Mathematics ends in contradiction an integer=a non-integer

#1
It is proven Mathematics ends in contradiction an integer=a non-integer. Now science generally uses mathematics with mathematics ending in contradiction we have the consequence for science/mathematics that you can prove anything you want
that formal logic proves
All things are possible

“...if a theory is inconsistent it will contain every
sentence of the language ...
Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory
we have to admit everything ...
a theory which contained each sentence of the
theory's language and its negation...”
 
Last edited:
#2
It is proven Mathematics ends in contradiction an integer=a non-integer. Now science generally uses mathematics with mathematics ending in contradiction we have the consequence for science/mathematics that you can prove anything you want
that formal logic proves
All things are possible
Hi M,

I most appreciate this part of the linked paper:

"Thus We can now just treat all views/ philosophies esthetically that is for their logical and argumentative beauty rather than for any fortuitous scientific or truth value just like one treats poetry painting music for their esthetic beauty"

I have been playing around with that idea, as well.

I'm also interested in the notion of verisimilitude:
"Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit everything. And no theory of verisimilitude would be acceptable that did not give the lowest degree of verisimilitude to a theory which contained each sentence of the theory's language and its negation."

If I'm reading this right, you're talking about the theory of explosion ("once we have to admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit everything"). I don't think I have any right understanding of verisimilitude, but for me, the concept of verisimilitude is related to how the stories (knowledge) generated by scientific method, etc, can be practically used to keep developing more and more sophisticated tools (technology).

I'm also interested in this quote from Newton-Smith:
"A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds for including this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal of theories, our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is inconsistent it will contain every sentence of the language." I am scanning through the Newton-Smith book, nice that there's a free full-text avaible online.

Thanks again M. I wonder if you have any thoughts on paraconsistent logic as Graham Priest and others are developing it? Priest sees it as a challenge to the dominance of Aristotelian logic. I talk about it in a post here:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...ts-potential-for-usefulness.4212/#post-126008
 
#3
[QUOTE ]Thanks again M. I wonder if you have any thoughts on paraconsistent logic as Graham Priest and others are developing it? Priest sees it as a challenge to the dominance of Aristotelian logic ][/QUOTE]

My initial view on paraconsistent logic is that it has the same problems as does Aristotelian logic

THE LIMITATIONS OF ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC THE END OF ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC LOGIC/ESSENCE AND LANGUAGE LEAD TO THE MEANINGLESSNESS OF ALL VIEWS

1) (A) paraconsistent logic is just another example of the logic centric West- Logic is the grand narrative of western thought

. The answer is because Western philosophy is logic-centric. At least since the formulations of Aristotle, thehistory of Western philosophy has been the worship of logic. Logic and conclusive argumentation have since Plato been considered the means to discover true knowledge
1 (B) When it come to formulating paraconsistent logic Priest et al try and be very logical -Aristotelian

Now Lukasiewicz has left us an account of his reasoning which arrived at this system. This reasoning totally obeys the laws of logicand indicates that even in the formulation of non-Aristotelian logic the method of reasoning and criteria for validity is that they obey the laws of logic [Aristotelian]

2)My initial view is paraconsistent logic has the same problems as does Aristotelian
logic namely it has an hidden ontology ie an essence

Thus we see at the very heart of Aristotelian logic is the notion of an ontological object with an essence which itself is in need of
investigation or justification. In this regard Aristotelian logic does not so much as reveal reality as constitute it by its reliance upon an ontological object with an essence. Thus logic affirms what it needs for its existence, what it affirmsis in fact in need of justification. Philosophy consists in rediscovering the very thing upon which logic was made to depend
Western knowledge is based upon certain metaphysical assumptions such that its epistemology is related to its metaphysics. Aristotle sought to investigate ‘Being’ by investigating the species of ‘being’ via the tool of logic. But embedded in this tool is the very thing this tool seeks to investigate (i.e. ‘being’ itself). In this regard there is circularity and it needs justification. Namely the logic Aristotle uses to investigate ‘being’ must assume an ontological object a ‘being’ in order to investigate ‘being’; but this ontological object ‘being’ is itself in need of investigation or justification itself
In this way it could be argued that in trying to justify the laws of logic they in
fact create logic-centric ontologies, epistemologies and philosophies of mind

Philosophers’ logic-centered acceptance of the laws of logic in fact pre-determine them to
particular epistemologies, ontologies and philosophies of the mind, since contained
within the laws of logic are particular epistemologies, ontologies and philosophies of
mind
 
Last edited:
#4
2)My initial view is paraconsistent logic has the same problems as does Aristotelian
logic namely it has an hidden ontology ie an essence
I think I see what you mean about the circularity of investigating "being". I wonder if there is then any way to investigate "being" that doesn't fall prey to the same problem? If not, is being then an unsolvable paradox?
 
#5
I think I see what you mean about the circularity of investigating "being". I wonder if there is then any way to investigate "being" that doesn't fall prey to the same problem? If not, is being then an unsolvable paradox?
The problem to me is language and logic "being" is just a word defined in language and as such can be reduced to meaninglessness

All I can say is so long as we use logic and language with their in built ontologies we will always end in meaninglessness ie paradox, contradiction etc

PROLEGOMENON A NEW COPERNICAN REVOLUTION A NEW SCIENCE

The physicist Neil Bohr stated
The very words physicists use to describe reality constrains their knowledge
of it and scientists in every field will one day encounter this barrier to
human understanding”
For thousands of years man has thought that his language can unlock the secrets of the universe. But this is just blind arrogance in his belief of his own creation i.e. language as being a privileged medium through which to know the universe. Man can not know the universe as his language used to know it only falsifies the universe. This results in the death of man i.e. the death of asserting a privileged observerof the universe. All we have is an endless free play of words trying to capture the universe but all these words
are man’s own creation which in fact falsifies the universe. WITH THE DECENTRING OF MAN FROM THE UNIVERSE WE HAVE NO
GUARANTEED FACTS OR INTER PRETATIONS WHICH ARE AUTHORITIVE SINCE THE WORDS WE USE FOR THESE FACTS OR
INTERPRETATIONS ONLY FALSIFYTHE REFERENTS. The universe is now seen as being that which is produced by man via his culturally
arbitrary conventional systems of signs i.e. language. What arrogance to think that this constructed human system is a privileged medium to know the universe? As if the totality of all knowledge about the universe is capture in our puny human words. A new science is called for where by we leave behind our language and concepts and embark upon a new way of seeing the universe. Operationalism was one such way of knowing without the use of language as such. Mysticism was another. It is time for a new science
 
#6
Fact is
1 is a finite number it stops
A finite decimal is one that stops, like 0.157
A non-finite decimal like 0.999... does not stop
when a finite number 1 = a non-finite number 0.999.. then maths ends in contradiction

another way
1 is an integer a whole number
0.888... is a non-integer it is not a whole number
0.999... is a non-integer not a whole number
when a integer 1 =a non-integer 0.999... maths ends in contradiction
 
#7
Here's another one to mess with you, meaninglessness:

One third in decimal (base ten) is, as we all know, 0.333.... endlessly repeating.

But in ternary (base three), it is simply 0.1. No repetition. No endless digits. Just one.
 
#10
Here's another one to mess with you, meaninglessness:

One third in decimal (base ten) is, as we all know, 0.333.... endlessly repeating.

But in ternary (base three), it is simply 0.1. No repetition. No endless digits. Just one.
Laird, great elicitation of semantics. 'Infinity' in this (base 10) case is a trivial aspect of the lexicon, and not a logical object in a Wittgenstein sense.
 
Top