Re: Definitions

Daniel Fabulich (
Mon, 15 Jun 1998 02:38:10 -0400 (EDT)

On Sun, 14 Jun 1998, Ian Goddard wrote:

> I assert that your addition of "with respect
> 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."

Ah. The argument from tradition. Which tradition of atomists claims that
you can define motion without a reference frame? (Hint: "There is none"
is a perfectly valid answer.)

> >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!
It's just contradiction!"

> 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.

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

> 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: 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: 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.


> 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: 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.