> >>> Zick claims to have things follow from nothing at all, and then presents > >>> no evidence. > >>> > >>> I do not find his lack of evidence persuasive. > >> > >> As previously noted, which you are unwilling or unable to evaluate. > >> Not my problem. > > > >It is your problem if, and only if, you wish to convince other people of > >your views. If you don't care whether anyone else agrees with you, it is > >not your problem. > > I'm not sure agreement is really an issue where absolute truth is > concerned.
As we only have Zick's word for it that there is any such as unconditional "absolute truth", if he wishes others to agree, he needs to convince them.
>I merely maintain that contradiction is true of everything > because contradiction cannot be contradicted since the contradiction > of contradiction is self contradictory.
Which statement is full of Zick's undemonstrated assumptions. > > Now I realize this may seem like a very exotic line of reasoning but > it is true and universally so regardless of whether people disagree or > not.
Now there is a huge and undemonstrable assumption.
>The problem is that without recognizing the universality of this > principle people have no clue as to how to reason about what is true > or how we recognize it and further mechanical principles consistent > with it.
Zick may not, but others do. Others, at least the mathematicians among them, allow that one can get nowhere without some basic assumptions. > > I don't mind trying to convince people but I'm much more interested in > stating the principle itself accurately in succinct terms such that > people can examine it and convince themselves.
Why should anyone bother to try and convince himself of what Zick cannot show is true?
> Ultimately one cannot > "convince" people of what's universally true than they can that 1+1=2.
AS "1+1 = 2" is only demonstrably true in certain axiom systems, one can show that it is true relative to those systems, though it is often a long grind to do so.
Outside of those systems, "1+1 = 2" may be false, if it has a meaning at all, or may simply have no meaning. > > >However, USENET posting seems a rather futile activity if done without > >any wish to convince. > > Not entirely. The main value of usenet posting is to expose ideas to > criticism and refine them. The only instance I can remember convincing > anyone of anything was when I convinced Bob Kolker there is no real > number line. It took him a while but he was straightforward enough to > acknowledge that there is no real number line in formal terms despite > the whining and snivveling of quite a few mathematikers.
Many mathematicians could cobble up an axiom system in which there IS a "real number line". In fact, it can be done in NBG. > > The real difficulty nowadays is whole hosts of momumentally stupid > opinions are bruted about regarding modern mathematics and science in > general and their significance.