[FRIAM] sometimes an onion is just an onion...

[glen ☣]

On 06/15/2017 12:52 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> From my point of view, Glen Zigged, while I remained on course.  Of course, from Glen's frame of reference, *he* was on a straight course and * Zagged.    That is why iterative discussion is required for conversation?  

If you agree that iteration is necessary, then that implies that registration is always a process, never an instantaneous, atomic event.  Therefore we have to ask whether this process is always monotonic.  I.e. if Bob and Sally discuss topic X, will the differences in their understanding at time t ≥ that at time t+1?  If not, then we have to allow a difference between premature and mis-registration, which allows you to be right. [†]  If, however, it is monotonic, then we have to ask whether the process is, in principle, infinite.  I.e. when registration concludes, is it because the Bob and Sally difference in understanding is = 0.0 or merely arbitrarily close to 0.0.  But in either case, you can't be right.  If the difference = 0.0, then there's no possibility of mis-registration.  If it's infinite, then we must have a shunt a cut-off threshold beyond which Bob or Sally calls it good enough and quits the iteration.  If the process is cut off before Bob and Sally agree well enough (within some error ball), enough for that to qualify as mis-registration, then that _is_ premature registration.

So, it seems to me you've cornered yourself, here.  If you know the process is iterative, yet you still mis-registered, why is it not premature registration?  What is it about that concept you don't like?


[†] But if you take that route, you'll be forced to allow that even with an infinite amount of yapping at each other, Bob and Sally's understanding _might_ grow further and further apart.  And, I believe, that results in a contradiction with the premise that iterative discussion is required.  So, even if we allow it, we've proved your argument invalid.

-- 
☣ glen