Re: HOLISM: Utility & Prediction

Ian Goddard (
Thu, 16 Apr 1998 03:21:50 -0400

Anton Sherwood ( wrote:

>Ian Goddard wrote:

>> A list-member challenged the holistic-identity statement
>> X=X+~X (the identity of X includes ~X by relation) by
>> arguing that it does not allow us to predict facts
>> about nature, unlike the atomist identity state-
>> ment X=X. That argument is perfectly false
>> and here is the proof...
>> SCENARIO: There are two objects, A and B,
>> traveling in different directions;
>Relative to what?

IAN: Each other.

>> then the velocity of A is suddenly increased.
>Relative to what?

IAN: To B.

>> PROBLEM: Predict what happens to the velocity of B.
>Relative to what?

IAN: To A.

>Ian's argument assumes, without any justification, that the velocities
>of A and B are defined relative to each other. That's a valid
>definition, but it's far from the only possible definition. Both A and
>B have velocities relative to C, for example, which do *not* behave as
>Ian describes.

IAN: False. Relative motion is symmetrical,
be it between 2 or more objects.

>This isn't the first time Ian has tried to wow us by with a proof
>based on assumptions that were not in the statement of the problem.

IAN: Excuse me? You added C. Nothing
was missing from the stated example,
except what you decided to add.

>> The X=X atomist-identity theory predicts that the velocity
>> of B is not altered, since an identity attribute, X, of B
>> (of which velocity is one) is X free from not-X, X=X.
>Who says velocity is an element of identity?

IAN: Attributes of identity are what a thing
is, if A = 35mph, then 35mph is a feature of
the identity of A. Same goes for all relative
features: A is fast, A is good, A is warm,...

>> and difference is symmetrical,
>Once again Ian stands well-established usage on its head to get his way.
>A symmetric relation is one where R(A,B) implies R(B,A); for example, if
>I am taller than Ian, then Ian is taller than me.

IAN: Difference is symmetrical: if A is
shorter (-) than B, then B is taller (+)
than A. Note that (-)(+) implies symmetry.

So yes, I turned "well-established usage on
its head," because this "well-established"
asymmetry theory is simply false.

>> or net difference, always equals zero.
>(A-B) + (B-A) = 0, yes; so what?

IAN: That's the symmetry of difference
you just denied existed... good grief!

>> Identity conservation:
>This web page shows something of which I was not fully aware until now:
>Ian confuses the vernacular meaning of identity (a property of a thing)
>with the mathematical meaning (the relation between a thing and itself
>or between two equal things).

IAN: The matrix you just scoff off just showed
you is that the relation of A to A = 0. All the
identity attributes of A are derived from not-A.
So what you call "logical identity" exists not.

VISIT Ian Williams Goddard ---->