Re: Definitions

Ian Goddard (
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.

>> 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.)

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!
>It's just contradiction!"

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
your wrong is an inherent contradiction.

>> >> 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: 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.


"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