Thursday, February 11, 2010
Observation by Nietzsche
Observation by Nietzsche
How much of the creativity is of deep philosophic value if we try to acknowledge it and get through that marginalized at outliers or there by choice, intellectuals and armchair philosophers in the coffee shops?
I was thinking about possible worlds and it occurred to me that one might be able to construct an interesting paradox. One might think that one could construct a set of all possible worlds. Suppose that at this world, I wrote down a set that did not contain itself. Now at nearby possible worlds, I also write down a set that doesn't contain itself, but I write down a different set. Now I ask is there any possible world at which I write down the set of sets written at all of these different worlds? If I do write down such a set, then it must contain itself -- thereby resulting in a contradiction. If I do not write down the set, then there is at least one set that does not contain itself which is logically possible but is not written down at any possible world. Again, contradiction. I was wondering how might one resolve this.
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)
http://www.philosophychatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=14874 Here I thought that perhaps the author of this thread was really trying to raise and interesting question of metaphysics (after all he moved my take on metaphysics to the realm of odds and ends) but I come away from the idea as at best a lack of deep understanding of the very thread of all the issues of debates of logic of which a young man should have some overview and not assume they have the unique answer and are in fact experts and do stand on solid scientific grounds.
Nietzsche observed defining history as a way to arrive at a few great men and added yes, to get around them. Nobel Laurettes seem to beget nobel Laurettes- in a sense we learn from our mentors much in the one to one Eastern tradition.
I do not mind, say in the minor publication Volume One not to have poems published that I would lose to those better or potentially better than I. But surely of the two hundred entries the university educated dominate in style and I have seen some very good poets that just are not part of the gown scene so in effect do not exist. Surely science as a social thing is about who controls the evolutionary agenda. I do mentor some of the local town poets and we for whatever reason are drawn to the work in itself which first and foremost should not dismiss our human and creative potential.
The great me of mathematics seem to follow a stream of simple idea that reach to the heart of the highest wisdom. Gauss, Cauchy, Weierstrass, Riemann there are always chess players in the coffee shop and losing to some of them over again puts us on a higher level- an almost mystical breakthrough in comprehension and expertise. A website that is for the common and universal good assumed of science and teaching should teach the links and history of the ideas and people- not jumble what truth there is in what they justify as contradictions and statistical grounded realities.
The modular numbers beget the epsilon methods beget Fourier and the angular complex number ideas begets the observations of what is prime where sums and products meet in the fundamental theory of analysis, differentiation an inverse of integration, Euler and all the Frenchmen. Our golden ages do not for mere political reason try to assassinate Heisenberg or Quantum physicists in Iran- what is our common science then a form of stealth terrorism and a fear of new as well as personally chosen ideas beyond the issue of the sacred and modernity.
Let me try to introduce another paradox from which and faint answer to your question may appear; let's call it the paradox of Wittgenstein. The philosopher argues that the problems arising through a misinterpretation of our forms of language have the character of depth, and, latter in the same text he asks "why do we feel grammatical joke to be deep?", with known conclusions.
Paradoxes may indeed result from the inavoidable nature of the langage and of the logical reasoning of the questionner, but neverless they also trigger the questionner itself, being thus both the son and the father of the questionner; wouldn't that be a paradox too?
I have found no other way to escape from the infinite regression, (but no disquietude here (?)), brang by the paradox but that of considering that infinite is just a local unavoidable pattern in the world, as well as the set of the sets, time and space and numbers : all are just local characters. Logical reasoning in this perspective yields an anthropomorphic vision of a world that goes beyond.
By the way, being in Caltech for a short two months period, it would be a honnor to offer a cafe to a moderator of this forum if there are some around, all of them deserving respect for their anonymous task here. henriette
Joined: 30 Oct 2007
Blog: View Blog (0)
First of all, Lincoln hasn't posted in this thread. Second, your post is off topic (and, as far as I am concerned, incoherent.) linford86
So, it is her ideas that Henriette that disturbs the logic and the now I got you you sob natural mistake perhaps some subconscious association with the voice of arrogance. But really how is it there is no respect for young thinker even when they are climbing up the ladder of academia? Is that struggle a survival of the fittest that reduces others to babble and incoherence by assertions alone? I expect the lady will not hang around the forum much longer after such treatment and from an existential view she the enemy she will forever not be converted to the forum faith.
If the young linford would understand the chain of the mathematicians listed (after all I go back to review them for not only things I missed in my less matured brain but the whole context of their many worlds as if greater chessgames to learn from despite feeling, knowing the old ignorance that the next level of awakening makes up for it some) He would see the simplistic nature of his question, quite metaphysical in the superstitious sense- and just maybe be embarrassed by his recorded contributions. I suspect there will be little significant beyond that unlike the adaptable and human wisdom perhaps inherited of such conceptions of the universe of other mathematicians and logicians young and old on that forum. There are in fact several such paradoxes to put your name on way beyond this trivial one- and yes a sort of unity to it all- the very heart of getting beyond Godel et al, and the way we are free in the logic to see that port of the world, quasi quasic in number theory and the application of physics both engineering and theoretical that perhaps in the idea of the continua and of the levels of differentiation and so on that there is a certain mystical view of Cantor of what is unity of the transfinite and the equinumerous nature of lesser numbers- and a new way to apply the idea of axioms of choice intrinsic to the issues of axiomation of the hypothesis.
But I am on a new level- nevertheless I feel for the way some were treated on this minor forum. Then again it did not take formal education to reach linfords level at his age- what a generation of dull poets, what a generation of interesting chessgames between equals on lesser levels because they still have the freedom and do not have the suggested guidance to make a wider range of mistaken moves.