|
|
|
|
CONTRIBUTORS:
|
|
|
PROCEEDINGS TITLE:
|
|
|
YEAR:
|
2001
|
|
PUB TYPE:
|
Conference Paper in Proceedings
|
|
PAGES:
|
n/a -
n/a
|
|
SUBJECT(S):
|
Neutrosophy, Ontology, Incompleteness, Contextuality
|
|
DISCIPLINE:
|
Philosophy
|
|
HTTP:
|
http://arXiv.org/abs/math.GM/0111237
|
|
LANGUAGE:
|
English
|
|
PUB ID:
|
103-383-220
(Last edited on
2002/10/10 07:37:15 GMT-6)
|
|
SPONSOR(S):
|
|
|
ABSTRACT:
Any system based on axioms is incomplete because the axioms cannot be proven from the system, just believed. But one system can be less-incomplete than other. Neutrosophy is less-incomplete than many other systems because it contains them. But this does not mean that it is finished, and it can always be improved. The comments presented here are an attempt to make Neutrosophy even less-incomplete. I argue that less-incomplete ideas are more useful, since we cannot perceive truth or falsity or indeterminacy independently of a context, and are therefore relative. Absolute being and relative being are defined. Also the "silly theorem problem" is posed, and its partial solution described. The issues arising from the incompleteness of our contexts are presented. We also note the relativity and dependance of logic to a context. We propose "metacontextuality" as a paradigm for containing as many contexts as we can, in order to be less-incomplete and discuss some possible consequences.
|
|
|
|
STATISTICS
|
|
Click on # to view
|
|
Citations
|
|
0
|
|
References
|
|
0
|
|
Comments
|
|
0
|
|
Quality
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
Interest
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
View(er)s
|
|
2/229
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Prev |
Next |
|
