The Wittgenstein’s Paradox, and Matrix/DNA suggestions


At REDDIT was post a question at r/philosophy, based on video, with link below, and copied here the Matrix/DNA answer:

Wittgenstein’s Paradox

A fascinating problem in the philosophy of language arose from Kripke’s interpretation of Wittgenstein’s ‘Philosophical Investigations’. This video explains the problem (or paradox) through the offside rule in football, drawing on a particulary interesting incident on the 2010 FIFA World cup. It also includes Kripke’s mathematical illustration of the problem. Generally the video tries to give a more lively and easily approachable explanation of the paradox.

The video is in Youtube also:

MatrixDNA – 1 point – 9/24/19 

 Let’s see other example. Mathematical logics, operations and rules, are limited to the mechanic bone skeleton of a human body and the astronomic galactic skeleton of the Universe. After the last frontier of the skeleton begins meat, fluids and after galaxies begins amino acids, proteins, etc., under the rules of Biology. So, I am following the rule of addition (plus) like you at almost everything in practical life, but when calculating my theoretical models of atoms, galaxies, neurological configuration, etc, I am revealing that, in fact, in the past, I was following the rule of chadition (quus). If the last number for working mechanistic skeleton is 9.000, we can not doing 9.000 + 1 = 9001. It is 9.000 + Biological Rules. I was right, you wrong, because it is the meat that produces skeletons, and not the skeleton producing meat. Biological rules creates Mathematical rules.

There is no final definition for names of objects because all not-isolated objects belongs to a system which is inside other bigger or more complex system, which works as feed-back changing the meaning of that object. From every natural system arises the “identity of the system” which is composed by all informations of all parts plus the informations of the connections among parts and interactions of external world. This identity is a kind of software but it does not operate upon the system only, it influentiates all minor or less complex systems inside it.

The impossibility for final definitions of words is due Nature being dynamic, everything under transformation and due relativism; changing the location of an observer from a point in time/space to another point and all perspective, meanings, functions of objects, changes. Let’s take a sample: the word “sex”…. If you see a pulsar emitting a comet which falls in the galactic spiral towards the quasar with a black hole at the nucleus, and from the nucleus you see lifting up a new seed of an astronomical body, we can say you are watching sexual reproduction. And from that seed will be a baby star/nucleus, then transformed into a planet, then into pulsars, which will be a star, etc. You can say, certainly, this is astronomical and mechanistic process of life’s cycles. We have the male pulsar, the spermatozoon comet, the female quasar, the reproduction process and the baby. Till, we have the male sexual organ which is the pulsars’ giant volcanoes emitting magma as comets, and the female as the beautiful adorned quasar with the female organ as the black hole… So… what is sex? Definition, please… Why this issue is useful? We need learning that our little brain and its developments like language can not process the complexity of the Truth, so, it makes no sense fighting for one today beliefs. This does not suggests skepticism, but the wish to learn more and more.


Viracucha – 1 point·8 minutes ago
There is no “true meaning of words” whatsoever.

As every other biologic information processing language will never be flawless. However, normally an insufficient mutual agreement will be detected and a mutual agreement on the use of a word found, especially if a topic comes up more often in discussions. Thus language evolves to fulfil the current needs of the interlocutors.

So there is no dead end to human discussion here. Quite to the contrary, if a limit of a mutual agreement is detected it normally becomes a topic in its own right, resulting in illustrative discussions.

MatrixDNA  – 1 point·5 minutes ago
In my experiences, when limits of mutuals agreement were detected, the following discussions were dead ends. I am talking about the Kripke’s interpretation of Wittgenstein’s ‘Philosophical Investigations’, the cases as addition/chadition and plus/quus. For example the word “life”: this is the worst word-trap for human knowledge, a big mistake with no definitive definition creating big problems. It has turned out our investigation of life’s origins as a Science-stopper, we arrived to a limit here, when there is no limit. Since that my naturalistic/philosophical investigation suggests that the properties of living bodys exists less evolved at all natural systems, it makes no sense to say that a human is alive and a galaxy or an atom are not. It makes no sense to say that bacteria are our ancestors and galaxies, atoms, are not. There is no division of natural systems into alive and not alive. So when we are talking about life, we are thinking two things very different, because you come from plus/addition and I come from quus/chadition. The problem is that I can understand you because I know everything how you got the concept of life, and you doesn’t know where I got mine. For explaining it I need talking about 30 years of investigation, 4.000 of evidences and right predictions, etc, which is impossible. So, yes, it is a dead end… The wrongdoings with the word Life is due humans arbitrarily dividing Universal Evolution into two blocks – Cosmological Evolution and Biological Evolution – when the Universe does not recognize this division. Two blocks without any evolutionary links between then, this makes no sense. So, evolution is other word that we will not arrive to a mutual agreement.

Tags: ,