Posted: Mar 16, 2019 9:36 pm
by Thommo
jamest wrote:The final social revolution will/must obviously, by logical default, encompass all minds and be thus irreversible. Hence, the final social revolution = a signal of the end of competing finite mindsets.

Not logically, no.

Logically either there will be a never ending sequence of social revolutions (however defined, and whatever order relation one puts on them), or there will be multiple final social revolutions, or there will be multiple social revolutions which are incommensurable with one another at the end of the sequence of social revolutions, or there will be a single final social revolution (where final is used to denote the greatest element of the set of social revolutions under the ordering).

Aside from it not logically being the case that there will, or must, be a final social revolution it is also not logically the case that a social revolution must encompass all minds (because there are multiple societies and a social revolution need not revolutionise every member of a given society). The feminist revolution of the 1960s would not have encompassed the minds of isolated Amazon tribes, let alone any minds which may or may not belong to extraterrestrials within our galaxy, cosmos, multiverse (if one exists) or beyond (if a larger superstructure exists). Had the human population of the world been wiped out the next day in a meteorite collision this would be an example of the final social revolution not encompassing all minds. It would also (as many other social revolutions were to at least some extent coterminous with the feminist revolution, such as the sexual revolution or the revolution on gay rights laws in many countries) potentially be an example of a situation in which there was no single final social revolution.

So what does logic actually tell us about this situation? Not terribly much, other than that the assertions in the OP are incorrect, as far as they claim to represent anything logical.

I suspect (but the OP isn't tremendously cogent on the point) that really what is meant is nothing about logic, but rather that if there were a social revolution so profound that it solved all problems and revolutionised all human thought, behaviour and society to the point no further revolution would ever be useful or required, and that the profundity of this revolution were so great it would spread to all corners of the globe, then no further social revolution would occur. This would not be a logical statement, but rather a statement of faith. I also suspect that the OP is alluding to having such a profound revolution ready and raring to go.

This seems rather unlikely.

jamest wrote:...for those of us dumb enough to ignore the bigger picture, solace can be found in thumbs-ups...

jamest wrote:I have to confess that few people love me, either here or elsewhere, but I am not concerned.

As usual, the irony and blatant oxymoronic nature of these statements made me laugh out loud. So I give the OP a thumbs up. :thumbup:

PPS: I also couldn't help repeatedly noticing how similar the thread title was to a certain well known phrase:
"The final social revolution" which makes it look like a nasty and/or unfortunate bit of word association has inadvertently taken place, given the phrase was all over the news all day long after the NZ terror attacks in the hours running up to this OP.