Yes, I Have No Holerons
February 19th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Is There No Definition of ‘Holeron’ :: Is There No Definition of ‘Holeron’ but there is of *Heteron.*
gevans613 at aol.com wrote:
>Joe:
>>Axiom 0: (E P)(x)(Px)
>>translation:
>>there is a predicate, P, such that: for any x that is, x is P.
>>let’s say you designate ‘being’ to carry the meaning ‘not nothing’.
>>well then, ‘being’ would satisfy Axiom 0. it would be universally
>>attributable: for any x that is, x is a being.
>Jud: an axiom is a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or
>disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident
that’s correct. since Axiom 0 is implicit within predicate logic, it can
not be proven true without creating a circularity; and, it can not be
proven false without creating a holeron or some other absurdity.
thus, it must be taken as an Axiom.
if you can find a way to deny Axiom 0 without creating an absurdity;
then, kindly tell us about it.
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
