From: Ian Goddard (igoddard@netkonnect.net)
Date: Sun Jun 14 1998 - 16:36:08 MDT
At 05:07 PM 6/14/98 -0400, Daniel Fabulich wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Jun 1998, Ian Goddard wrote:
>
>> IAN: "My definition" of atomism is the Three
>> Law of Thought. The Three Laws of Thought are
>> not properly defined as "my definition."
>>
>> Your definition is new and IS properly defined
>> as "your definition," which redefines atomism
>> in a holist context by adding "with respect to."
>>
>> You're REdefining the standard then you're
>> portraying the standard as my definition that
>> is totally my own and is unlike what most
>> people use. That is the opposite of the truth.
>
>You assert, then, that most people use YOUR definition and not mine?
IAN: "My definition" of atomism is the Three
Law of Thought. The Three Laws of Thought are
not properly defined as "Ian's definition." If
you want to give me the credit for inventing
the 3 Laws, that's nice, but not appropriate.
I assert that your addition of "with respect
to 0" is YOUR definition of atomism (consistent
with my defintion of holism) and that it is, as
you acknowledge, the same as saying "atomism =
holism." When I counter atomism I counter the
traditional definition of atomism that would
say that "atomism =/= holism."
>> The 3 Laws define a crisp boundary around A
>> that says the identity of A is exclusive to A
>> by 100%. Adding to A is A "with respect to 0"
>> turns atomism into a holistic relation.
>
>So, let me get this straight: The 3 Laws are the right definition, and
>therefore my definition is wrong.
IAN: The Three Laws express atomism
by 100%. Your definition does not.
It is holistic only in that it is
not outside a whole set, but it
defines an A that exists not.
><sigh> It's hopeless, Ian.
>
>> That such relation is the truth does not mean it
>> is atomism. You've assumed "atomism" = "truth."
>
>No. I'm simply asserting what most everyone ELSE knew already: that all
>"atomist" Newtonians agree that nothing is defined without a frame of
>reference, but that within a frame of reference, properties can vary
>independently.
IAN: That idea of independent variance is atomism.
If we take it to the 100% extreme, A is A free from
any frame of reference. An example of a variation
occurring free from other features in a frame of
reference is a "free variation" only relative to
the whole, and does not measure a degree of atomism.
>> That you attempt to show examples of relations
>> that are what they are free from other relations,
>> means your saying that relation-A is A free from
>> -A, and thus you still deploy the very traditional
>> atomist definition that you seek to redefine.
>
>Hardly. To rephrase it in terms of holism, using the partial difference
>between A-0 and B-0 allows us to derive the rest of the identity chart; we
>lose no information by describing identity in terms of this relation.
IAN: There is no "partial difference."
There is omission of the full difference.
>A is NOT free from not-A. You can't have an A free from at least one
>other thing: in this case, 0. However, you can have A free from B, if we
>define identity as the relation between A and 0.
IAN: B adds attributes to A, each attribute
expressing their holistic identity union.
>> IAN: Then 1 also has no identity because
>> there is no difference between 1 and 1.
>
>Not unless you're defining your universe with respect to 1.
IAN: 1 - 1 = 0, so there is
no difference between 1 and 1.
>> IAN: A may be larger, faster,... than B,
>> and yes, all with respect to 0. Just observe
>> that 3 is 5 relative to -2 and we see that
>> non-zero identities acquire identity attributes
>> from non-zero identities... as well as from 0.
>
>Consider thinking of it this way: When we say that 3 is 5 relative to -2,
>that means that we are saying that -2 is 0 relative to -2. So the fact
>that 3 is 5 relative to -2 does not mean that 3 has an identity which
>comes from -2, but that 3 has an identity which comes from zero; when we
>change reference frames, -2 is the 0.
IAN: Yes, every point is also a relative
0 point, which shows how "A to 0" is a
relation that applies to A/0, B/0 and A/B.
>> IAN: But half is not free from the whole,
>> and the cause of the half is the whole.
>
>So? A can change relative to 0 independently from B relative to 0, and
>that's all I'm trying to prove.
IAN: If A = 3 and B = 6 and A changes
from 3 to 9, A has changed relative
to both 0 and B. The relation 0/6 is
many things from many points of view.
It is large from 0/.03, it is tiny
from 0/103067472. When we include more
into our frame of reference we redefine
the nature of the 0/6 relation. To say
that the 0/6 relation remains static is
to negate its relation to anything else.
**************************************************************
VISIT IAN WILLIAMS GODDARD --------> http://Ian.Goddard.net
______________________________________________________________
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see the light, but rather because
its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows
up that is familiar with the idea from the beginning."
Max Plank - Nobel physicist
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual.
Those who deny individual rights cannot claim
to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:11 MST