## The Paradox of the Variable

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6576
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### The Paradox of the Variable

The variable is when one thing can be stated in an infinite variety of ways and as such is subject to the fallacy of equivocation. Any underlying law, expressed through the variable, is the equivocation of one law in a myriad of ways.
odysseus
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:30 pm

### Re: The Paradox of the Variable

The variable is when one thing can be stated in an infinite variety of ways and as such is subject to the fallacy of equivocation. Any underlying law, expressed through the variable, is the equivocation of one law in a myriad of ways.
Not clear why variability implies an infinite number of ways, nor on why this infinite number of ways makes a variable subject to the fallacy of equivocation, for an equivocation arises when there is a conflict in meaning between two or more expressions. Boy, I am tired! can be either an address to a "boy" literally, which it usually is not, or it can be a rhetorical "boy" used idiomatically. Put these two in a context where implications are drawn from the one referring to the other, and you have your fallacy.

The "underlying law expressed through the variable" being an equivocation itself is curious. The underlying law is, you might say, only as good as it can be expressed as a law, i.e., in language, and language is always, already ambiguous in the given "variable" of its utterances, awaiting for context to make the meaning clear. No language concept or proposition is stand alone, but requires context, usually so generally assumed that no one questions this and it seems like what is presented is stand alone, but this is never the case. Thus, if I can try to understand your point, the variability of the expression of the underlying law itself does need context, as all good variables do, but if this is true for all discussions about underlying laws, then this variability never leaves our descriptions of the world, even when we go deep into the most general level of assumptions.

The paradox is Heidegger's hermeneutics where this circular thinking is actually embraced, for there is no foundation beyond what language can produce, and language is contextually restricted. The "myriad of ways" is a reference to the matrix of alternative contextual possibilities, and you are in Derrida's world now.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6576
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The Paradox of the Variable

odysseus wrote: Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:32 pm
The variable is when one thing can be stated in an infinite variety of ways and as such is subject to the fallacy of equivocation. Any underlying law, expressed through the variable, is the equivocation of one law in a myriad of ways.
Not clear why variability implies an infinite number of ways, nor on why this infinite number of ways makes a variable subject to the fallacy of equivocation, for an equivocation arises when there is a conflict in meaning between two or more expressions. Boy, I am tired! can be either an address to a "boy" literally, which it usually is not, or it can be a rhetorical "boy" used idiomatically. Put these two in a context where implications are drawn from the one referring to the other, and you have your fallacy.

x+y=z

1+2=3
1+3=4
1+4=5
....
2+1=3
2+3=5
2+4=6
...

....

The "underlying law expressed through the variable" being an equivocation itself is curious. The underlying law is, you might say, only as good as it can be expressed as a law, i.e., in language, and language is always, already ambiguous in the given "variable" of its utterances, awaiting for context to make the meaning clear. No language concept or proposition is stand alone, but requires context, usually so generally assumed that no one questions this and it seems like what is presented is stand alone, but this is never the case. Thus, if I can try to understand your point, the variability of the expression of the underlying law itself does need context, as all good variables do, but if this is true for all discussions about underlying laws, then this variability never leaves our descriptions of the world, even when we go deep into the most general level of assumptions.

The paradox is Heidegger's hermeneutics where this circular thinking is actually embraced, for there is no foundation beyond what language can produce, and language is contextually restricted. The "myriad of ways" is a reference to the matrix of alternative contextual possibilities, and you are in Derrida's world now.
odysseus
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:30 pm

### Re: The Paradox of the Variable

Not helpful, Eodnhoj7. Try again, this time.....say something!
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6576
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The Paradox of the Variable

odysseus wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:16 am Not helpful, Eodnhoj7. Try again, this time.....say something!
Each variable, or set of variables, equate to an infinite regression of sub variables where each equation is subject to slippery slope fallacy.
odysseus
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:30 pm

### Re: The Paradox of the Variable

Each variable, or set of variables, equate to an infinite regression of sub variables where each equation is subject to slippery slope fallacy.
I.e., hermeneutical circularity. A very interesting problem because, for one thing, it denies us the ability of affirm ethical axioms, and this encourages ethical nihilism. Ethical nihilism is the human nightmare. It is also not defensible, and to add, ethics, that is, value, and here, meta-value is what makes no variable truly "slippery". Ethics is what grounds all variables absolutely. Not to speak of the circularity of the propositional truth and falsity, but of the value that is inherent all assertions.

Of course, this is an issue.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6576
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The Paradox of the Variable

odysseus wrote: Sat Feb 29, 2020 2:58 am
Each variable, or set of variables, equate to an infinite regression of sub variables where each equation is subject to slippery slope fallacy.
I.e., hermeneutical circularity. A very interesting problem because, for one thing, it denies us the ability of affirm ethical axioms, and this encourages ethical nihilism. Ethical nihilism is the human nightmare. It is also not defensible, and to add, ethics, that is, value, and here, meta-value is what makes no variable truly "slippery". Ethics is what grounds all variables absolutely. Not to speak of the circularity of the propositional truth and falsity, but of the value that is inherent all assertions.

Of course, this is an issue.
The slippery slope, as one variable regressing to another necessitates a tautology through the circularity of recursion (ie one or more variables constantly cycling).

The recursive nature of infinite regression necessitates a firm ethical foundation of the Golden Rule through circularity, where one reflects and projects specifically what they desire to cycle back to them.

Reciprocity follows this nature as well, as a variation of the cyclical self reflective nature of the golden rule.