Acronyms and symbols used in What is Absurd:

MoQ	- Metaphysics of Quality
OGT	- One Global Truth
SOM	- Subject-Object Metaphysics
SQ	- Static Quality

What is Absurd?:

On page 13 of his Introduction, Hughes tells us (in Hughes' words, Buridan thinks:),

"One commonly held view in Buridan's day was that a proposition is true if and only if 'as it (the proposition) signifies, so it is' (sicut significat, ita est). Buridan, however, insists emphatically that no such account of the truth-conditions of propositions will hold water if 'signification' is understood as he understands it, or in any approximately analogous way...[briefly]...Since, according to him, signification is a relation between a linguistic expression and the things it signifies, 'as it signifies, so it is' will have to be taken to mean that the things signified by the proposition actually exist. But now...suppose that what is intended by 'signification' is signification within the mind. Then 'as it signifies, so it is' will have to mean that the concept that the proposition expresses does actually exist in the mind of the speaker. This, however, gives the absurd result that every spoken proposition is true, since every spoken proposition expresses a corresponding concept (in this case a mental proposition) that exists in the mind of the speaker." See absurd, as a classical notion which students of Quantonics must learn to dump.

(reviewer's color italics)

We find this text particularly enlightening regarding de facto SOM bias. Buridan makes enormous strides in avoiding some SOM axioms, but here we see him declaring a result, "absurd." Why does he claim this result is absurd? Is it absurd? Or is something important happening here? Is some esoteric phenomenon hiding here? Should we ignore Buridan's assumption of absurdity due to his own unstated assumptions born of SOM legacy? Should we just agree with him, or hesitate and contemplate?

If we had not read Pirsig's works and learned of MoQ, we would, as obedient SOMites, breeze through Hughes'/Buridan's assumption of absurdity, never to reconsider absurdity an issue. However, we are students of Pirsig's MoQ. We are aware of SOM's malicious, intentional, and its hopefully permanent destruction of Sophism (if you disagree or disbelieve this statement, read Aristotle's classical works and see our own, Aristotle, a great hater of sophists and sophism).

And...we are both reading and reviewing a book about Buridan's Sophismata! So we take a bit more care.

What assumption is Buridan making when he says as Hughes proffers, "This, however, gives the absurd result that every spoken proposition is true...?" Now remember, Buridan already acknowledges a reality of multiple potential conventions (p. 7 of Hughes' Introduction). We infer he agrees then with a concept of many context-/convention-sensitive truths. If he does agree, then is his result absurd? Cannot we say emphatically every spoken proposition is true (or false) in some potential convention? How did Buridan conclude his result was absurd? We suppose it was his SOM bias. He assumed a single convention as the context of his statement!

Today, that is usually what we all do. When someone disagrees with your statement, does disagreement mean your statement is false? We think, no, it probably means you do not share conventions. Conclusion: if your context is a single convention (e.g., SOM's assumed, single global truth context—actually an Earth-centric and anthropocentric local context) then your result appears absurd, but in order for your propositions to be de facto 'true' everyone must share an assumed local convention. If your context is generally 'all possible conventions,' any one of which you may choose monadically, dyadically or in any other size of group, then your result is not absurd at all.

The Scientific Method:

SOM-Classically science does something like this -

Use a frontal approach to any problem:

1. Hypothesize a solution
2. Contrive and plan an experiment
3. Create an objective environment and test fixture (impossible in quantum reality)
   1. Execute plan
      1. Look for positive clues (hypothesis matches)
      2. Employ reductio ad absurdum (In quantum reality, nothing is absurd; we see how SOM discards larger quantum reality!)
         1. Eliminate impossibles (Essentially a SOM judgment call (please see yellow background cells, i.e., SOM bases of judgment, in that table, lower right); i.e., by convention, SOM knows what is absurd!)
         2. Eliminate improbables (Essentially a SOM judgment call)
         3. Retain least absurd results (Essentially a SOM judgment call)
         4. Retain most plausible results (Essentially a SOM judgment call)
   2. Verify results (repeat experiment; impossible in quantum reality—due absolute change, identical initial conditions are impossible to manufacture)
4. Validate results (other groups run similar experiments)

In step 3.1.2, we see now, clearly, SOM science's own (classically perceived) absurdity. Now we know absurdity only arises from SOM's OGT convention. Our conclusion: Classical SOM science is inept, intrinsically inept. To classical SOM science a larger, omnicomventional, quantum reality, is fathomless—why, it's a—Sophism!

Note also, in quantum reality, SOM verification and validation are in a quantum sense impossible. I.e., e.g., all test fixtures change at a Planck rate, and all test fixtures commingle classical objects of study.

Classical SOM science, in a large and general sense, is itself absurd.

Question: "What is Absurd?" Answer: Classical SOM science!

When is SOM science apparently not absurd? Viewed from within its own myopic convention: One Global Truth, OGT. But then, it manufactures sophisms, and we are back where we started. SOM science is absurd. Are you still...a SOMite?

Thanks for reading,

Doug.

How does one distinguish a classical scientist and a quantum scientist? A classical scientist knows what is absurd. PDR 29Jul1999.