(LOGIC) Formalisation of a modal argument

[Eodnhoj7]

So what you are saying is that when reading what I write, you like to touch yourself? How flattering.

I also like to touch myself when I don't read what you write.

Correlation is not causation.

Actually observing correlative relationships is a cause of definition.

Thesis and Anthithesis results in a synthetic victor. I just take everything you post and join it as an extension of the prime triad later on down the road when I form the book/thesis. You are just feeding the beast.

Sure. That's how we generated all logic/mathematics. When your work is complete - you will end up with a system that we probably already have

Look at the monadic calculus section. All number lines are inherently cyclical arithemetic functions resulting in approximations of one number.

False because if there are multiple infinities, with some being less than or greater than other's relativisitic, all infinities are equal as infinity. One line can be larger or smaller than another line, but they are equal as a line.

False false.

Countable infinity is less than uncountable infinity.


False, because a countable infinity observes a number of relations higher than an uncountable infinity. If something is uncountable it effectively equates as 1 phenomenon in itself as it is observed as 1 indefinite synonymous to 1 infinity.



[/color]

So when I am talking about infinite infinities it's a bigger infinity than infinity.

I'll stop trolling now. Infinities are bullshit. They are amusing when you are doing Mathematics for fun. When you apply mathematics to real-world problems.... infinities are bullshit.


Real world problems are about defining "qualities" and directing them. Each quality is composed of infinite grades as an infinity in itself. Even "quality time" is a wording for "timelessness" where one is lost in the moment and time is no factor. All calculation is premised in infinity.


I find it funny how you ignored this.

Define logical expression using lambda without resulting in either a quality and/or infinite variations. Lambda calculus, as a methodology, is a quality of expression due to its infinite variations...nothing more.

No definition will do it justice because this forum does not allow for dynamic rendering of content.
We are sabotaged by our medium.

Actually I explain in the trillema that the progression of one axiom to another sets the foundation for dynamic movement as both progression and dynamic movement is an observation of multiple states.

You are sabotaged...because this "box" is the best you can do.

Lambda calculus results in infinite variations, due to its reliance on variables (observed contradictions in algebra thread); thus is indefinite.

⊙

a^2 + b^2 = 1

False. As this symbol is composed of and composed other symbols. Second each variabe you apply in the mathematical statement must be defined. A=What/ B=What? Other wise you are making up nonsense.

⊙ is expressed as a symbol in itself leading to further symbols, without lambda.

Dude! It's just a circle with a dot.

Yes, now prove it using lambda. With proof being definition. And definition quantifying it.

Quantify the symbol.

[Logik]

Yes, now prove it using lambda. With proof being definition. And definition quantifying it.

Quantify the symbol.[/color]

Fuck the symbol! The symbol is the idol the Bible warns us against worshipping!
The symbol of Lambda calculus is λ. Pay no attention to it.

There is a fucking airplane flying in the sky operated by a fucking COMPUTER.

The flight instructions are written in lambda calculus!

Take off.
Landing.
Navigation.

Every airplane. 200 lives. In the hands of Lambda calculus!

Pay attention to that.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes, now prove it using lambda. With proof being definition. And definition quantifying it.

Quantify the symbol.[/color]

Fuck the symbol! The symbol is the idol the Bible warns us against worshipping!

The symbol of Lambda calculus is λ

The symbol is not important. There is a fucking airplane flying in the sky operated by a fucking COMPUTER.

The flight instructions are written in lambda calculus1

Pay attention to that.

There are continually diverging religious structures in society, you cannot claim one as true without observing other religious schools observing an antithetical grounding.

Symbolism is primary in Orthodox Christianity for example.

Secondarily lambda calculus is symbol manipulation, it is a paint brush, you claim it is the be all and end all of logic (or imply it); thus you by default worship symbolism by worship mathematics and logic through lambda calculus.

[Logik]

Yes, now prove it using lambda. With proof being definition. And definition quantifying it.

Quantify the symbol.[/color]

Fuck the symbol! The symbol is the idol the Bible warns us against worshipping!

The symbol of Lambda calculus is λ

The symbol is not important. There is a fucking airplane flying in the sky operated by a fucking COMPUTER.

The flight instructions are written in lambda calculus1

Pay attention to that.

There are continually diverging religious structures in society, you cannot claim one as true without observing other religious schools observing an antithetical grounding.

Symbolism is primary in Orthodox Christianity for example.

Secondarily lambda calculus is symbol manipulation, it is a paint brush, you claim it is the be all and end all of logic (or imply it); thus you by default worship symbolism by worship mathematics and logic through lambda calculus.

You are free and welcome to focus on whatever you wish, but if you focus on words and not on actions/consequences - you are a sophist in my books.

Of course, my opinion of you shouldn't matter one bit. I am merely saying that IF you don't focus on consequences/empiricism I'll just undermine you every way I can.

[Arising_uk]

... Of course it's unproven. You don't "prove" axioms. You accept axioms. ...

Sorry to butt in and apologies for the ramble but this reminded me of an aha! moment I had when studying. I'd left school in the 70's with few qualifications but found a job as a trainee mainframe computer operator but during the 80's recession over here things went tits-up and I realised from friends of mine that companies were literally sorting job applications for even relatively basic jobs into 'degree or no degree' piles so thought I'd better get one. As a budding mature student I wanted to do English as I'd been a proper book-worm since a child(900 books and counting plus the hundreds now on my kindle) but was told very snootily, "A love(or a lot) of reading was not enough, try the Philosophy Dept down the hall", so I did and managed to get on somehow and fell in love with a whole set of new books(why the hell wasn't this stuff given to me in school I don't know as it finally gave me a framework to make sense of the other subjects). After getting my degree I somehow blagged myself onto a non-conversion Msc IT course with the aim of producing a 'thinking computer' LOL, it was hellish to pass as I didn't have the requiste basic knowledge compared to all the physics and computing grads on the course(although I still warm myself with the fact that some of the physics grads dropped-out) but during the process I came face-to-face with hardcore symbolic or formal logical proofs and whilst I had studied philosophical logic nothing had prepared me for this and I was really struggling. It wasn't until my kindly tutor sat down with me to discover the problem that we realised that my philosophy training had taught me to dig down to the 'axioms' of an idea and then question them whereupon he explained that, "You just accept the axioms." BING!! Of course later on if you progress in the field then you can attempt to question them but then you are being a philosopher in your field.

As you were.

[Logik]

... Of course it's unproven. You don't "prove" axioms. You accept axioms. ...

Sorry to butt in and apologies for the ramble but this reminded me of an aha! moment I had when studying. I'd left school in the 70's with few qualifications but found a job as a trainee mainframe computer operator but during the 80's recession over here things went tits-up and I realised from friends of mine that companies were literally sorting job applications for even relatively basic jobs into 'degree or no degree' piles so thought I'd better get one. As a budding mature student I wanted to do English as I'd been a proper book-worm since a child(900 books and counting plus the hundreds now on my kindle) but was told very snootily, "A love(or a lot) of reading was not enough, try the Philosophy Dept down the hall", so I did and managed to get on somehow and fell in love with a whole set of new books(why the hell wasn't this stuff given to me in school I don't know as it finally gave me a framework to make sense of the other subjects). After getting my degree I somehow blagged myself onto a non-conversion Msc IT course with the aim of producing a 'thinking computer' LOL, it was hellish to pass as I didn't have the requiste basic knowledge compared to all the physics and computing grads on the course(although I still warm myself with the fact that some of the physics grads dropped-out) but during the process I came face-to-face with hardcore symbolic or formal logical proofs and whilst I had studied philosophical logic nothing had prepared me for this and I was really struggling. It wasn't until my kindly tutor sat down with me to discover the problem that we realised that my philosophy training had taught me to dig down to the 'axioms' of an idea and then question them whereupon he explained that, "You just accept the axioms." BING!! Of course later on if you progress in the field then you can attempt to question them but then you are being a philosopher in your field.

As you were.

"It finally gave me a framework to make sense of the other subjects"

I find that fascinating because it's exactly the same sentiment I have for computer science/systems theory/distributed systems theory.
It's a framework that helped me understand understanding.
A framework that helped me learn how to learn.

A root for the tree of knowledge upon which to pin the leaves.

I am a generalist at heart who knows how to get right down into the details, which is probably why people get annoyed by my want-to-know-it-all attitude.

Still. The framework is effective! The technology is all around us as proof that the pudding is delicious, and it's on its way to become a superset of physics in the form of Digital Physics.
Whether physicists care to adopt the framework.... wait and see.

[Eodnhoj7]

Fuck the symbol! The symbol is the idol the Bible warns us against worshipping!

The symbol of Lambda calculus is λ

The symbol is not important. There is a fucking airplane flying in the sky operated by a fucking COMPUTER.

The flight instructions are written in lambda calculus1

Pay attention to that.

There are continually diverging religious structures in society, you cannot claim one as true without observing other religious schools observing an antithetical grounding.

Symbolism is primary in Orthodox Christianity for example.

Secondarily lambda calculus is symbol manipulation, it is a paint brush, you claim it is the be all and end all of logic (or imply it); thus you by default worship symbolism by worship mathematics and logic through lambda calculus.

You are free and welcome to focus on whatever you wish, but if you focus on words and not on actions/consequences - you are a sophist in my books.

Of course, my opinion of you shouldn't matter one bit. I am merely saying that IF you don't focus on consequences/empiricism I'll just undermine you every way I can.

Sophistry. This is a forum. It is about discussion. To talk about "actions", and I have had quite a few by now, you are just running around in circles as that really is not the context of a forum is it? Second, what type of "action" is programming if it is rooted in symbol manipulation, hence sophistry? It comes off like you really are questing who you are, which is fine and all because that is part of the human condition, but your worship of symbol manipulation is well...you sell paint brushes as you claimed...that is about as deep as you go

I cannot call you shallow even...


You made a point about how I "worship" symbols, but you are the one projecting (as observed above). You project what you deem as self-evident or:

"One axiom progresses to another in constant variation".


Undermine me? Undermine what exactly? "That all things exist in cycles?" "You reap what you sow"? "Moderation in all things?" "All being exists through space as space"? "Man as an extension of a Divine Logos is responsible for the world he creates"?

This whole conversation is about the practical nature of reality stemming from not just logic and philosophy. For example the framework you, as well as the majority of the modern technocracy argues, is a war against nature. But what you don't understand is that the current paradigm makes not just life, but the nature of "being" itself, fundamentally more complex and hence chaotic.

Everything you create is just an illusion, and the only practical solution to dealing with reality (considering reality stems from and exists through people) is to point out the obvious: "It is not all about what you want".