# First Causes

Lester Zick lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net
Mon Sep 13 11:37:34 EST 2004

```On 13 Sep 2004 03:05:43 -0700, dralexgreen at yahoo.co.uk (Alex Green) in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<4144b29f.14688843 at netnews.att.net>...
>> On 12 Sep 2004 10:36:21 -0700, dralexgreen at yahoo.co.uk (Alex Green) in
>> comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

[. . .]

(At the risk of violaing my own dictum, I'm trimming as much as I can
to focus on this particular issue.)

>Let me do a quick check to make sure we are on the same wavelength. In
>the sentence "cars are blue" the words "are blue" are the predicate
>(often represented as Blue(cars)).  P "not" when applied to this
>sentence is "cars are not blue" (often represented by ¬Blue(cars).

No. This example is hard to translate directly, but when I say P "not"
the "not" predicate is primary not secondary. "Blue cars" is secondary
in such a case, being derived indirectly from "not", "negation", or
"contradiction". P "not" would thus not be applied to "cars are blue"
to produce "cars are not blue". Contradicting P "cars are blue" would
just result in not P or P "cars are not blue". But this is just a
specific negation of "cars are blue" and not a general negation.

What I mean in saying P "not" is that there is a general negation or
not or contradiction applicable across the board to all things whether
particular propositions are positive or negative in form. We derive
positive propositions from P "not" P "negation" or P "contradiction"
through the application of P "not" P "negation" or P "contradiction"
to itself.

>You wrote earlier:
>"let's consider that everything is the result of P "not" in the sense
>of negation or differences. Then alternatives to P "not" are cast in
>the inherently self contradictory form of Q "not not".  And self
>contradiction is the cause of nothing."
>
>
>1. "everything is the result of P "not"" means EITHER
>everything is (the things that are not everything).
>OR
>everything is not(the things that are not everything).
>
>Only the second meaning makes sense so I'll take this as what you
>meant. In which case:
>
>2. "alternatives to P "not"" = things that are not (not(the things
>that are not everything)) = the things that are not everything
>
>Put simply you seem to be saying that if negation is universal then
>the set of all things (everything) cannot exist. This seems like a
>reasonable proof of a theorem that 'differences' are not fundamental
>but depend on something else, like the existence of space, so that you
>can say 'set A' is here and all not 'set A' are over there.
>
>If I have misunderstood you please clarify what you are saying with
>actual logical statements in english.

I'm not sure what the above means, but let me try to state clearly
what I intend.

I maintain that everything from blue cars to vivid thoughts can be and
is derived mechanically from differences and differences between
differences. And what I prove through exclusion of self contradictory
alternatives is there can be no non self contradictory alternative to
differences in the form of not, contradiction, or negation. Therefore
any positive thing is the indirect result of differences between
differences and thus cannot be primary despite being positive.

As far as plain english examples are concerned, let me offer the
following observation. No positive specifics like blue cars or vivid
thoughts or atoms can be primary because they are particular and not
universal. They are not universal because none of them can be proven
applicable to everything of logical necessity. The only thing that can
be proven universal in the sense of being necessarily applicable to
everything of logical necessity is contradiction because contradiction

If I have some positive specific like blue cars, how could it be
proven universally applicable to everything. It couldn't. We could use
exemplary denial and produce non blue cars to show that blue cars
aren't universal. But there is no way to demonstrate that blue cars
can be, much less have to be, universal. The only way to prove that
something, anything, can be and has to be universal is by showing that
alternatives are inherently self contradictory. And the only way to do
that is if the primary principle is differences in the form of not,
negation, or contradiction to begin with because no other basic
principle produces self contradictory alternatives.

Let me leave the subject here for the time being because the balance
of what you write seems predicated on a misunderstanding of the logic
used, and I think we need to get this cleared up before going further.

[. . .]

Regards - Lester

```