How does an individual falls into a set?

Or:

How gets arguments into a function?

In the sentence ‚Kant’s CPR (=Critique of Pure Reason) is a book about logic.‘ you say that Kant’s CPR is argument. You determine that Kant’s is the argument. But how does this belief or detetmination gets true?

– It gets true by giving a justification for this belief or claim (e.g. because of its sentential position). But again, this justifying belief need to be justified again and you get into a regress of justification (which also can be spelled out as a regress of sets falling into each other or as a regress of sufficient conditions).

But when you state that Kant’s CPR is a book about logic then you do not focus on the argument and your (regressive) access to it (=why you take Kant’s CPR as being the argument) but you focus on the argument as already falling into the set or into the function. And you provide reasons or justification for Kant’s CPR being determined as a book about logic or for Kant’s CPR as falling into the set ‚is a book about logic‘.

It seems that somehow the regress of accessing the argument gets avoided.

But how?

This regress of accessing the argument gets avoided by reversing what is the set and what is the argument.

Now the set ‚is book about logic‘ falls into the argument ‚Kant’s CPR‘. But this can only be wrong. (It is wrong under every possible interpretation (Kant).)

If every or all access to Kant’s CPR is wrong then (due to Bivalence-principle) truth IS already there and we can take the argument ‚Kant’s CPR‘ as falling into the set ‚is a book about logic‘.

But, in turn, that the argument ‚Kant’s CPR‘ now falls into the set ‚is a book about logic‘ depends on reversing what is the set and what is the argument.

So, the reverse of what is the set and what is the argument is the premise for Kant’s CPR’s now falling into the set. In other words: taking Kant’s CPR’s now falling into the set as a consequence of the reverse of what is the set and what is the argument this premise (=the reverse of what is the set and what is the argument) is true with regard to its consequence (=Kant’s CPR’s now falling into the set).

This, in turn, means that the reverse of what is argument and what is set must be self-referential with regard to this relation of premise (=the reverse of what is the set and what is the argument) and conclusion or consequence (=Kant’s CPR’s now falling into the set) as the relation of premise/argument to consequence/set is in both cases the relation of a subset (=premise/argument) to a set (=consequence/set).

In logical terms:

Premise: (Reversing of what is set and what is argument) -> (The element falls into the set)

Due to self-reference:

(The element falls into the set) -> (Reversing of what is set and what is argument)

Under every possible interpretation this is not true:

(The element falls into the set) -> Not: (Reversing of what is set and what is argument)

And this means that the opposite is true, namely:

Not: (Reversing of what is set and what is argument) -> (The element falls into the set)

So, the element or argument falls into the set or function WITHOUT reversing of what is set/function and what is element/argument.

Kant’s CPR falls into the set ‚is a book about logic‘ independently of our activity at all (independently of our justification of it and independently of our taking Kant’s CPR to be a book about logic (since determination (that Kant’s CPR is a book about logic) is possible by reversing (what is argument and what is set).

That means we do not have to determine anything at all (in the sense of ‚… is …‘) to make a truth claim since truth is already there. Instead, truth has nothing to do with any activity of us.

For if you determine that Kant’s CPR is a book about logic then you destroy the initial (mind-independent) order (i. e. Kant’s CPR falling into the set ‚is a book about logic‘) as in case of quantum information theory (for your access is carried out in terms of element and set).

You as in case of quantum information theory.

If we were in the position of accessing the argument first then there was no movement. So, this Quantum-Logos shows that movement is already there. If you do or cause anything then you destroy this initial (grounding) movement.

It is interesting to find a similar phaenomenon in daily psychology: if you meet a group of people you concentrate on those that represent the other or the otherness for you. For you say, well, this or that person is like me (an argument is just like me: a single being) so I do not have to concentrate on her/him but on the person which represents the other to me (=the set or the function).

Und was machst du dann, wenn du ein Argument in eine Funktion steckst? (spielerei?)

– Dann zerstörst du doch die ordnung (denn Bewegung ist ja schon da).

Das ist im Grunde Kant mit seiner möglichen erfahrung.

Gefällt mirGefällt mir

Hume: the relation of contiguity is a heavyweight relation in Hume.

But, of course, how do you have access to that relation? Or how do you know that you are applying it?

According to the Quantum-Logos you do not group or arrange things according to contiguity or similarity. It just happens.

Gefällt mirGefällt mir

You wrote (or it was written): „So, the reverse of what is the set and what is the argument is the premise for Kant’s CPR’s now falling into the set.“

But, actually, there is still the initial premise: the belief that Kant’s CPR is the argument. So the order is:

1. Your belief that Kant’s CPR is the argument.

2. The reverse of what is the set and what is the argument.*

3. Kant’s CPR falls into the set ‚is a book about logic‘.

Possibly, with regard to set and subset you mean the following conditional: (is a book about logic) -> (Kant’s CPR).

Gefällt mirGefällt mir

How do you reverse?

By establishing a circle?

Gefällt mirGefällt mir

To Max Power the Fourth:

It’s a good objection (=the initial premise is the belief that Kant’s CPR is the argument) but to me it seems that this objection only works in the reconstructive-methodological context. For, as said, we focus on the set (or function), i.e. on Kant’s CPR falling into the set, and we do not focus on the individual (or argument).

Gefällt mirGefällt mir

To Max Power the Fourth:

How do you reverse? is a good question. But probably the question does not depend on any activity of us for that seems to be the lecture of the Quantum-Logos.

But somehow it’s interesting, especially with regard to the remarks on daily psychology:

So, how do you determine that a person is other than you?/or that it differs from you?

(This question is interesting to me for sometimes there happens to be a change and what you found as being different is now familiar to you. (But probably the answer lies in the formulation of the last sentence („there happens to be – there is no agent).)

To the question:

– You compare yourself.

The question is if that comparison starts from (i) yourself or if it starts from (ii) the other person.

(i) If it starts from yourself then – as in case of accessing the argument – you could not reach the other person.

(ii) That’s why it must start from the other person (notice that you look on the other person in terms of … (Kant)).

So, indeed, it seems to me that there is a circle involved: for you determine somebody to be different from yourself and the reason why (in a sense)/or how you do that is that you compare the „other“ person with yourself not vice versa/in comparison you say that person A is different from you and not vice versa.

What is the reverse and the circle about?

(i) (Kant’s CPR) -> (is a book about logic)

gets into:

(ii) (is a book about logic) -> (Kant’s CPR) (subset and set are reversed)

How?

(i) gets:

(is a book about logic) -> (Kant’s CPR) -> (is a book about logic)

(=You compare the person who seems to be different from you (=is a book about logic) with yourself (=Kant’s CPR), so this person gets the fixpoint for you (not vice versa) = a sufficient condition which is to meet.)

From this it follows that

(is a book about logic) -> (Kant’s CPR) -> (is a book about logic) -> (Kant’s CPR)

By transitivity it gets:

(is a book about logic) -> (Kant’s CPR).

Gefällt mirGefällt mir

To Charles:

In your explanation you took yourself as the argument Kant’s CPR and the person that differs from you as the set ‚is a book about logic‘.

But then, how do you interpret (i) (from your perspective):

(Kant’s CPR) -> (is a book about logic)

Are you the fixpoint for the other person? (Or is the other person familiar to you in this case? as it is no fixpoint for you? since it works as a necessary condition.)

Gefällt mirGefällt mir

To Charles comment on the circle:

You can observe this phaenomenon in daily perception when you encounter somebody.

For you need to have a mirror to find out how you are (or were) looking (to that other person) and what kind of impression you probably made on the other person.

Gefällt mirGefällt mir