88mm of nonsense.
Steven Gabriel (sgabriel@willamette.edu)
Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
> Yes--the other properties they have makes them interesting. My point
> is that in order to *have* other properties, they need to have a first
> property.
Why a first property? Take the example of geometry. If you take an axiom
(roughly equivalent to a property) out you lose a lot of the system.
Euclid and others spent decades trying to knock out an axiom and failed.
Let's say you could sum up all 5 in one property. It would be equivalent
to listing all five properties and putting "ands" between them. If it
truly were a basis for the entire system, it would have the same
informational content as the five axioms. It would actually hold the
same informational content as any correct geometric theorem, as it would
have to be the case that a correct geometric theorem was derivable from
that one property. If you can prove that the angles of a triangle are
equal to 180 degrees using only the property of differentiation, then you
might have something. But I don't think you can, and that's why the
theory fails.
An aside. 0's and 1's are not the lowest level features of computers.
Below the 0's and 1's are transistors. The transistors work because the
laws of physics happen to be as they are. At each level there is an
equivalence or isomorphism. We can talk about the transistors as 0's and
1's without losing information relevant to the system -- that's what I
mean by isomorphism. Another way of stating the problem I have with the
theory you have espoused is to say that you want differentiation to be a
fundamental essence, just as physics might serve as a fundamental
structure underlying biology. But whereas a certain crude isomorphism
could be sketched out between physics and bio, wherein information is
preserved, this cannot be shown for linguistics given the simple
fundamental of differentiation. You need to add information obtain
linguistics. This neccessity of adding information demonstrates that
differentiation is not fundamental.
> of poststructural thinking: in order to discuss the validity of
> language--how it works and so on--you're stuck in the awkward position
> of having to use it as if it were already valid. This is a
Aye. There is this problem of trying to prove a formal system's validity
using only the formal system itself. It is like pulling yourself up by
your own bootstraps. I don't have the energy to fling myself at that
though. And my shoelaces are wearing thin as is.
S.
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
: Steven Gabriel -- sgabriel@willamette.edu :
'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'