Atomism = Holism ? - NO!

Gerhard Kessell-Haak (
Thu, 18 Jun 1998 16:12:28 +1200

Since you both seem to have ceased the argument without coming to a
conclusion, lets see what consequences there are if the assertion that:

XX) A = not(A) (as taken from Ians definition of Holism at

is true.

Define a set universe U = {A, B, C}

This implies that B is an element of not(A).

taking XX, this implies that B is an element of A.

Since A is an atomic entity within U, this actually means that

B = A.

That means that U = {A, C}.

One can continue on in the same fashion, until

U = { A } => U = A.

However, under this definition, not(A) = empty set.

Thus, using assertion XX, one can only come to the conclusion that U is
an empty set.

As we defined U = {A, B, C}, we can then conclude that {A, B, C} is an
empty set.

This is blatantly false.

So, assertion XX must be false.