[MD] MOQ and SOM

[Ham Priday]

Hi Joe --


> 1/1=1
> 1/0=?
> A computer programmed with the most logical language possible
> will not answer 1/0.

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.

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.

> Mathematical logic does not declare finite dimensions false in any
> rational sense, except division by 0 which is irrrational.
> Mathematical logic has a sign of infinity for unending computations.
> Dimensions are the domain of physics.  "Therefore" is imaginary.
> Mathematical values are logical; Otherwise?????
> 1/0=i
>
> After writing the above my computer which is programmed by
> the most rigorously logical program refuses to do any more
> computations on the key pad.

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?

> Since: 1/1=1 I have no idea how you divide logic into metaphysical,
> existential, absolute?  Evolution describes an order in existence yes or 
> no.
> If yes then the order is moral lower to higher?

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.

> Existence is divided by Aristotle into a real existence for the body and
> immaterial soul.  Intentional existence was derived from a perception that
> thoughts and decisions are immaterial, that the soul has a separate
> existence from the body. Is it logical to attribute truth to a perception
> that existence is divisible into intentional and real existence? Is a 
> simple
> metaphysical declaration valid without further evidence?.  I answer Mu!
> Un-ask the question about a "logical error"!.  How can nonsense be an 
> error?

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.

> The mind becomes a creator from nothing by abstracting the essence
> from the image and giving it intentional existence in a mind from the
> intentional existence of the soul which is beyond materiality.
> Way beyond Occam's Razor.

Way beyond my comprehension.  Again, you lost me at "intentional".

> How do you perceive levels in existence?

I don't.

> From a moral sense of lower to higher!  Existence comes in 7 flavors,
> colors of the rainbow, the musical scale from Do through Ti, etc! 
> Morality!
>
> Occam's razor.  No need to complicate things.

No need at all!

Thanks for making it all so clear, Joe.

--Ham