Jakob wrote:Kathrina wrote:I would like to throw a thesis into this virtual space:

Is it possible that RM:AO and VO are in the same relation to each other like rationality and irrationality or like (Kant/)Hegel and Schopenhauer/Nietzsche? I don't mean a strict opposition, but something like a rivalry in the attempt to find out the most important thing in cognition, which is tried on the one hand by means of rationality/reason/logic and which is tried on the other hand by not ignoring rationality/reason/logic, but considering it less important.

VO is a logic, a form of reason, but it doesn't fit all the way into a mathematical system. Which isn't strange, as mathematics is a tiny sliver of the edifice of rational thought and even a tinier sliver of truth, empirical and abstract - and by no means the deepest part of any of these. Mathematics is a surface phenomenon. It is the way that truth comes to the surface by permutation in certain hard-hewn terms. It is hard, but it isn't deep. It doesn't touch on reality directly. I see AO as a surface-emulator, a vector game on one facet of a complex object.

By the fact that mathematics has discovered the set of the irrational numbers, the rationality, so typical for mathematics, has not disappeared. The irrational numbers function in (function) equations, and that's all they are supposed to do. The rationality does not suffer from it, but enriches itself thereby even.

To be clear, I consider all thought that is not grounded in VO to be irrational.

That is why it exists. Because I found all human thought to be founded on blind assumptions.

VO is reasoning without any assumptions whatsoever.

So to your tabbed question:

An ontology doesn't prescribe. It simply shows what can and what can not exist.

You would have to tell me what you want and for whom as accurately as you can, then VO can show you what is possible and how.

Jakob wrote:obsrvr524 wrote:Jakob wrote:I consider AO to be irrational because of several premises it requires.

One is that of infinitesimals; QM refutes this. There is no smooth scale of scale, there are steps, integers.

That appears to be an assumption - a false one.

How do you know that the universe is constructed in stepping stone fashion?

Well, that

is Quantum Mechanics. Why they called it "quantum" mechanics.

It is the main finding of these guys. Read some Bohr.

Jakob wrote:Another premise is the homogeneity of affectance, which is required for it to be uniformly calculable in terms of itself. This is absolutely not a given. It must be assumed.

That is not in AO. AO states the homogeneity is impossible.

I did not say AO holds that the world is homogenous. I indicate that affectance, as a criterion, is homogenous.

Now "self-valuing" is homogenous as a logical criterion, but not as a mathematical one. Therefore the homogeneity it isn't a presupposed quality, but merely an assertion of method on the part of the thinker.

From all what you have said does not follow anything like value ontology or self-value ontology, well, also not any other theory or philosophy, except the one which agrees with the fact of the history of science that since the time when Planck founded the quantum theory (1900), physics in the main has become quantum physics, the empirical findings because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle just fuzzy, imprecise, and also theoretically resp. mathematically no more exactly, but only with statistics and probability calculation can be proved, that therefore from the point of view of physics the world does not look any more like before 1900 (Planck), but can look like "as it wants", and we can only state that the weltanschauung has changed dramatically since then.mathematically no more exactly, but only with statistics and probability calculation can be proved, that therefore from the point of view of physics the world no more looks like before 1900 (Planck), but can look like "as it wants", and we can only state that the world view has changed dramatically since then. We do not know what is going on in a "black hole" - that means: we also do not know whether the "black hole" does "what it wants".

Everything can be always also completely different - this is the cognition which physics since 1900 (Planck) has helped more and more to the breakthrough. If everything can always also be completely different, then everything can also be exactly the other way round, then everything can also be like Orwell's "Newspeak" dictates. But it does not have to be that way.

The logotype for "Ingsoc" from the film "Nineteen Eighty-Four" ("1984"):

- Ingsoc.png (13.05 KiB) Viewed 299 times