I went to the library with the intention of getting somewhere with this and realised that there are really 2 possible proofs of SRH:
(1) The Boundary proof
This proof aims to show that a system cannot contain its own boundary.
(2) The dialectic proof.
This proof aims to show that a system cannot define itself without reference to things which are not within the system.
I realise today that they are the same thing. The SRH is not really about self-reference this has been a red-herring: there are lots of examples of self-reference. The problem is to do with self-definition.
Now if something cannot define itself then it must be defined in terms of things that are not part of the system. This has two implications
(1) A system is never complete. No system can construct "All Things", so there is no system called "Totality"
(2) A system is really "not itself" since it is defined with elements that are not itself. The Yin-Yang.
It is easy to see that a circle boundary is not contained "in" a circle. But there is work tio do
A search for happiness in poverty. Happiness with personal loss, and a challenge to the wisdom of economic growth and environmental exploitation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"The Jewish Fallacy" OR "The Inauthenticity of the West"
I initially thought to start up a discussion to formalise what I was going to name the "Jewish Fallacy" and I'm sure there is ...
-
The classic antimony is between : (1) action that is chosen freely and (2) action that comes about through physical causation. To date no ...
-
Well that was quite interesting ChatGPT can't really "think" of anything to detract from the argument that Jews have no clai...
-
There are few people in England I meet these days who do not think we are being ruled by an non-democratic elite. The question is just who t...
No comments:
Post a Comment