Assumptive Logic

[Eodnhoj7]

So, it seems to me you have invented an alphabet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet_ ... languages)

Ehhh....I am observing a universal set of symbols which already existed and will continue to exist.

And you have defined a bunch of inference rules for how to manipulate your alphabet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_sy ... entailment

They define eachother as they are composed of eachother.


And it seems that in certain places you choose to replace some symbols with other symbols: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rewriting

Isomorphism.

And your symbols evolve over time in accordance with your rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton

They cycle recursively in constant variation. Obviously for efficiency a symbol would have to be applied to define some "string"....but that simple would be reabsorbed into the assumptive nature of the argument itself.

This is common sense to most formalists/computer scientists/mathematicians (or whatever label they assign to themselves) it's just the verboseness from 1 to 11 is not necessary once you have the technical terms at your disposal.

False, because they begin assumptions within their systems, what theories they apply as well as choice theory,/color]

If you go on to build a system which can interpret your formal rules ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hosting_(compilers) ) then you are on your way of having created a coherent formal language. Which (despite the Munchhausen Trillema) is actually pulling itself up by its own bootstraps.

And computing does the same thing...it creates problems and then solves them.

And so if your system works, then it can be said that you have invented a meaningful language. At which point you have arrived at the Anti-foundationalist perspective: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-foundationalism

false, assumption is it's own foundation...it is just that this foundation appears chaotic because of its variation but it exists according to given forms.

I see where your argument is going, and it is "a" definition, but the problem occurs is that this argument can be mapped according to either what is provided above or some variation of it.

[surreptitious57]

We are still left with defining soundness and validity based upon specific assumptions and even in mapping the definition of both
we refer to the absurd argument I presented

All definitions are circular in that they refer to the thing that is being defined but that is a necessary requirement for any word
Because a definition that was not circular would have no relationship with the word that it was defining and so would be invalid
So without soundness or validity one would not know whether an argument was good or bad so they are necessary for this reason

[Eodnhoj7]

We are still left with defining soundness and validity based upon specific assumptions and even in mapping the definition of both
we refer to the absurd argument I presented

All definitions are circular in that they refer to the thing that is being defined but that is a necessary requirement for any word
Because a definition that was not circular would have no relationship with the word that it was defining and so would be invalid
So without soundness or validity one would not know whether an argument was good or bad so they are necessary for this reason

I dont know if I would limit circularity to necessity as it is inevitable. But yeah, you are right, but this is still a fallacy for modern logic. Logic is grounded in form and form is inevitable as we assume form and through form.

Soundness and validity are still assumed, thus not only follow the above op argument, but require a further circualrity as they must be justified by a logic. The only constant is form.

[Skepdick]

false, assumption is it's own foundation...it is just that this foundation appears chaotic because of its variation but it exists according to given forms.[/color]

I see where your argument is going, and it is "a" definition, but the problem occurs is that this argument can be mapped according to either what is provided above or some variation of it.

*sigh* you are making me travel to wherever you are in the world just so I can make my "argument".

No words, no premises, no assumption, no axioms, no conclusions, no arguing. Just a swift kick to the groin.

That's where Philosophistry stops and Empiricism begins.

[Skepdick]

I dont know if I would limit circularity to necessity as it is inevitable. But yeah, you are right, but this is still a fallacy for modern logic. Logic is grounded in form and form is inevitable as we assume form and through form.

Computation is function over form. Form follows function.

[Eodnhoj7]

I dont know if I would limit circularity to necessity as it is inevitable. But yeah, you are right, but this is still a fallacy for modern logic. Logic is grounded in form and form is inevitable as we assume form and through form.

Computation is function, independent of form.

False...black box necessitates form. The divergence and convergence of axioms necessitates form. Basic counting is grounded again in the individuation of forms, with this individuation occurring as a form in and of itself.

Choice theory, as a process of individuation in assumptions...form.

Function and form dont exist as independent entities, they are one and the same thing. Even to observe a static form necessitates the dynamic of assuming it, which still exists as a form.

[Skepdick]

False...black box necessitates form. The divergence and convergence of axioms necessitates form. Basic counting is grounded again in the individuation of forms, with this individuation occurring as a form in and of itself.

False dichotomy.

Necessitates form. Does not prescribe form. You can build a computer out of ANYTHING.

Any form.Water for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5WodTppevo

[Eodnhoj7]

False...black box necessitates form. The divergence and convergence of axioms necessitates form. Basic counting is grounded again in the individuation of forms, with this individuation occurring as a form in and of itself.

Necessitates form. Does not prescribe form. You can build a computer out of ANYTHING.

And that computer is physical form. Its individuation of assumptions, through recursion and isomorphism still follows a form.

Function and Form are inserable. Even in constructing an empirical entity the movement of mass (formlessness) results in a form.

[Skepdick]

Function and Form are inserable.

Demonstrably false. Airplanes and Cars perform the same function. Transportation from A to B. They have different forms.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is...

[Eodnhoj7]

Function and Form are inserable.

Demonstrably false. Airplanes and Cars perform the same function. Transportation.

And they are forms composed of forms, even there movements (from an outside time zone) take forms.

For example the alternation of a motor requires a basic movemenr point a to b of single section of the fan blade. This apparently has no form until we look at it from an outside time zone, where it takes a circle, or zigzag if the cycle is observed as moving from another point when it moves with the plane.

Simultaneously if we look at the fan blade it is composed of a specific timezone where the atoms composing it are moving at such a rate (relatively slowly) that we see there movements as a form.

It is like the particle wave dualism. If I follow a particle up close in time it just moves from a to b. If I observe that particle from a larger timezone where the particles multiple movements are observed as a continuum at once...then I get a wave.

[Eodnhoj7]

All logic and reason is grounded in assumption, assumption is it's own foundation as form.


The paradox results where the form of our modern world gives evidence to the quality of our reasoning base.

[Skepdick]

All logic and reason is grounded in assumption, assumption is it's own foundation as form.

What is the form of an assumption? What is the form of recursion?

In what geometry?

The paradox results where the form of our modern world gives evidence to the quality of our reasoning base.

http://wisdomofchopra.com/

[Eodnhoj7]

All logic and reason is grounded in assumption, assumption is it's own foundation as form.

What is the form of an assumption? What is the form of recursion?

It is empty in boundless plane as taken through the apriori nature of the empty mind which assumes itself...thus a point. Its individuation of one boundless plane unto another is what manifests as form.

In what geometry?

Assumption of space through axioms. Effectively it is a projection of the pscyhe as the core axioms are that which are assumed.

The paradox results where the form of our modern world gives evidence to the quality of our reasoning base.

http://wisdomofchopra.com/

Hahaha...one assumption...hussel, heidegger, neitzche, marx, hegel....throwing labels won't do you any good as they are assumptions from your point of view.

Even choice theory observes the value base of computation effectively makes it random.

The form of our computations reflects itself in the form our world takes...weren't you the one who does not value consistency of the four base choices a formal system can manifest where three are only possible?

A truly formal theory, grounded in assumption as an unavoidable base, necessitates computation and logic are manifesting the same obscuration they seek to avoid unless referencing themselves as strictly forms and forms alone.

Logic is effectively irrational forms morphing into other forms as evidenced by the nature of logic as fundamentally strings of morphing symbols.

Thus the above assumptive logic necessitates the following law (reflecting the first law of the prime triad):


The Law of Inherent Isomorphic Void:

All axioms effectively are void in and of themselves until they invert into another axiom, thus the axiom maintains itself as a perpetual function of inversion. The inversion of one axiom into another is the inversion of one axiom into many, where the individual axiom in itself is void except as a point of inversion.

[Skepdick]

Assumption of space through axioms.

Obviously it's a "space". It was implied in the "What geometry?" question.

How many dimensions does your space have? 1, 2, 3, 3.3531312.. ?

[Eodnhoj7]

Assumption of space through axioms.

Obviously it's a "space". It was implied in the "What geometry?" question.

How many dimensions does your space have? 1, 2, 3, 3.3531312.. ?

A dimension is grounded in linear direction, hence is space itself...space is pure movement and as such is the grounded for all of reality...even thought itself.