Re: Definitions

Ian Goddard (
Sun, 14 Jun 1998 15:23:14 -0400

At 11:40 AM 6/14/98 -0400, Daniel Fabulich wrote:

>> IAN: Why not add "with respect to 0" to 1?
>Because it's true nonetheless. But sure, if you like.
>> 2 and 3 are holist in nature since they say
>> that what A is depends upon something that
>> A is not, and thus they are not atomist.
>This is completely invalid. They are "not atomist" by YOUR definiton of
>atomism, which is the very subject under debate!

IAN: "My definition" of atomism is the Three
Law of Thought. The Three Laws of Thought are
not properly defined as "my definition."

Your definition is new and IS properly defined
as "your definition," which redefines atomism
in a holist context by adding "with respect to."

You're REdefining the standard then you're
portraying the standard as my definition that
is totally my own and is unlike what most
people use. That is the opposite of the truth.

The 3 Laws define a crisp boundary around A
that says the identity of A is exclusive to A
by 100%. Adding to A is A "with respect to 0"
turns atomism into a holistic relation.

That such relation is the truth does not mean it
is atomism. You've assumed "atomism" = "truth."

That you attempt to show examples of relations
that are what they are free from other relations,
means your saying that relation-A is A free from
-A, and thus you still deploy the very traditional
atomist definition that you seek to redefine.

>> I agree that half of the difference is
>> half of the difference, and half defines
>> the whole by default. If I give you $50
>> and say this is half of the fee, the
>> identity of the whole fee is revealed,
>> so the ID of the whole is in the half.
>> The area just outside the letter A defines
>> it as much as the area inside the letter.
>> Its identity contains both areas.
>My point is that most people define the fee differently, such that if I
>tell you that "this is only part of the fee" you STILL know the identity
>of what I've given you.

IAN: You'll know it still by its relation to external
features. Your trying to say that A is A free from
not-A even as you try to redefine atomism not to
say that. Just ask yourself, why is it necessary
for you to add the words "with respect to 0" to
the 3 Laws? What do they change? What do they stop?
They stop the clearly stated definition of atomism,
the definition that you continue to attempt to use
by arguing that relation-A is A free from -A.

>> IAN: When I refer to the high, I refer to
>> the low by default; when I refer to the
>> good, I refer to the bad by default...
>> How is it that I don't refer to the whole?
>Simple: you have made the dualistic fallacy. Sure, in a universe
>consisting of only two objects, by looking at both you observe the whole.
>However, when you look at a universe with THREE objects, observing the
>relationship between two is NOT looking at the whole, but is nonetheless
>valid as a partial diffrerence. Our definitions disagree in that atomists
>define that identity comes from the relationship between the object in
>question and another object which is defined to have no identity called
>"0." (Let me stop you before you start. 0 has no identity because there
>is no difference between 0 and 0.

IAN: Then 1 also has no identity because
there is no difference between 1 and 1.

>Under your definition of identity, this
>does not define the identity of 0. I'm aware of that. I'm CHALLENGING
>your definition. Do not use it to defend your argument, use ANOTHER
>definition to defend your DEFINITION.)

IAN: Your redefining atomism to be holism.
A relation is a holism. A universe with 3
things defines 1 thing as 1 of 3. I've
already shown how your example of two
things relating to zero is holism by
100% since the changing relation was
change relative to the not-change.

>The identity of A is defined as the difference between itself and the 0;
>while we could then go on to observe 0's relationship to B, and then draw
>conclusions about the relationship between A and B (if we knew what B
>was!), the relationship between B and A does not define the identity of
>anything. Only the difference between A and 0 defines A's identity under
>this definition.

IAN: A may be larger, faster,... than B,
and yes, all with respect to 0. Just observe
that 3 is 5 relative to -2 and we see that
non-zero identities acquire identity attributes
from non-zero identities... as well as from 0.

>> IAN: Not true. "Net difference" is not a
>> violation of the definition of difference.
>> I say that the difference between 4 and
>> 5 is expressed as 4 - 5 = -1. That's the
>> standard definition. So saying that the
>> net difference is -1 & 1, is not unique;
>> observing that it is the holisitc struc-
>> ture of identity is unique.
>This not an observation, it is a definition. I could just as easily
>define identity to be only the partial difference and make just as much
>sense. I'm telling you that this is what atomists do, and that is why
>holists and atomists are both right, by virtue of the fact that they agree

IAN: But half is not free from the whole,
and the cause of the half is the whole.


"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