Why Zeno d'Elee mistook the humanity for 2500 years.
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 4:37 pm
Hi All!
I would like to share this site about logic with you:
http://www.courvoisier-thevenaz.ch/logic/logic.php
and sorry if you find the english as being "robotic", the guy, as me, are french-speaking in maternal language - but I think the site remains understandable.
It appears that the oldest trace of our mainstream implication, is from Zeno d'Elee.
At the central litigious point, Zeno pretends:
"From the false follows the true", and gives this example:
"As from "The earth flies" follows "The earth exists"." - but he omits - most probably purposely - to remember that "The earth flies" is false!
The sole understanding were this one:
I shall imagine "the earth", as an object - existent - to give the action in flying to it; (and this is literal, as "the earth" is the subject of "The earth flies");
but - also - I can have an earth which is not flying, and nevertheless, this earth may exist.
This is the sole understanding I find to this proposition, but, a problem:
Even in this case, we face an understanding about inclusions, or a set theory - and not the logos.
Logic is not about computing all the possibilities. That written, "the earth flies is false" may lead to "the earth exists" as well as to "the devil exists".
Obviously, to deduct "the devil exists" from "the earth flies is false" is ridiculous; but to deduct "the earth exists" from "the earth flies is false" is not more pertinent.
Indeed, "false yields to true" is an anti-temporal (anti-chronological) proposition, and is why some "specialists" begin to pretend that logic implication is not a consequence, nor a causality!..
But, in the linked site, you'll find a correction proposition.
It seems obvious that Zeno chose to let false yield to true, and not true yield to false, to distinguish these values operationally. But it appears obvious, too, that he mistook himself (and the others for 2500 years), and that it should be true which yields to false... for several reasons given by the linked site.
And a reason why we accepted his sentence so easily, can be that "true cannot yield to false" appeared so attractive.
Depending on this site, understanding requires time, because logic does; but the so-called "logicians" in mainstream logic are unable to state such an evidence, as far as they accept the litigious proposition.
-I would like to know what you think, if you understood the purpose, or if you experimented logic, even in a personal level...
Thank you.
I would like to share this site about logic with you:
http://www.courvoisier-thevenaz.ch/logic/logic.php
and sorry if you find the english as being "robotic", the guy, as me, are french-speaking in maternal language - but I think the site remains understandable.
It appears that the oldest trace of our mainstream implication, is from Zeno d'Elee.
At the central litigious point, Zeno pretends:
"From the false follows the true", and gives this example:
"As from "The earth flies" follows "The earth exists"." - but he omits - most probably purposely - to remember that "The earth flies" is false!
The sole understanding were this one:
I shall imagine "the earth", as an object - existent - to give the action in flying to it; (and this is literal, as "the earth" is the subject of "The earth flies");
but - also - I can have an earth which is not flying, and nevertheless, this earth may exist.
This is the sole understanding I find to this proposition, but, a problem:
Even in this case, we face an understanding about inclusions, or a set theory - and not the logos.
Logic is not about computing all the possibilities. That written, "the earth flies is false" may lead to "the earth exists" as well as to "the devil exists".
Obviously, to deduct "the devil exists" from "the earth flies is false" is ridiculous; but to deduct "the earth exists" from "the earth flies is false" is not more pertinent.
Indeed, "false yields to true" is an anti-temporal (anti-chronological) proposition, and is why some "specialists" begin to pretend that logic implication is not a consequence, nor a causality!..
But, in the linked site, you'll find a correction proposition.
It seems obvious that Zeno chose to let false yield to true, and not true yield to false, to distinguish these values operationally. But it appears obvious, too, that he mistook himself (and the others for 2500 years), and that it should be true which yields to false... for several reasons given by the linked site.
And a reason why we accepted his sentence so easily, can be that "true cannot yield to false" appeared so attractive.
Depending on this site, understanding requires time, because logic does; but the so-called "logicians" in mainstream logic are unable to state such an evidence, as far as they accept the litigious proposition.
-I would like to know what you think, if you understood the purpose, or if you experimented logic, even in a personal level...
Thank you.