Logical Holes
It's also known as Bertrand Russell's big problem, the idea that after reducing everything to logical truths that can be manipulated by operators, you still don't know anything. The problem is that no matter what symbols you use, you still can't reduce everything to symbols.
A professor in science and cognition once told me that there isn't such a thing as qualitative research — only badly quantified research. The thing is that even if in theory it were possible to quantify all interactions, the number of possible interactions and consequents and possible antecedents would exceed the computing potential of the universe. It is a a variant of the old 'best map is 1:1' problem, in which the best map of the world is the world itself.
This leaves us with a simplistic set of solutions: basically, we guess, approximate, reify — we create rules of thumb and assert that there are laws even as the universe laughs and shows us that not all constants are constant. We want to understand, which is itself a mystery. That we reflect on this desire, knowing that it may be nothing but an advanced version of a primordial survival instinct, a flash of neuron-net hyperactivity that has no value in this universe, is a greater mystery.
For logic has huge holes — it does not address itself, and it does not address meaning. It does not tell us why it should be, only that it is. It is a tool that some of us have made into a master — it is like a screwdriver that has been made into an engineer.
I use a screwdriver for screwdriving and screw removal. I try not to use it inappropriately, and I don't trumpet my proficiency when I do.
A professor in science and cognition once told me that there isn't such a thing as qualitative research — only badly quantified research. The thing is that even if in theory it were possible to quantify all interactions, the number of possible interactions and consequents and possible antecedents would exceed the computing potential of the universe. It is a a variant of the old 'best map is 1:1' problem, in which the best map of the world is the world itself.
This leaves us with a simplistic set of solutions: basically, we guess, approximate, reify — we create rules of thumb and assert that there are laws even as the universe laughs and shows us that not all constants are constant. We want to understand, which is itself a mystery. That we reflect on this desire, knowing that it may be nothing but an advanced version of a primordial survival instinct, a flash of neuron-net hyperactivity that has no value in this universe, is a greater mystery.
For logic has huge holes — it does not address itself, and it does not address meaning. It does not tell us why it should be, only that it is. It is a tool that some of us have made into a master — it is like a screwdriver that has been made into an engineer.
I use a screwdriver for screwdriving and screw removal. I try not to use it inappropriately, and I don't trumpet my proficiency when I do.
Labels: Logic, Odd Thoughts
etched with acid at 8:58:00 am
3 Comments:
Change is a constant. Is it?
/Sorrows
'Change is a constant' is one of those stupid non sequiturs. The point is that it's not about change, but the rate and type of change.
Even the idea is better expressed as 'things always change' rather than 'things constantly change'. That's because 'always' literally means 'in all ways', whereas 'constantly' means 'with the same status' or 'in the same way'.
This is a lesson no English teacher will teach you. Most of them are incapable of it.
Ah, so it's a matter of diction.
Doesn't the sentence "change is a constant" also imply that change is always happening, as much as it implies that change constantly happens, as well?
Understandably, the term "constant" has that connotation of constancy, though. Making it an inappropriate term to use because it implies that there is a certain rate at which it occurs, which is not necessarily true of all change. Whereas "always" has no such connotations behind it.
Huh.
/Sorrows
Post a Comment
<< Home