[MD] MOQ and SOM

[John Carl]

Sorry Joe, I ain't much of a mathmetician.  Nor a metaphysician neither.
 I'm interested in logic, the game of it with its rigorous rules and all.
 It's a fun hobby.
Metaphysics definitely does have a different sort of logic than scientific.
  I'd sure agree with you there.  Metaphysical logic is tied up with human
desire and need whereas scientific logic doesn't care a hoot about that
humanity stuff.  All math cares about is math.  And if you think that
metaphysical truth trumps math truth then you and I are on the same page,
same book and same chapter so far.  Math truth is a subspecies of
metaphysical truth.  And completion of this tome is in the realization
that all truth is a subspecies of Quality.  Viola.  It doesn't sound stupid
to say at all.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but NOT ONLY in the eye of the
beholder.

J Carl



On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Joseph Maurer <jhmau at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> Thanks for pointing out my inexact use of Œerror¹!  I was trying to
> exemplify a difference between metaphysical logic and scientific logic to
> emphasize that physics has a different standard for truth than metaphysics.
> Imho in a metaphysical setting a mathematical logic of dividing 1 by SQ
> would produce DQ by analogy since SQ, 1 are defined and DQ is undefined .
> The point I am trying to make is that  mathematical logic, is not the same
> as metaphysical logic.  I know it sounds stupid to say that logic is not
> logic, but up to now there is no provision for evolution in a rigid logic
> of
> numbers. Metaphysics trumps numbers to use a different metaphor.  ³Where
> did
> the beauty go?²
>
> Joe
>
>