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)
US displaying its Imperialist credentials... yet again
Wanted to know the pattern of UN votes over Venezuela and then got into seeing if ChatGPT could see the obvious pattern of Imperialism here....
-
The classic antimony is between : (1) action that is chosen freely and (2) action that comes about through physical causation. To date no ...
-
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...
-
https://chatgpt.com/share/688e1468-dfc4-8003-b47c-eb5351496d3d Me: Platonic Forms are invokes to explain how all apples are apples and all b...
No comments:
Post a Comment