tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5974969370846574917.post7115653292781320890..comments2023-06-29T00:51:31.722-07:00Comments on Zen of Zero...: Cultures & Their StoriesA. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5974969370846574917.post-14713942922839091242008-11-27T02:09:00.000-08:002008-11-27T02:09:00.000-08:00Thank you for your comment.I agree with you: what...Thank you for your comment.<BR/><BR/>I agree with you: what I wrote was wrong. I'll now start working on a revision.<BR/><BR/>Actually, on p.28 of Chapter T2 (entitled "Truth & Understanding") of my book at www.zenofzero.net, I ridiculed the same error! Below is a copy of that ridicule:<BR/><BR/>For example, I tried to show you in the previous chapter that when, in reality, the “law” of distinctiveness is violated, then you can obtain the result that one plus one can equal one. More significant results (showing more significant limitations on classical logic) occur when (as commonly occurs in reality) the “law” of identity is violated. But to be able to show you that, Dear, I’d have to be better.<BR/><BR/>“Well, then, be better!” exclaimed a certain grandchild.<BR/><BR/>“Sorry, Dear, but Aristotle said I can’t be better.”<BR/><BR/>“Huh?” questioned the grandchild.<BR/><BR/>“Well, Dear, look: Aristotle said A ≡ A.”<BR/><BR/>“So?”<BR/><BR/>“Well, then, obviously it’s logically impossible for me to be better: if you accept that A ≡ A, then how can you possibly ask me (with a straight face) to be better, i.e., to satisfy A ≡ ¬A?”<BR/><BR/>“Grandfather, stop being so silly: people can change.”<BR/><BR/>“Sorry, Dear, but according to Aristotle, A ≡ A, so change is impossible.”<BR/><BR/>“Well, then,” concluded the grandchild, “phooey on Aristotle.”<BR/><BR/>I agree with you, Dear. The point is: all of classic logic (and, in fact, fuzzy logic, as well) deals with propositions about “stuff” fixed in time: changes (or transitions) are prohibited<BR/> <BR/>Restrictions of classical logic to “spatial and temporal invariance” (i.e., things aren’t allowed to change) aren’t significant for closed-system “games” (such as games of sport and chance, pure math, and all stories, such as all religions), because for closed systems, the propositions are independent of space and time. In them, one plus one always equals two, Superman is always weakened by kryptonite, God always rules the universe, and so on. In fact, a dominant feature of most religions (especially “fundamentalist” religions such as most Islamic and many Christian sects) is that their ideas don’t change: their “truths” are set in the concrete of their unchangeable dogmas. As Oscar Wilde said: “Truth in matters of religion is simply the opinion that has survived.”<BR/><BR/>As binding as that is, religions are hobbled by the principle (which I proposed in the previous chapter) that if any statement can be demonstrated to be “true”, then the demonstration simultaneously shows that the statement doesn’t refer to reality. Consequently, any “proof” of the “truth” of any religious statement (e.g., that God exists, that Jesus was the son of God, that Moses, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, etc. were prophets of God, and so on) simultaneously demonstrates that the statement is just part of some game – and all evidence indicates that it’s part of a con-game!A. Zoroasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5974969370846574917.post-53166781926218747022008-11-26T14:54:00.000-08:002008-11-26T14:54:00.000-08:00I don't think your argument that miracles are inco...I don't think your argument that miracles are inconsistent with logic is valid. A = (not A) is illogical. A <I>turns into</I> (not A) is completely logical, we see it all the time. Uranium turns into lead with no apparent cause. Even "flying horse" is not a logically impossible concept - it could have an antigravity belt!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com