the methods of physical science that work so well in a science of man, which is sadly lagging behind.

Broad guage philosophical systems, particularly (ugh!) metaphysical systems tend to be ka ka. They cannot be empirically tested so they are either about gaseous abstractions or they are outright nonsense.

The only philosophical systems that can stand up to heavy usage tend to be fairly narrow epistemological philosophies. For example, Popper's approach or that of Mario Bunge. Universal systems are so ... so .... retro and old fashioned. And none of them worked fully. Look at Aristotle's "scientific" contributions to Natural Philosophy. When they were not outright Wrong they were Nonsense. It was only in the realm of gaseous abstraction (logic and semiotic) that Aristotle scored true hits. Ditto for Plato and the Pythagoreans.

Aesthetics, Politics and Ethics are based on opinion and are not factually grounded. That is why there has never been a good government in the ten thousand years since humans had governments. There are only bad governments and worse governments.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Aesthetics, Politics and Ethics are based on opinion and are not factually grounded. That is why there has never been a good government in the ten thousand years since humans had governments. There are only bad governments and worse governments.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Interesting opinion. However, you can't eviscerate philosophy with science. You remind me of the elite airmen in "Things to Come."

--Brant

(edit): This is my post #666 on OL. Heh, heh, it may be my last! :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:

Edited July 3, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[BaalChatzaf]

Interesting opinion. However, you can't eviscerate philosophy with science. You remind me of the elite airmen in "Things to Come."

--Brant

I also admire the Romans in their prime (late Republic, early and middle Empire). They built great roads, the built great aqua ducts and water tunnels, they had running water toilets and they got the chariots to run on time. They had a kick-ass Army that kept the peace and except for that glitch in the Teuteborg Forest (Varus! Where are my Eagles!) they were unbeatable in their prime. When I behold the Glory That Was Rome, I get in touch with my Inner Fascist. America should have been the New Rome, but we have not the heart and stomach for proper imperialism. And that is why we are going down the tubes.

The Romans did not give a rat's petootie for rights, but during their prime, Europe and parts of the east were prosperous to a degree never achieved previously. The Romans were the premier example of what Rand called "the mystics of muscle", but they kept the peace in Europe and they produced a system of roads that promoted commerce and production. O.K., so they had slaves. Aristotle would have approved.

One of these days I will do a piece on why Rome was the greatest thing that happened to Europe besides good French bread.

Ba'al Chatzaf