"Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world" Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) a declared atheist but then early Christians were atheistic to the Chinese, Persian, Greek, Roman Pantheons of heartless Gods made in mans image. Till right now up to the present day from European, British and American pantheons of the political veiled within religiosity by the thousands of churches, parties and factions that each has been given a legal name by their dividers, by their conquerors. By light on the subject of the world we see what was hidden in the shadows with our searchlights.
Thankyou David for that fine analysis of X-bar Theory V DTC theory. That deep structure problem is where my interest lies. It seems that those whom challenged the Chomskian view end up in deep water over a simple word like an ellipsis. While I have no formal training in Transformational Grammer I do have some understanding of visual grammar or as Chomsky called it generative grammar. She is the granny of them all when it distills down to accurate explanations for each and any event to occur. The crisis being one of is it predicable of the subject or can that subject speak in that domain and for want of a better word: HOLD WATER. Will he get tossed out of the room for saying that word. Will he be put in stocks and have the rotten fruit of the people living in the city tossed at him: HENCE PARANOIA. The result of which is an exceedingly cautious approach to the subject matter.
For a thesis to HOLD WATER it is of import that it be endlessly repeatable and prove itself to be true. So we begin by not multiplying entities beyond necessity.
Subject is predicate or S is P or S=P. But S=S not P is the problem. The Gettier problem revisited. How can S be P when S is S and P is P?
A subject S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if:
Thankyou David for that fine analysis of X-bar Theory V DTC theory. That deep structure problem is where my interest lies. It seems that those whom challenged the Chomskian view end up in deep water over a simple word like an ellipsis. While I have no formal training in Transformational Grammer I do have some understanding of visual grammar or as Chomsky called it generative grammar. She is the granny of them all when it distills down to accurate explanations for each and any event to occur. The crisis being one of is it predicable of the subject or can that subject speak in that domain and for want of a better word: HOLD WATER. Will he get tossed out of the room for saying that word. Will he be put in stocks and have the rotten fruit of the people living in the city tossed at him: HENCE PARANOIA. The result of which is an exceedingly cautious approach to the subject matter.
For a thesis to HOLD WATER it is of import that it be endlessly repeatable and prove itself to be true. So we begin by not multiplying entities beyond necessity.
Subject is predicate or S is P or S=P. But S=S not P is the problem. The Gettier problem revisited. How can S be P when S is S and P is P?
- P is true
- S believes that P is true, and
- S is justified in believing that P is true
- 1. The law of identity. A is A or A = A
2. The law of the excluded middle. A cannot be both A and not A.
3. The law of non-contradiction. A cannot be not A
4. The law of sufficient reasoon. A exists since A is in use and put to work.
This in no way solves the problem of how S can be P all we have done is estabish identity. I.E. We know that their is a phenomena called Velocity. Velocity is a measure. The unit in this case is metres per second. Why is because V=LT where L stands in the place of length and T is for Time. From this factual statement we get two other equations for both Length and Time. L= V/T which allow one to predict the distance a journier will travel. T= V/L to calculate the time the journey will take if and when one knows, get it, knows Velocity and Length or distance one has to travel to reach ones destination. From two values the third value can be determined. This holds for all cases and all instances and is non contradictable thus is an affirmation of truth. We have proved that V is LT in this instance such that when we check the statement for error we arrive at V=V. How so you will ask. Simple I say and the wonder is that no one noticed this before or they did and I and we and you and us failed to notice.
Seven Step Proof.
1. V=LxT
2. L=V/T
3. T=V/L
4. Therefore V=V/L X V/T ( First equation used with generated terms 2. and 3. )
5. Thus VxV/LxT OR V^2/LxT
6. But LxT=V in 1. So we now have V=VxV/V
7. Since V/V=0 then we are left with one V so V=V and thus the thesis holds water.
- So we need to rephase the Gettier Problem by the following method. We know now how and why the above is true and the same applies to the ones below. The JTB or Justified True Belief question asks the wrong question of knowledge. The question is/was/wills Justified True Knowledge. Brown should have gone over and checked that Daisy was in the paddock if he really loved her as much as he said he did that is what she is for since she gives him milk and he sells the milk for his living. If she is that important it is even more important to double check.
- S is P or what is predicated as belonging to or within the confines of the subject is part of the subject.
- P is S or that part of the subject is inside of the subjects boundaries hence it belongs within its domain.
- S is P and P is S since P is a part of S otherwise it would not be predicable since it is would be false
- 1. P is known.
2. S believes P is known.
3. S is justified knowledge when P is known.
I.E. You say to a family member lets call him John, "I am going to the shops, do you want to come with me?" John says "Yes!" You say "I will be leaving in five minutes as I have some...things to do beforehand." John now believes that he is going to the shopping centre with you. As you well know in five minutes anything can happen. It does and you get a phone call from a friend to say " An emergency" for arguments sake that means in three hours you have to catch a plane to Sydney. John believed he was going to the shopping center and so his plans must change to "How will I take care of the house when Mum is not here?" This is purely a circumstantial matter, or a as luck would have it analysis of an incident. If you can understand it so will my granddaughters. So we deal with a change of plan. Now the trip is to the airport. The flight booked in time is in two hours leaving one hour to pack and giving you an hour to wait for the plane to take off. The expectation is that you believe you have time to pack, etc. and be in the seating lounge to get on that plane in the following hour. You make the flight no other incident interrupts the journey, though many incidents can slow one down. All runs smoothly, house sitter is booked, all is well, said Captain Cook. You are on the plane, all is organised now you KNOW after the event but not before with a belief. Thus belief is a kind of faith one has that all will come together at a certain time, kind of, sort of, only definite when you act upon it and other events in time to not disturb the routine calls. One does not believe that one will be left, for want of a better word: high and dry on the airport tarmac. If that became the case, that two, is knowledge.
F=MA Newton's Second Law of Motion holds true by the method, Force is equal to Mass by accelleration.
V=IR Ohm's Law also by the same process note please synonyms, Volts is equal to current in Amperes by Resistance in Ohms.
P=IV Power Law holds true with Power being the rate that work is done as measured in Watts composed of Current in Amperes and Voltage in volts or potential differance.
E=M(CxC) then is brought onto the table and that subject is more complex than I am able to strip down and take apart piece by piece at the present.
While there are other ways to look at these equations and other measures are possible these do not detract from the absolution of the how's and why's of the above proof method that applies. They simply add more complexity that cannot be dealt with in such a small space as this.
n-joy=peat<:<))))>
No comments:
Post a Comment