Analogy the Un-Logic
I'm never completely wrong, because I'm never completely certain.
Therefore, within my uncertainty I am somewhat right, even when I'm wrong.
It's a logical loophole you see. It's an analogy.
It allows me to win alittle, even when I loose alot;
which is always better than loosing everything.
That's how life survives, even when it dies.
That's how creativity thrives, even when sorrow cries.
People we've known have shaped our space-times and we
never loose that, even when separated from each other
by the horizon. We are forever entangled in our meeting.
Mathematics uses the idea of convergence at infinity in much
the same manner as Richard Dawkin's god meme has become the
new age equivalent of 'globalization' or McLuhan's Global Villiage.
The lottery for instance, is considered a "fair game" mathematically
(statistically), only in the limit of an infinite convergence; this
is the mathematical 'proof' of the fairness of the game whereas
the empirical proof is wholely lacking to the extent that people
often loose when playing the lottery. Why do people play the lottery
In the same manner we can ask why don't people easily become disgruntled
with the ups and downs of life and give up, thinking of life as an
unfair game ?
The reason is apparently the same as in the case of the lottery.
While there is no empirical evidence that life is a "fair game",
there is an overwhelming feeling that it _is_, in some infinite limit.
Is this belief, the same "blind" (or non-empirical) faith that
mathematicians have in their proof that the lottery is a fair game ?
On the theological side, the ideal of fairness in life is embodied
in the god concept or meme, while on the science side, the ideal of
fairness is associated with an infinite limit. The mathmatical approach
shows a non-deterministic convergence and here "non-deterministic"
means "sometimes wrong".
Theo(logical) histories are recorded analogically or metaphorically
whereas scientific (logical) histories are recorded logically or causually.
This complementary nature between the method of recording historical
progression (the former being spatial while the later being temporal)
can probably be addressed more formally in terms of functional domains
or at least in terms of Saussure's equivalent methods regarding linguistics.
Empiricism sometimes precedes lyricism. The music becomes more
advanced than the ability to interpret it and provide suitable words
to go along with it. This seems to be the case in quantum theory which
is woefully inadequate for interpreting holography and totally unesscessary
for describing the construction of a simple radio transceiver. But in
many other areas this is the case as well; for instance, statistics is
rampant with interpretive problems even though it is far advanced in
its empirical applications. Often we know more about how to do something
than why, or whether we should do that something.
Analogic sometimes precedes logic as in the case of theory predicting
results before they are empirically measured, but this is rare and
the role of analogy in theory is poorly understood as it is not logical
and therefore regarded in classical science and mathematics as being
outside of formal consideration. More recently however, non-bivalent
logics are becoming popular and analogies will undoubtably be included
in a more modern "science".