[MD] SOM Problem #6523213: Relativity and Truth

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

David, Marsha,

David:

 > Because Dynamic Quality isn't anything. See?

That statement doesn't mean anything.

Marsha:

 > How can you prove this? What are you saying here?

Good question.

 > Sometimes trying to understand what someone else is saying can be 
very difficult, particularly when a non-concept such as Dynamic Quality 
is involved.

So a non-concept is not anything, yet it's a non-concept. Very well. :D 
I've been where you are now. It was hell.

 > You can prove this logically. There is no distinction between A or B 
if you cannot say how either of them is different in the absence of the 
other.

This is patently false, yet the misconception is easy to make. I've had 
a couple of beers and feel very sporty, so I'll now brag I can 
metaphorically KICK YOUR ASS WITH FORMULAE on this. You up for a match?

Ahh... I don't mean to do this macho bullshit. I wish you well and I 
hope I don't come out as totally arrogant.

You can't prove anything about a non-concept. You can't prove it exists. 
You also can't prove it doesn't exist. And if A is a concept and B is a 
nonconcept, they are different, and the "in the absence of the other" 
doesn't mean anything. There is never provable absence of neither sq nor DQ.

-Tuukka