Infinite-Cofinite-Finite Trilemma

           Infinite-Cofinite-Finite Trilemma

 

          A trilemma is a trio of three statements {U,V,W}, any two of which can be true, but not all three.

          Therefore for any trilemma, there are 3 deductive rules:

          From U and V, deduce not-W;

          From V and W, deduce not-U;

          From W and U, deduce not-V.

 

          For instance, from the trilemma:

          Superman can fly;

          Clark Kent can’t fly;

          Superman is Clark Kent.

         

Deduce these three rules:

If Superman can fly;

And Clark Kent can’t fly;

          Deduce: Superman is not Clark Kent.

If Clark Kent can’t fly;

And Superman is Clark Kent;

          Deduce: Superman can’t fly.

If Superman is Clark Kent; 

And Superman can fly;

          Deduce: Clark Kent can fly.

 

          Here is the Some-All-None trilemma:

·       Some A are B;

·       All B are C;

·       No A are C.

 

From this trilemma, you can derive three deductive rules:

If some A are B;

And all B are C;

Deduce: some A are C.

If all B are C;

And no A are C;

Deduce: no A are B.

If no A are C;

And some A are B;

Deduce: some B are not C.

 

          For example, from:

          Some men are heroes;

          All heroes are immortal;

          All men are mortal.

          Deduce:

If some men are heroes;

And all heroes are immortal;

Deduce: some men are immortal.

If all heroes are immortal;

And all men are mortal;

Deduce: no men are heroes.

If all men are mortal;

And some men are heroes;

Deduce: some heroes are mortal.

 

          Here is an infinitary version of the Some-All-None trilemma: the Infinite-Cofinite-Finite trilemma:

·       Infinitely many A are B;

·       All but finitely many B are C;

·       Only finitely many A are C.

 

From this trilemma, you can derive three deductive rules:

 

From: Infinitely many A are B;

And: All but finitely many B are C;

Deduce: Infinitely many A are C.

From: All but finitely many B are C;

And: Only finitely many A are C;

Deduce: Only finitely many A are B.

From: Only finitely many A are C;

And: Infinitely many A are B;

Deduce: Infinitely many B are not C.

 

          For instance, from:

Infinitely many philosophers are Cretans;

All but finitely many Cretans are liars;

Only finitely many philosophers are liars.

 

          Deduce:

From: Infinitely many philosophers are Cretans;

And: All but finitely many Cretans are liars;

Deduce: Infinitely many philosophers are liars.

From: All but finitely many Cretans are liars;

And: Only finitely many philosophers are liars;

Deduce: Only finitely many philosophers are Cretans.

From: Only finitely many philosophers are liars;

And: Infinitely many philosophers are liars;

Deduce: Infinitely many Cretans are not liars.

 

Other examples:

 

Infinitely many days are bliss;

All but finitely much bliss is perfect;

Only finitely many days are perfect.

 

There are infinitely many unicorns;

All but finitely many unicorns are goats;

Only finitely many unicorns are goats.

 

All but finitely many dogs go to Heaven;

Infinitely many dogs are flatterers;

Only finitely many flatterers go to Heaven.

 

All but finitely many cats have nine lives;

Only finitely many vampires have nine lives;

Infinitely many cats are vampires.

 

Infinitely many good deeds are wise;

All but finitely many wise deeds go unpunished;

Only finitely many good deeds go unpunished.

 

All but finitely many Scots are canny;

All but finitely many ghosts are uncanny;

Infinitely many Scots are ghosts.

 

All but finitely many aliens play video games;

Only finitely many angels play video games;

Infinitely many aliens are angels.

 

Only finitely many ducks waltz;

All but finitely many officers waltz;

Infinitely many officers are ducks.

 

Rectifying the Names

           Rectifying the Names

 

This essay is about the terms that we use in politics. I think that political discourse is distorted by false and misleading language. Therefore I follow Confucius’s advice: to “rectify the names”. I propose non-Orwellian substitutes for these corrupted words and phrases:

“Conservative”

“Liberal”

“White”

“Black”

“Terrorist”

“Anti-Semite”

“LGBTQIA”

“Homo Sapiens”

Those are all misnomers, here corrected.

 

“Conservative”

The word ‘conservative’ means ‘one who conserves’; but those now called ‘conservative’ do not conserve; not life, nor liberty, nor property, nor honor, nor decency, nor democracy, nor the environment, nor the middle class, nor the rule of law. A more fitting term for them would be ‘Authoritarian’ or ‘Reactionary’.

 

“Liberal”

The word ‘liberal’ means ‘one who liberates’; but those now called ‘liberal’ do not liberate; instead they assimilate, incorporate, and regulate. Therefore I propose calling them ‘Regulists’ or ‘Corporatists’.

 

“White”

The word ‘white’ means the color of snow, clouds, paper, cotton, and bones. There are no people whose skin is that color. Instead there are people whose skin has a pale brown tint. ‘White’ is not a biological classification, for the Irish, the Jews, the Italians, the Poles, and many others were allowed to become ‘white’. ‘White’ is a brand, and brands are for cattle. I propose that we call that tint ‘caucasian’, with a small c; then “caucasian-American” is an optical classification.

 

“Black”

The word ‘black’ means the color of coal, ink, and the night sky. There are no people whose skin is that color. Instead there are people whose skin has a dark brown tint. ‘Black’ is another cattle-brand. I propose that we call that tint ‘african’, with a small a; then ‘african-American’ is another optical classification.

 

“Terrorist”

This term ought to mean “one who uses violence, and threat of violence, on unarmed civilians for political gain”. However that definition has fallen out of favor, for it accidentally describes the routine behavior of all great powers. For instance, the Cold War was global thermonuclear superpower terrorism; arguably the greatest crime against humanity in all of human history. Since it is the great powers who are most fond of calling others terrorists, they are forced to modify the definition by means of hypocrisy: “our terrorism is not terrorism, but theirs is”. In practice, a ‘terrorist’ is a thug too big to be a mere gangster, and too small to be a respectable statesman. The terrorist’s true crime is that, just by existing, the terrorist exposes the continuity between organized crime and the State. Therefore I propose calling them “Statist Gangsters”.

 

“Anti-Semite”

This term means “one who opposes the Semitic race”, which makes sense only in the context of 19th-century racial pseudo-science. But just as there are no ‘white’ or ‘black’ people, there are no separate human races. Modern DNA technology confirms that the human race is one. Even in that pseudo-scientific context, ‘Semite’ does not refer to Jews only, but also Arabs; which makes Netanyahu as anti-Semitic as Hamas. The term was invented by 19th-century Jew-haters who did not want to be religious bigots (for that had gone out of style) and instead wanted to be racists (for that was fashionable at the time). I propose that we replace “Anti-Semite”, a problematic and inaccurate term, with “Jew-hater” or “Judeophobe”. The first is if you don’t mind being uncomfortably raw and direct. The second is more polite, and it echoes “Islamophobe”.

        

         “LGBTQIA”

That dreadful bureaucratic babble of an acronym accreted like asteroids forming a planetesimal. To me it sounds like an artificial food additive, or like a sandwich made with lettuce, garlic, (turkey) bacon, tomatoes, quinoia, italian spices, and avocado. (I have made such sandwiches. They are a full meal.) The term sounds like it was approved by a committee at 4:45 pm on a Friday afternoon. It has zero character. It might as well be stenciled on the side of a cattle car. I propose replacing it with “Gender Minorities”; a term which is recognizably English, and denotes both politics and sexuality, as befits.

 

“Homo Sapiens”

The term “Homo Sapiens” is Latin for “Wise Human”. I do not object to calling ourselves human, but anyone who inspects our history yet calls us sapient is not entirely sapient. ‘Wise Human’ is not a scientific name; it is aspirational. A more scientific description would replace “Sapiens” with “Semi-Sapiens”, meaning half-wise, or “Mendax”, meaning liar. Therefore I propose a new scientific name for our kind: “Homo Mendax Semisapiens”: Man the lying half-wit.

 

One could rectify other names. For instance, “progressives”, who make no progress, ought to be called “Retreatists”; and “evangelicals”, who are not good news, ought to be called “Dysangelicals”. “Artificial Intelligence” should instead be called “Simulated Intelligence”, with the understanding that our own intelligence might also be a simulation. I am open to other suggestions.

The “-phobia” suffix denotes phobos, or fear; but perhaps we should speak of deimos, or hatred. “-deimia”? Islamodeimia, Judeodeimia? But one can argue that hatred is rooted in fear; and what’s more, hatred has the glamour of evil, whereas fear looks pathetic; so the “-phobia” suffix is rhetorically superior to “-deimia”.

 

 

Russell’s Two Legacies

             Russell’s Two Legacies

 

             Bertrand Russell has two legacies: his Paradox and his Principia. His Paradox is concisely stated, wittily illustrated with a quaint tale, and logically devastating. He asked: consider the set of all sets, and only those sets, that do not contain themselves. Does it contain itself, or not? The answer is: yes as much as no!

            Russell illustrated his Paradox with a quaint tale about a village’s  barber. The barber shaves all those, and only those, who do not shave themselves. Does the barber shave himself? Yes as much as no!

            You can tell similar tales. For instance, that village is watched by a watchman, who watched all those, and only those, who do not watch themselves. Who watches the watchman? The watchman watches himself as much as he does not.

            The village jester laughs at all those, and only those, who do not laugh at themselves. Does the jester laugh at the jester? The answer to this question is, yes as much as no.

            Related to these is Gödel’s Paradox: “ ‘is not provable when it quotes itself’ is not provable when it quotes itself.” That statement uses coding to call itself unprovable. This yields a paradox unless proof does not equal truth.

            Russell’s Principia is an attempt to suppress Russell’s Paradox, and win the day for the logicist program. It is long, dense, unreadable by most, and its mission was defeated by Gödel’s Paradox. Russell tried to ban self-reference, but self-reference is inherent in arithmetic, given coding.

             Russell’s Principia is long, dull, obscure, unreadable, specialized, and failed. Russell’s Paradox is short, sweet, clear, witty, adaptable, and effective. I think that Russell’s Paradox will long outlive his Principia, which will be remembered only for taking hundreds of pages to prove that 1+1=2.

I see in this a kind of Shakespearean family tragedy. Lord Russell had two brainchildren: Principia Mathematica, the legitimate heir, and Russell's Paradox, the by-blow conceived in youthful folly. The two waged war, and the bastard defeated the legitimate heir. 

            I also see in this an object lesson in pragmatic memetics:

Keep It Simple, Stupid.

            And why? Because all men are mortal. We don’t have time for windy nonsense; we only have time for witty nonsense.
 

 

Paradox-logic addendum:

            The Kleenean-logic solution to the paradox of the jester is that the jester only half laughs at the jester, with a forced and rueful chuckle. The Diamond-logic solution is that there are two jesters, who laugh loud and long at each other.

 

Does Money Exist? 12 of 12

         Part 12. Critique of an alleged science, and a self-validation.

 

            If money might not exist, then is there a science of money? Is economics truly a science? For science requires objectivity, and who can be objective about money? Certainly not those paid to study it; for they are paid by those who have money, rather than those who do not, and he who pays the piper calls the tune. By its own logic, professional economics must be corrupt. Therefore it has a built-in plutic bias; it must ignore aplutic doubts, and attack antiplutic norms.

             To be objective, an economist must not expect to reap personal gain from his or her findings. Therefore scientific economics, if it exists, must be done aplutically, moneyless, in the public domain. Otherwise it is not science, but is instead pseudo-science, propaganda, deceptions and delusions paid for by the rich.

            Professional economics must hide its useful insights, if any. Amateur economics like this essay lacks plutic bias, but is incomplete, marginally competent, and under-marketed. Either way, truly scientific economics is scarce - as befits a science of scarcity.

             Truly scientific economics is scarce; so this essay just might be the only scientific economics treatise that you have ever read. Therefore this essay declares that this essay is necessary!