[MD] Nonrelativizably Used Predicates

[118]

Hi Tuukka,
I am not sure why you are receiving criticism from some.  Let me see
if I understand what you are presenting.

You seek to provide a description to Quality, but in a manner which
does not make it derivative.  MoQ can have the tendency to make that
which is motion, motionless.  In mathematics, this conundrum was
solved by people such as Neuton and Liebnitz.  That is, they could
present motion in itself.  In fact they provided means by which motion
could be converted to the static, and back again.

With Quality we have something that cannot be made relative.
Therefore, there is no descriptive power which can be used to relate
to Quality.  Is this what you mean by a nonrelativisible predicate?
It would seem that you are uncovering a technique by which one can
circumvent this paradox.  The problem lies in the descriptive
limitations of language and this problem can be avoided through
mathematics.  The number two exists outside of any real context.  One
cannot point to "two".  However, "two" can be used for descriptive
reasons.  This is an area of human reason that exists completely in
the abstract, and has no experiential component.  I am sure I will
never bump into a "two"

If my understanding is somewhat correct as to your intent, I would
suggest that you do not try to satisfy the philosophical needs of
relating everything to something else, but stick within the
mathematical confines for a time.  Abstract math often seems useless
until it is found that it can be used for something.  Topology is a
good example.  Set theory within topology has a mind of its own.  In
fact, I am sure you have heard of homotopy (Poincare), where if one
math can be continuously deformed into another math, they are
homotopic.

It would seem that so long as you understand the conceptual framework
of what you are doing, any answers that result can ultimately be
returned to the world of the literary.  Einstein played with a variety
of different maths, and came across an equality between energy and
mass.  This is not what he was seeking, and he was surprised by it.
After the fact, it seemed obvious.  In fact, why did not physicists
see this before?  The reason was, because the math did not exist.

Carry on Tuukka.  See where your thought experiments get you.  Don't
worry about the feedback.  If you do discover something, others will
ask "why didn't I see that?".

Cheers,
Mark

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Tuukka Virtaperko
<mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> Orn,
>
>
>> Tuukka:
>> An example of an abstract noun is: "bravery". This noun has the property
>> of being the opposite of "cowardice". This is kindergarten stuff.
>>
>> Ron:
>> "Bravery" is not relative to a particular experience, as say a concrete
>> noun like "strawberry" is.
>> This IS the context of your term "relativizably" . That the term is
>> predicated on a concrete
>> relative meaning. One that is relative to a particular experience that
>> most all may agree to.
>> Abstract nouns do not have a corresponding relative experience and are not
>> agreed apon
>> and are mostly subjective in meaning. What is brave to you may not be
>> brave to another.
>> This is 2nd grade stuff.
>> Consequently Tuuka, when one uses concrete nouns in logical strings of
>> meaning they bear
>> a consistancy while abstact nouns do not. THATS why they are not used in
>> analytical philosophy
>> not because they are not "allowed" but because they yield inconsistancies
>> in meaning.
>
>
> Tuukka:
> If we are determining, whether a predicate is used nonrelativizably, it is
> irrelevant whether it looks like an abstract or a concrete noun.
> Nonrelativizability is not a property of a predicate, but a property of the
> way in which it is used.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Tuukka:
>> And never, ever, solve the Poincare conjecture, the four color theorem,
>> and myriads of others. Just sticks and stones and a happy Ron.
>>
>> Ron:
>> Obviously you subscribe to your own brand of bullshit.
>>  .Have fun saving the free world goldmember.
>
>
> Ron:
>
> Why don't you go say that to Pirsig, smart aleck? :D
>
> -Tuukka
> 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