Skepdick wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 07, 2019 10:39 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:07 am
It makes sense consitency is an agreed upon interpretation and set of assumption that are subject to infinite regress....
Distributed consensus is a hard problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus ... r_science)
Distributed anything is orders of magnitude more complex than mere linear logic.
And that is very loosely, on my part, what I am saying (or implying) in regards to consistency and the actual word "consistency". However I am not focusing on consensus, specifically as a variable of change (although it is a larger factor), but rather that modern consensus or the "religion of analysis" requires a perpetual definition of words causing consensus itself not only being dynamic change but a cause of dynamic change.
You have an infinite string of symbols transitive to symbols. If not infinite, then a number approach infinity.
This string is fundamentally a loop however, connecting itself through various symbols.
Any time you "defined something" such as "consistency" you are localizing some portion of this self looping web, cut this portion out, and then tying it into a knot.
This now represents the word, in this case "consistency".
The problem is that in creating a knot, it not only causes a further number of knots (as each word is a knot metaphorically speaking) but it causes the actual definition of the word to fragment.
This may not sound clear at first.
With the increase in "knots" comes an increase in words.
With the increase in words comes an increase in connects to other words, as words and connections increase so does the "variability" of the word itself.
So I have 10 words
"Horfblob" is connected to 3 words with these three words connected to the remaining six.
A new set of words is added, let's say 3 more.
These three are connected to the 3 words that are connected to Horfblob, as well as the remainders too.
This is done to increase the immediate definition of these three words, but in doing so by proxy does the same to Horfblob.
Horblob is now defined by words that are more general in nature, hence horfblob becomes more general in nature.
1H/(3x/6y) = 2z with x and y representing just words as variables. Z observes "meaning" where the closer to unity (1) the more "meaning" H has by strictly assuming it for what it is...
1H/(3x/9y) = 3z
The 1H/(3×/12y) = 4z
Eventually as the increase in words occurs, required to define the words, so does the increase in meaning for horfblob.
However this continual increase cause horfblob, to not just have a core meaning, but exist as a variable those localized a general dynamic change; hence it is always inconsistent
. What is consistent is the immediate three words it is connected too, however with progressive defintion they become inconsistent as well.
1H/(3x/n ---> inf) = (a ---> inf)z
Thus "horblob" is fundamentally a variable. It is a transition state, composed of transition states.
With the increase in definition, in any system comes an increase in generality.
Thus systems with less words, less "assumptions", are more definite in nature. The problem is that language keeps changing...so when looked at the meaning of a word you are observing a transition state...a state of dynamic change.
Thus inconsitency is fundamentally what a word or variable is. Consistency can only be defined as "localized change".
A consistent system cannot occur, in the traditional sense. It cannot only be observed as anything except as a dynamic or irrational ratio....a "boundary of change", which is constant due to its progressive looping setting up its foundations for identity...but nothing more.
Each word thus is subject to the equivocation fallacy, in these regards, but exists as "valid" as each word is a ratio of words...but this ratio is ever expanding.