On the problem with the concept “boundary” for rationality

The problem for rationality is the concept “boundary”. A boundary is in one aspect (as an assumption) an ambiguity and in the orthogonal aspect (as a deduction) a paradoxical contradiction. The concept is thus an intermediary between “assumption” and “deduction”. It means that not all of these three notions of the concept can be consistent at the same time. And, thus, if we accept assumption and deduction, which we have to, we have to deny the concept “boundary”. This is also what we do in ZFC (ie, the fundament of mathematics).


2 responses to “On the problem with the concept “boundary” for rationality

  1. I’ve been reading your blog probably for over a year now I have even commented a couple times. It is interesting that I see you and I as basically entertaining the same notion but using different terms to describe the situation.

    So I think it a bit of irony that in your other post tonight the one on people understanding me or people understanding you, it is interesting that while I see you and I as basically entertaining the same notion’s yet under different closets structures different terms talking about the same thing, you are unable to reciprocate my view.

    I’m not sure if you’ve even tried to read any of my blogs essays or posts; but it is interesting to me that I have the same ideas as your two posts tonight: that it is no longer incumbent upon me to break things down simpler so people will agree with me or understand with me at least whether or not they agree with me or not; yet as well the boundary: I see you the distinction between those who understand and those who do not as divided by what I call a partition.

    So it is interesting to me that you happen to put both these topics in the same evening.

  2. Am I “unable to reciprocate” your view? I’m sorry, I haven’t read any of your blog’s essays or posts.

    On my blog, I try to catch the running point we’re living in for my own pleasure, at the same time as I’ m studying GIS, mathematics and quantum physics. I try to put things together consistently for my own sake and own understanding. I’m glad for the more people that can arrive to this understanding for their sake, but do not seek their “reciprocation” for my arriving to it. My interest lies primarily in my own exploration of this running point, not in how many people that join me in it. That’s probably why I seem to “be unable to reciprocate” your view. But, I promise to improve and take a look at your blog. Thanks, Landzek, for this thoughtprovoking comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s