# Re: Definitions

Ian Goddard (igoddard@netkonnect.net)
Mon, 15 Jun 1998 14:07:53 -0400

At 02:38 AM 6/15/98 -0400, Daniel Fabulich wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Jun 1998, Ian Goddard wrote:

>> IAN: There is no "partial difference."
>> There is omission of the full difference.
>
>There IS a partial difference; we define it into existence.
>
>> IAN: B adds attributes to A, each attribute
>> expressing their holistic identity union.
>
>And? Doesn't change the partial difference one whit.

IAN: As we add new data to our frame, the
old data is redefined. If we have 0/6 and
add 500 other relations not same as 0/6,
then 0/6 is rare. Add 5000 relations the
same as 0/6 and 0/6 is common. The use of
"is" here defines an attribute of identity,
and the 0/6 identity changes in many ways.

What A (partial difference) is, is defined
by -A, and that defines the whole difference.
You've simply increased "A" from one-thing to
one-relation and attempted to make the same
atomist argument that A is A free from -A
that your new definition seeks to avoid.

>> to 0" is YOUR definition of atomism (consistent
>> with my defintion of holism) and that it is, as
>> you acknowledge, the same as saying "atomism =
>> holism." When I counter atomism I counter the
>> traditional definition of atomism that would
>> say that "atomism =/= holism."
>
>you can define motion without a reference frame? (Hint: "There is none"

IAN: Motion is holistic. Atomism
is at odds with reality by 100%.
Atomists tend not to realize that
in reality, identity is holistic.

Observing that the reality atomists
have been dealing with is holistic
does not save atomism but voids it.

>> >So, let me get this straight: The 3 Laws are the right definition, and
>> >therefore my definition is wrong.
>>
>> IAN: The Three Laws express atomism
>> by 100%. Your definition does not.
>
>The right definition expresses atomism by 100%. The wrong definition does
>not. The above is the logical equivalent of saying "I'm right, and you're
>wrong." In the immortal words of Michael Palin: "This isn't an argument!

IAN: Nope. There's a difference between saying
"I'm right and your wrong" and saying WHY. A
definition of atomism that is 75% holistic is
wrong *because* it's just not genuine atomism.
You REdefined atomism into 75% holism and then
argue that "Atomism is not at odds with reality."

>> IAN: That idea of independent variance is atomism.
>> If we take it to the 100% extreme, A is A free from
>> any frame of reference.
>
>The "with respect to 0" definition allows for "independent variance" and
>does not suffer from reductio ad absurdum. That anything exists without a
>frame of reference is a dubious point, and not one which any modern
>atomist would support.

IAN: So you say that "atomism = holism"
and that there is a class of people that
are atomists, but why are they not holists?

>To wit: Name a few. Quote some. Give an example.

IAN: That's my point, there's no free thing.

>> An example of a variation
>> occurring free from other features in a frame of
>> reference is a "free variation" only relative to
>> the whole, and does not measure a degree of atomism.
>
>Again, claiming that independent variance within a reference frame is not
>atomism because it is holism is you saying "I'm right and you're wrong."

IAN: And I guess the possibility that

>> >> IAN: Then 1 also has no identity because
>> >> there is no difference between 1 and 1.
>> >
>> >Not unless you're defining your universe with respect to 1.
>>
>>
>> IAN: 1 - 1 = 0, so there is
>> no difference between 1 and 1.
>
>And?

IAN: You said 0 has no ID because the difference
between 0 and 0 = 0, I showed that's also true for 1.

>> IAN: Yes, every point is also a relative
>> 0 point, which shows how "A to 0" is a
>> relation that applies to A/0, B/0 and A/B.
>
>Only one point is a relative 0 within any one reference frame; that's all
>atomism asserts.

IAN: And the sum of all difference
is 0 in one or all reference frames,
as the matrix can be just one frame.

>> IAN: If A = 3 and B = 6 and A changes
>> from 3 to 9, A has changed relative
>> to both 0 and B. The relation 0/6 is
>> many things from many points of view.
>> It is large from 0/.03, it is tiny
>> from 0/103067472. When we include more
>> into our frame of reference we redefine
>> the nature of the 0/6 relation. To say
>> that the 0/6 relation remains static is
>> to negate its relation to anything else.
>
>Not to negate it, simply not to include it in the definition of identity.

IAN: So relative identity attributes are
not identity attributes, like "6 is 6 more
than 0" is not and identity attribute of 6.

**************************************************************
VISIT IAN WILLIAMS GODDARD --------> http://Ian.Goddard.net
______________________________________________________________

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see the light, but rather because
its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows
up that is familiar with the idea from the beginning."

Max Plank - Nobel physicist

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual.
Those who deny individual rights cannot claim
to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand