[lit-ideas] Re: Logical Impossibility and Popper's Third Realm: Self-Referential?
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 15:27:38 +0000 (UTC)
As Geary once told me (to the ear): "Perhaps this is proof of
self-referentiality, and Popper's w3 [as McEvoy's symbolises it] is
self-contradictory
itself?">
This has been covered before: W3 is a container and does not become
self-contradictory because it contains multitudes of propositions that
contradict each other - no more than an actual cup becomes self-contradictory
if I put the proposition "Donal's last post was written sarcastically", and its
negation, into the cup on two separate pieces of paper - or no more than single
sheet of paper becomes self-contradictory if two contradictory propositions are
written on it.
Popper further explains this in terms of the difference between logical and
material implication which he claimed to have introduced into British
philosophy but which distinction JL Mackie failed to observe when he made a
similar "self-contradictory" criticism
in his review of Popper's Schilpp volumes.
DL
On Thursday, 4 February 2016, 12:20, "dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In a message dated 2/2/2016 5:08:54 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
But does Speranza know whether this all-powerful God/god can do an act
they cannot undo? D (Logician to the gods)
Call me Yale-phile, but the reference to 'the gods', thus with small 'g'
cannot but lead me to think of Cole Porter,
"why the gods above me
who must be in the know
think so little of you
they allow you to go?"
-- Allegedly the words a king of England said to his lover.
Anyway, it is well known that Apollo's and Diana's mother was so disgusted
by Danao that she sent her two children (to wit: Apollo and Diana) to kill
all of Danao's offspring. Talk of the gods.
But more importantly, supposing you are a follower of a theistic religion
(other members of the list are currently discussing if some -ism can be NO
theistic) that tells you, by dogma, that god is omnipotent, and then you
meet a logician to the gods who challenges that with the proposition of a god
who can do impossible things -- the logical consequence is indeed Popper.
--- INTERLUDE: definition of almighty --
A being x -- let us call it "god" -- is omnipotent in a world W at a time t
iff
in W it is true both that
(i) for every state of affairs A:
IF it is possible that both S (W, t) obtains and that x strongly
actualizes A at t, at t, x can strongly actualize A.
and
(ii) there is some state of affairs which x can strongly actualize at t.
-- end of interlude
Popper's third realm (he used 'word' but the source is a German author who
used 'reich', or reign, or realm) should contain the story of DANAO, the
gods Apollo and Diana and all they did, and an almighty god who is thought by
McEvoy to be able to do impossible things.
More generally, Popper's third realm is full of logical impossibilities (to
use Kripke's jargon) and logical contradiction ("in terminis," to use
Witters's phrase).
As Geary once told me (to the ear): "Perhaps this is proof of
self-referentiality, and Popper's w3 [as McEvoy's symbolises it] is
self-contradictory
itself?"
I told Geary, "I telegram you with an answer." (*)
He is still waiting.
Cheers,
Speranza
(*) ps. In fact, he telegrammed _me_, "I'm not holding my breath (hope you
enjoy my use of 'not')".
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
