> The relation of B to 0 is constant just as
> the relation of me in my moving car is con-
> stant. This "constant" is constant as derived
> by relation from something that is not-constant,
> such as the area outside my car that is changing.
Sure. And atomists will gladly concede that. Newtonian physicists
agree that all motion is relative to something; all atomism is trying to
say is that the relation of B to our arbitrarily defined 0 does not change
when the relation between A and 0 changes. This is really a trivial
point, and one with which I happen to know that you don't disagree.
You think atomism states that A is what it is free from not-A. This is
not true; atomism states that A's relationship to zero does not affect B's
relationship to 0. That's all. Your definition is wrong, your point is
right, and so is atomism when defined correctly. Move on.
> If atomism is defined as A, where the identity of
> A is derived from A, but not both A and -A, then
> no example of atomism has been evidenced. The ob-
> servation that A does not change relative to a
> non-changing relation is trivial and not atomism.
On the contrary; it is trivial and it IS atomism; indeed, that is ALL that
atomism is trying to say.
>
> IAN: To sum the parts is to define the whole.
> The mystical experience defines the whole and
> the whole relation of A to -A. To prohibit the
> summing is to prohibit the mystical insight.
I would never prohibit anyone from arithmetic; whether to add or not to
add is a personal choice with which it is not mine to interfere. ;)
Rather, I argued that the fact that net identity sums to 0 does not prove
mysticism; I'm fine with the summation, but find the ultimate argument
invalid. I demonstrated that there is a non-trivial difference between
saying that 0 = 1 and that 0 + -0 + 1 + -1 = 0. I assert that because you
do not support the statement that there is 0 difference between one and
zero that your proof is not mystical, but trivial. That you left this
point off of your reply is telling.
I'll say it again: A mysticist would agree with both of the following
identity charts:
0 1 0 1
0 0 0 and 0 1 1
1 0 0 1 1 1
because there is zero difference between one and zero. You do not; you
clearly see that there is one and only one chart which can be created in a
universe which consists only of a 1 and a 0:
0 1
0 0 +1
1 -1 0
and that the two charts above are completely wrong. You see that 0 is not
equal to 1, and therefore you have shown that mysticism is FALSE, not
true.
<sidepoint> As for your point that "to sum the parts defines the whole," I
think we can see, by using holism, that that's the biggest crock of shit
the world has ever seen. The sum of the mysticist's chart is 0; the sum
of your chart is 0, yet the mysticist's chart is wrong and yours is right;
there is a non-zero difference between the two charts. Yet there is zero
difference between 0 and 0. There is no difference between the sums, and
a non-zero difference between the charts; therefore, the sum of the
elements on a chart does NOT define the chart, and therefore the sum of
parts does not necessarily define the whole.</sidepoint>
> If we wish to prohibit the summing, we are nega-
> ting the holistic relation it defines. To negate
> that relation is to define A relative to A, and
> the differential relation of A to A = 0. So the
> "not summing" where A = 0 you call the mystical
> insight is true, for "not sum" is not-holism,
> or: the relation of A only to A.
Again, not-summing is not what I suggest. Rather I argue that the sum
does not successfully prove your point. The sum of the mysticist's
identity chart is 0; the sum of your identity chart is zero, and yet there
is a non-zero difference between your identity chart and the mysticist's
identity chart. Therefore, the fact that your true chart sums to 0 does
not prove that the mysticist's chart is true, even if it also sums to
zero, because your chart is different from the mysticist's chart, despite
the fact that the sums are the same. I'm repeating this point several
times in order to make this really really clear: your chart does not prove
the mysticist's chart, and therefore does not prove mysticism.
> IAN: All the identities you cite, 1, 2, and 3 are
> what they are relative 0, as you agree. The nature
> of this relation is symmetrical summing to zero. The
> mystical insight defines the whole, or the sum, of
> the relations of all things among themselves.
That does not in any way challenge my point that the fact that 1 + 2 =3
does not prove that 1 = 3 or that 2 = 3, nor does the fact that A + -A = 0
prove that A = 0 or that -A = 0.
> IAN: Where is the entity, A, that is
> what it is free from relation to -A?
Nowhere, so it's a good thing for us atomists your definition of atomism
is completely wrong. Atomism does not claim that A is what it is free
from -A. Atomism claims that the relation of A to 0 does not affect the
relation of B to zero. That's the whole point, right there, hook line and
sinker. No atomist will try to press you further on this point; if you
agree with the above, you agree with atomism, because this is the true
definition of atomism.
You must unlearn what you have learned, Ian: atomists AGREE with you.
We're not claiming that A is what it is free from -A. We're making a much
more trivial claim. Never again should you argue that A is defined by -A;
even the atomists agree with that. We are making a much smaller point.
You should understand this, accept that you have been fighting your own
straw man, and move on.