Authors: Alex Patterson
Abstract: In ideal circumstances, we know exactly what to do. But there are no ideal circumstances; but then we are confusing and conflating two things if you look: When we speak of ideal circumstances, we are philosophers and thinking of our version of a Platonic ideal, not our value ideals or our ideal values [a common mistake that does not justify nominalism – it is the nominalist’s backdoor malware into the reductive Platonism], such as freedom of speech, right bear arms, habeas corpus, each one of us has those which are most important to us, sometimes many at the same time. These are not however social value-propositions. They derive of natural law in the Constitution. However, certain Platonic ideal circumstances as to our individually important value ideals can be created in real life, to the degree that we are able to invent. That is why we have Critique. It takes notice of the differences and the possibilities offered by the differences, which would be less without noticing the differences. However, in in that sense where ideal circumstances can be created [actually, are present], we have created them in our everyday lives, they are our individual lives, exist within the network of constitutive grounds for law and institutions. In strict terms of modality, these value-propositions become axiomatic with the given system of our everyday lives that. And so, with a leap of faith to living our everyday lives practically, theoretical matters, axiomatically classical matters, classical axiomatic matters, a serious mind would see that you that in the debates in physics over cosmology, we literally have geodesics flying out through time from centrifugal non-global hyperbolic Cauchy topology like Frisbees, each one of which you can play an infinite number of games on. You don’t need or have a CTC, so there is no causal blockade in the hyperbolic Cauchy topology of strong cause and effect. Modus ponens as explained above is the only mechanical mechanism is the mode for cause and effect that man has, and its antecedence-precedence minimalism yet strong presence is enough; and it is minimum. With modus ponens what it has been since remote antiquities, to say anything otherwise would be to ask help from God to unravel all of the physics up until today’s counterarguments in favor of a vt time-lapse based arithmetic time line with counterintuitive information transfer and strangely in relation to the later, if that goes badly, the need for constructivism’s interference in mathematics, resulting in the need to use MP to take the physics apart. The solution itself takes the piled data apart. We can’t read God’s mind. But Gödel left us this. Otherwise we need God’s help, and I have written the PRF.POSTV [proof-positive] against that possibility. All that we retain from that would be the nominalist’s eased conventional respect for Occam in expostulation and discussions of formal matters such as sets. In this [theoretical] critique of theory, new terms and tools are introduced for the Gödel material and literature. It would be precisely named, “Critique of The Theory.” Not Gödel’s theory, if he had one, but ‘The Theory’ as an object. It’s revealing that no other concept can be spoken of in that way. Picture trees in a forest, and rocks displaced by gravity and falling through forest, hitting one tree, then another, until they stop. Hubble shows to astronomers which super-structures are found, how big, and how far back in time. It is consistent with Mach’s principle if you rotate yourself before you look into the forest at 90 degrees and find a way of suspending yourself and turnig. Asymptotes are used within vertical and horizontal graphs to justify a future that need not be seen as a future in the sense of grammatical future-tense [which is a dubious tense in “philosophical grammar”] but as a potential part in such systems themselves that we deal with with respect to incompleteness. The thesis is that we can approach incompleteness by using [theoretical] reasoning and available tools that are allowed in theoretical reasoning and in reasoning as we think of it in reasoning through situations, and in the sense of pure reasoning itself; and, in order to critique the very meaning of incompleteness itself. As well, as the theoretical reasoning possible inside the tools themselves, should they have domains. We will not always a domain for ourselves. We will not always be here; we will die, and epochal turns in history amounting to new antiquities will occur. One of the most famous axioms of this type was invented by Vico, an axiom he discovered by thinking things through and studying. In the long course that rumor has run from the beginning of the world it has been the perennial source of all the exaggerated opinions which have hitherto been held concerning remote antiquities unknown to us, by virtue of that property of the human mind noted by Tacitus in his Life of Agricola, where he says that everything unknown is taken for something great (omne ignotum fro magnifico est). – Gianbattista Vico, La Scienze nouva, The New Science
Comments: 42 Pages. Special Thanks to Julian C. Boyd, December 25, 1931 – April 5, 2005
[v1] 2015-10-30 10:22:42
Unique-IP document downloads: 88 times
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.