06nov2014

the stuff history is made from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/schifrin/2014/11/05/jeffrey-gundlach-king-me/
doff: alpha

paradoxes

with gr8 satisfaction and pride, i came to know that one of the paradoxes i came up with, was also conceived by another person almost 2 millenia ago, and that person is zeno and the paradox is zeno's paradox on "motion is impossible." today, the 21st of august, 2008, i have come to know that this paradox has a solution. wow! well, some more food 4 thought for me. nice....

logic

found this course http://www.filozofia.uw.edu.pl/kpaprzycka/Publ/xLogicSelfTaught.html

working through it, have so far made it to unit 3 pg 27. want to complete the rest soon.

philosophy

russell's paradox: can someone help me see/understand the paradox?

let's say r is a set consisting of members (physical beings) crystal, roark, dominique. in set languate, r={crystal, roark, dominique}.

i'm stumped trying to even ask the question, is the group consisting of crystal, roark, dominique a member of the group consisting of crystal, roark, dominique? is there any physical equivalence to this seemingly rhetorical Q?

the original set r consists of three individuals, physical beings. now, that is simple and straightforward. the set is an abstract entity. does it make sense to even ask, whether an abstract entity, in this case the set r, is a member of the set which is a collection of individual physical beings?

doesn't the very definition of the set r, exclude those entities or members who r not physical beings?

philosophy

i remember having read this Problems in Philosophy: the Limits of Inquiry more than a year ago. i was impressed.

i liked the argument put forth in it, that humans might be limited by their cognitive closure explaining or resolving philosophical problems. more of my thoughts on this @ a later time.

ok, my thoughts now.
i think sentience was selected for its ability 2 solve immediate problems of survival and probably procreation @ a later time than solving philosophical problems. just consider this simple scenario, i can survive without thinking about philosophical problems, but i wouldn't be able 2 survive without food, clothing, shelter etc..

disclaimer:@ this point in time, i'm a believer in evolutionary theory but am willing 2 give this up if i find a more compelling theory in future.

philosophy

one of the works i've thoroughly enjoyed.
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms.php


note:if u want to read the original 60 page version, email me and i shall sent it over 2 u.