From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philo
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:41:20 GMT
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: baruch@nynexst.com's message of 6 Jan 93 15:34:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.153443.27955@nynexst.com> baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch) writes:


   In article 93Jan5150335@macro.bu.edu, merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
   > In article <TORKEL.93Jan5195646@bast.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
   > 
   > 
   > 
   >    In article <MERRITT.93Jan5132621@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu
   >     (Sean Merritt) writes:
   > 
   >       >For if you look at it
   >       >Objectivism attempts to help Humans act as Turing machines
   >       >solving the Halting Problem.
   > 
   > #     Your account of various logical matters is quite garbled, but there is
   > #   no reason why that account should be criticized in this group. However,
   > #   your comment above is clearly relevant to the topic of the group, and
   > #   is wonderfully bizarre. So how about it, Objectivists? Did Ayn Rand
   > #   seek to help humans solve the halting problem, acting as Turing
   > #   machines?
   > 
   > More to the point is "A is A" provable? If you believe that
   > you can prove it in any formalism do so.

   Why prove it?  To disprove it, you would have to claim that (A is A) is (A is A)
   is disproved.  That is, the statement itself if not the statement, nor does it
   have any reason.

   > Point is you must accept "A is A" as true. Hummans do not act or 
   > think as Turing machines. Regarding that "A is A" as true
   > (which I believe it is as far as I , a human can know it,to be)
   > is an act of faith and there is no logical basis for it
   > while there is certainly a rational basis for it.

#   There is certainly a logical basis for it.  If "A is A" is false, then
#   you cannot argue about "A is A" because "(A is A) is (A is A)" is false.
#   Therefore, you don't really know what you are arguing about, and what is
#   the point in arguing about something you don't know about?  That was the
#   essense of Ayn Rand's statement -- A is A means that before you talk about
#   something, you must know exactly what it is you are talking about.  She
#   said it another way -- "existence exists".

There is no logical (not rational) proof of self congruence, it must
be an axiom. You can never prove axioms, you accept them on "FAITH" 
if you are human or they are downloaded to you if you are a machine.

There is a rational basis for accepting self conguence at some
level of your perception. That rational decision is based on an 
act of faith or if you will empirical knowlegde. Any bit of
empirical knowledge has the possibility of being proved invalid
is some context. If you say I am 99.99% certain that "A is A"
there is still the finite(although small) probability that "A is not A".
If you say I am 100% certain "A is A" there remains the possiblity
that your house of cards comes tumbling down in a unique
distinct and possible set of circumstances.

Your observation of reality (your subjective view), will fail
to coincide with the `objective reality'. While allowing
for a finite but small probability you have in effect remained
more consistant with `objective reality'. 

-sjm
--
Sean J. Merritt		         | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence    
Dept of Physics Boston University|  and an appeal to the essence of being."
merritt@macro.bu.edu             | Albert Camus, The Rebel
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism