Axiom 0 and its Translation (1)
December 28th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: Yes, I Have No Holerons :: The Relationship between Axiom and Translation :: Is Dasein a Reality? :: Allegations of Demolition
Axiom 0 and its Translation.
1: The Map is Not the Territory
>[ME]: I don’t have to make up a rule of grammar, but merely point out
>that the simplest sentence consists of a subject and something said
>about that subject, i.e. a predicate. … Of “all that is” one can
>simply say, “It is”.
Axiom 0 is defined as a specific symbolic formula: (E P)(x)(Px).
no axiomatic system is about anything until a translation (aka a model)
is mounted onto the symbology; and, the translation I have mounted onto
this formula is:
there is a predicate, P, such that, for any x that is, x is P.
as with any axiomatic system, alternate translations are possible — so
long as the underlying formulae are unchanged. that is the point of my
parable concerning quantum balto-dynamics. it is no better nor any worse
than standard quantum chromodynamics because all the math is kept
exactly the same even though all the verbiage is changed completely.
in other words, Axiom 0 is the formula, not the translation. the map
(translation) is not the territory (formula).
Michael, sometimes it seems that you are advocating an alternate
translation of Axiom 0; and, as long as the underlying formula is
unchanged, we can discuss the relative merits of various translations;
but, at other times is appears that you are advocating ‘translations’
that could only be mapped to an alternate formula.
unfortunately, you prefer not to specify what that alternate formula is;
and, thus, your ‘translations’ constitute ungrounded verbiage — maps
without territories.
I will start this restatement of issues in dispute with issues that seem
to me to concern alternate translations of Axiom 0 — with the ultimate
hope that we might soon identify any formulae presupposed by (or merely
consistent with) your verbiage.
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
