[quickphilosophy] Re: 1.12; 1.13; 1.2 & 1.21

  • From: wittrsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: wittrsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:59:33 -0700 (PDT)

--- In quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ron Allen <wavelets@...> wrote:

> responding to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/quickphilosophy/message/43

> Ron:
> My car can be red. But it can't be anything else that would conflict
> with red as a property, because then the fact or not of it being red
> would affect the truth of the possible fact that it's green. This
> is ridiculous.

I don't think that's a killer argument.  It just means that "X  is red"
is not atomic, so would have to be decomposed into atomic  components. 
You could, for example, have:
X  is red or green;
if X is red or green, then X is red;

From a mathematics/graph theory perspective, logic is just traversal  of
a binary tree.  When you have multiple properties, as in your  example,
then you have a non-binary tree.  But you can always  construct a binary
tree to represent the same facts.  And then the  atomic facts are just
the leaf nodes of that binary tree.

There is still a possible problem.  The construction of a binary  tree
from a non-binary tree is not canonical.  That is, there  are multiple
ways of doing it, and there isn't any preferred way.  I'm not sure to
what extent that would have been a problem for  Wittgenstein's



Other related posts: