The issue is that if something "does something" then if it does that thing to itself and succeeds in changing itself, then it also changes itself, and therefore changes what it can do.
An empty hand for example can't grasp itself because in grasping itself it becomes a full hand and that changes (in this case defeats) its ability to grasp.
A box cannot contain itself because in containing itself it changes itself into a full box and so destroys its ability to contain anything.
It seems in these cases what I failed to see before was that the process creates changes to the object which mirror and cancel the process.
Wait a second... when a hand shakes someone else's hand don't they both become full hands ... why does this work... ok thinking aloud need to reconsider...
===
Let us create an entity which is a box but can only hold 1 entity after which it is full: a monobox for short. It performs a binary function then either empty or full.
An empty box can accept and item, but a full box obviously cannot. Simple.
Now let us remove the subject/object, self/other "rule" of nature, that the SRH/SIH seems to be trying to enforce, so that the box can accept itself if required.
The formula in the first section notes that "self" here is a strong self so that changes to the self instantaneously relect upon the function (i.e. the self). It is not an iterative system where simply that data is fed back into the "same" function, nor an iterative system where the function is changed by successive iterations (e.g. an iteration writes new version of the function which is executed at the next iteration), instead using that example the code is edited directly in memory as it executes. A failure of the code in the last example thus halts execution immediately not at the end of the iteration (important point). The first example is not self. The second example is weak self (new self executes at each iteration) and the third is strong self (self updates as it processes).
A strong-self monobox thus changes its status as it goes. OK I realise here that to contain itself is not a problem because a monobox can contain a full and an empty monobox, so changes to the self do not affect its functioning upon itself.
However with the shaking hands I think it does because a hand can only shake hands with an empty hand, not with a full one. Usually the two hands become full simultaneously as they grasp one another - ok need to think more ... in a hurry to make temple
=== 9/8/10
Meditation this morning I let my mind wander to this issue again... and concluded something different from what I write next...
A hand shaking another hand renders both hands full at the same time. But a hand shaking itself might render itself full twice...
It is full because it is the recipient of itself, and it is full again because the received hand is also filled by itself.
Now tweezering that apart will take some brain power.
The monobox is different. A monobox is filled by itself, but that it fills a monobox is not breaking the rules. A monobox which is filled either by containing an object or by being contained by an object leads to the shaking hands problem.
What is interesting about a monobox is that it completely messes up space. Standing next to a monobox if we then put the monobox inside itself, we are at the same time putting the monobox outside itself. With a sheet of paper its more common to say this. You can put something in wrapping, or you can wrap paper around something. A monobox does both to itself - so saying can you put that monobox around itself is the same as can you put that monobox inside itself. No contradiction however just finding an identity (identical) in its operations.
Its the same as the
A := {A}
problem before where I envisaged an infinite regression and infinite progression since A so defined means that:
A = {{A}}, A = {{..{....}..}}
are all true. Basically such a definition defines an (countably) infinitely deep set of sets. What I complained about before is what I've found is called "undecidable" in the vernacular of this quarter of thinking. But is that a problem?
Anyway monoboxes can't contain themselves because of something simpler - that there is not enough room inside something to fit itself. That circle example - a circle radius=1 can contain any circle
radius <>
===
On the containment issue - another rehashing in terms of measurement.
A system must be measured by what is not the system, as if it is measured by itself it is always equal to 1.
Indeed isn't this the definition of self.
Self is that which lies in proportion to something else necessarily in the ratio of 1:1
While two people may be identical one may put a hat on and so no longer be identical.
A mirror image is identical in that one may put a hat on and the other also then wears a hat, but one is recognised as the image of the other but not vice-versa.
One may refer to oneself in speech as in "I am going for a walk" in which one refers to oneself and means that the speaker is necessarily identical with the person who is going for a walk.
However a self-measurement is also meaningless as it is tautologically = 1 and so void of information. In other words to speak of self is not to tell anyone anything they didn't already know.
So a measurement implies non-system, and meaning implies non-system. The old "problem" of Solipsism only works if we are abandon meaning - indeed Solipsism is madness. Psychologically Solipsism is the ego becoming so insecure and desperate to affirm its existence that it denies the Other all together and retreats into a secure world of itself - at the cost of anything being meaningful as all things become measured 1:1 and nothing can be right or wrong etc.
To accept that anything means anything or has any intrinsic existence or value automatically implies an external judge and measure of what "I" apprehend.
It is this that the SRH seeks to prove - but once again HOW?
No comments:
Post a Comment