The Meaning of Tautology
Ontological mathematics and the theory of everything 3b; the meaning of tautology.
What language carries meaning, and how is it defined?
Are tautologies meaningless, or meaningful?
How does a tautologous system compare to an axiomatic one?
Is one system better than the other?
Watch the video below to find out!
See more here: climateofsophistry.com
Header image: The Leading Business Education Network
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Joseph,
You might consider this foolish; but I ask: Why argue (debate, question, reason) that which can be simply seen time after time after time? Yes, I admit that there are optical illusions. So we know our brains can sometime confuse what we see; but cannot such illusions occur as one argues (etc.)? Is it ‘real’ to assume a point has no breadth and a line has no width so that one cannot see either? Contrary to some people’s confusion; we do live in a REAL WORLD.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
“Is it ‘real’ to assume a point has no breadth and a line has no width so that one cannot see either?”
What’s a point and what’s a line? You might know, just like the rest of math, it’s abstraction.
Maybe my argument might be a point, and I stated that with this line. Is that how geometry functions?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Alcheminister,
How (why) is it you totally ignored “that which can be simply seen time after time after time” and “that one cannot see either”? I ask you because you are the only one who can answer my question.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
An apple is an apple is an apple?
Perhaps you misunderstand quantization and relativistic perspective?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers and Alcheminister,
It seems to me that Alcheminister is refusing to acknowledge that the fundamental basis of SCIENCE is THE OBSERVATION and not any possible interpretation of IT. Good SCIENTISTS accept that their claimed UNDERSTANDING is ultimately uncertain because of our limitations to see everything with absolute accuracy. (Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle).
But in the case of Galileo’s refusal to accept the results of Tycho Brahe’s fairly accurate naked eye astronomical measurements and Johannes Kepler’s mathematical analysis of Brahe’s data; it was Galileo’s reasoning about what the Creator God would create that caused Galileo’s mistake.
To better understand what I claim to understand, one might read Richard Feynman’s story ‘The 7 Percent Solution’ (“Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”)
I will not attempt to explain what one will read. That is what you must decide (explain).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The circle cannot be defined with an equal sign because its features (area and circumference) are a function of an irrational number (pi) Any value describing it must be an approximation of greater than and less than any rational number. Reality is not digital but analog system with everything being an approximation not an equation with an equal sign.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I agree with you. I believe a circle was first defined and only defined when someone took a crooked stick (branch) and carefully drew a circle in sand or fine dirt.
Have a good day, Jerry.
Reply