[MD] MOQ and Gödel's incompleteness theorems

[118]

Hi Ham and Tuukka,

Ham, I think you are trying to make a subtle point that may have more
meaning to you than to others.  It may just boil down to what these
words mean to you.  As I understand it, Reality composes everything,
even the unreal.  From your ontology I see Essence as not everything,
since we can negate it.  By my semantic calculations, therefore, I
would say that Essence is part of Reality.  But, you may be saying
something different altogether.

Mark

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Greetings, Tuukka --
>
> Welcome to the forum.
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 4:04 PM, "Tuukka Virtaperko"
> <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org> wrote:
>
>> Ham:
>>
>> You seem to be missing a point that's related to intensions and
>> extensions. Let's take the concept of squares as an example. The intension
>> of this object is the definition of squares, ie.
>> "all numbers that equal an integer multiplied by itself". The
>> extension of this object is "1,4,9,16,25..."
>>
>> You seem to be attempting to use the concept of "reality" as a
>> reference to the extension of "reality". What is the intension of
>> this concept?
>>
>> Perhaps more poetically put: If reality is not a term at all, how can you
>> use it as a term?
>
> I have no "hidden agenda".  Reality is a valid term, but as I have often
> pointed out it, it is defined differently by empiricists and philosophers,
> respectively.  Accordingly, I make a distinction between "existential
> reality" and "ultimate reality".  The former defines the plualistic universe
> and its finite components as experienced, the latter is the uncreated source
> or ground of all that is.
>
> However, I don't get your point because I don't see a relation between
> "intention" and "extension".  Although the phrase "by extension" suggests
> that a given concept can apply to more than one event or process, you didn't
> use that phrase.  Instead you tried to relate two words that don't even
> share a common prefix.  My point to Mark was that intent always implies an
> "intender" or subjective agent with a goal or purpose.  Thus, when you say
> "the intention of this object", what you really mean is: it is YOUR
> intention to use this object as an example that relates the two words.
>
> Your example doesn't work for me.  But if, indeed, I am "missing something"
> here, I'm sure that Mark or somebody else will hasten to explain what it is.
>
> Nice to meet you, Tuukka, and thanks for your interest,
> Ham
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>