Assumptive Logic

[Age]

If everything is assumed, then so are problems, we assume "necessity" as assumption is necessary through assuming assumption.

Take this as a play on words, or not...best both.

Going to the origin of the thread, assumptions are inherently void in nature with assuming assumption being the voiding of void.

Considering all self evident truths are assumed, we can observed they exist as transitive states to further transitive states.

For example

1 + 1 = 2

I assume each of these symbols.

So using "•(x)" as an assumed context and "--->" as a progression to another assumption (which is an assumption) we can observe that each assumption is grounded in an inherent form that is fundamentally "void" considering it is assumed.

1 transfers to 1 through +, which transfers to 2 through =.

•((1)(+))--->•((1)(=))--->•(2)

•--->•--->• as •--->• as •

The above transition is correct form

So is

•(1)--->•(+)--->•(1)--->•(=)--->•(2)

•--->•--->•--->•--->• as •--->• as •

Both of the above are correct

So is

•(((((1)+)1)=)2)

As

---> as •

So on and so forth.

The manner in which the equation is assumed observes different transitive properties of one assumption to another as an assumption which assumption being an empty form in itself.

Standard linear reasoning composed of meta linear reasoning.

Regardless of how one is to assume each assumption as a context, group of contexts as an assumption, or whatever....each manner of assumption takes on an inherent form of various transitional properties that variate through eachother.


These transition properties, one assumption to another, are constant as forms and provide the foundation for how we reason however these "foundations" are so particular that they repeat as generalities where these generalities existing as particulars under a different assumed point of awareness.

Each symbol is thus subject to a transitive form to another symbol, as each symbol is an assumed context.

However each symbol as subject to transitive form is also a variation of a transitive form:

1 as

•(•0-->•0) as •(•--->•) as •--->• as •

Or

•(•1--->•1) ****same form above

Or

2-1=2. ***which replicates the same transitive forms above.


So when dealing with assumed truths, the transitive process maintain constant underlying forms, which even under variation transition to eachother through their own natures at a meta level.

We assume forms through assumption as form which is fundamentally empty in context as an assumption.

Logic at its foundations, ie its basic assumed axioms, is fundamentally empty context.

So, do you still say, and insist, "problems exist"?

Problems are assumed.

You did not answer my question.

You appear to be just deflecting.

[surreptitious57]

If we are to look at the nature of any sound and valid argument it is grounded in true premises

This is true but arguments that are only valid and not sound do not have to possess true premises
They just have to be logically consistent within themselves but the premises can actually be false

Will you provide an example please

All American women have brown eyes
My best friend is an American woman
Therefore she has brown eyes

[Eodnhoj7]

So, do you still say, and insist, "problems exist"?

Problems are assumed.

You did not answer my question.

You appear to be just deflecting.

That is the point, any logical assertion is grounding in transitive properties that are by default transitive. Logic is the isomorphism and recurssion of transitive properties.

[Age]

Problems are assumed.

You did not answer my question.

You appear to be just deflecting.

That is the point, any logical assertion is grounding in transitive properties that are by default transitive. Logic is the isomorphism and recurssion of transitive properties.

But what has any of this got to do with you just NOT answering my clarifying question?

[Age]

If everything is assumed, then ...

The trouble you are going to have forever is working out if every thing is assumed or not, and until you can work that out you are left in the unknowing state that you are in now.

I, however, do not have any such trouble.

I also, by the way, do not see nor have any problems like you see and have.

Not really,

In relation to 'what' exactly?

as assuming I am assuming is a constant which manifests itself in a variety of ways.

This is what I just said. You are stuck in a state of unknowing.

Whereas I am NOT.

The above is strictly a transitive proof that logic, math and language are inherently empty.

Empty in relation to 'what' exactly?

What is a 'transitive proof'?

How are you defining the word 'transitive' here?

[Age]

This is true but arguments that are only valid and not sound do not have to possess true premises
They just have to be logically consistent within themselves but the premises can actually be false

Will you provide an example please

All American women have brown eyes
My best friend is an American woman
Therefore she has brown eyes

Thank you. Now, what has any of what you said and wrote here got to do with what I said and wrote? which was:
If we are to look at the nature of any sound and valid argument it is grounded in true premises.

I would have much preferred you provided an example of any sound and valid argument, which you consider is hard to understand. But if this is all you wanted to provide, then this will do. I am just unsure of why only this?

[surreptitious57]

I would have much preferred you provided an example of any sound and valid argument which you consider is hard to understand
But if this is all you wanted to provide then this will do I am just unsure of why only this ?

As I have already explained I do not have the mental energy to answer all of your questions
And also any example I did give would only result in even more questions being asked of me

[Age]

I would have much preferred you provided an example of any sound and valid argument which you consider is hard to understand
But if this is all you wanted to provide then this will do I am just unsure of why only this ?

As I have already explained I do not have the mental energy to answer all of your questions

What questions are you referring to exactly?

I just said I would have much preferred that you provided an example of any sound and valid argument, which you consider is hard to understand.

And also any example I did give would only result in even more questions being asked of me

But I already stated that if you provide an example of a sound and valid argument that you find hard to understand, then I would like to see if it could be made much easier to understand.

To me, if it is a sound and valid argument, then making it much easier to understand should not be to hard to do at all.

So I had already suggested that I was ONLY going to see if I could make it easier for you to understand. That I would have thought would have alleviated some of the stress that you are putting on your own "mental energy".

Also, when you say that you have already explained that you do not have the mental energy to answer all of my questions are you;
1. Hinting that you do not want me to ask you any more questions at all?
2. Just continually informing me that you do not have the mental energy to answer all of my questions, but would still like me to ask you all of them anyway?
3. Just continually informing me that you do not have the mental energy to answer all of my questions, and would like me to ask you a lot less questions?
4. Just wanting me to do some thing in particular?
5. Subliminally asking me for advice about how you could gain far more mental energy?
6. Or, just suggesting some thing else?

I do not recall ever suggesting that you should or would answer all of my clarifying questions. I do not even expect you would. But if I do not ask, then I will NEVER learn more or anew.

[surreptitious57]

I do not recall ever suggesting that you should or would answer all of my clarifying questions

You have on occasion made reference to the fact that others here do not actually bother to answer many of the questions that you ask of them
I notice that when I have told you just now that I do not have the mental energy to answer all of your questions you decide to ask me six more
Now had I to answer every single question you ever asked me I would never leave the forum but I just dont have that level of energy at my age

[surreptitious57]

And as none of this is actually related to the subject matter of the thread I will say no more

[Age]

I do not recall ever suggesting that you should or would answer all of my clarifying questions

You have on occasion made reference to the fact that others here do not actually bother to answer many of the questions that you ask of them
I notice that when I have told you just now that I do not have the mental energy to answer all of your questions you decide to ask me six more
Now had I to answer every single question you ever asked me I would never leave the forum but I just dont have that level of energy at my age

I am curious as to what energy 'you', human beings, think is needed to 'think'?

Thoughts happen continuously so what do 'you' mean by 'mental energy'?

Where do 'you' think 'you' get energy from to think?

By the way I do not want 'you' to answer ANY more questions I pose. I just ask them so that "others" can think more about how they, themselves, 'think'.

What is the 'mental' part of 'mental energy'?

By the way ALL of these questions can be very quickly, and very simply and easily answered, which combined with other answers forms a perfect picture of ALL-THERE-IS.

See, the very thing from WHERE ALL-Knowing comes from and is SEEN from gets closed off by the very act of 'thinking', or more specifically thinking/assuming/believing, that the truth is already KNOWN individually.

[Eodnhoj7]

You did not answer my question.

You appear to be just deflecting.

That is the point, any logical assertion is grounding in transitive properties that are by default transitive. Logic is the isomorphism and recurssion of transitive properties.

But what has any of this got to do with you just NOT answering my clarifying question?

I just answered it, your questions are empty.

[Eodnhoj7]

The trouble you are going to have forever is working out if every thing is assumed or not, and until you can work that out you are left in the unknowing state that you are in now.

I, however, do not have any such trouble.

I also, by the way, do not see nor have any problems like you see and have.

Not really,

In relation to 'what' exactly?

as assuming I am assuming is a constant which manifests itself in a variety of ways.

This is what I just said. You are stuck in a state of unknowing.

Whereas I am NOT.

Good, you know what is going on then and can explain everything...how does one do that?

I just assume void.

The above is strictly a transitive proof that logic, math and language are inherently empty.

Empty in relation to 'what' exactly?

What is a 'transitive proof'?

How are you defining the word 'transitive' here?

You know everything, you know the answer to this.

[Eodnhoj7]

I would have much preferred you provided an example of any sound and valid argument which you consider is hard to understand
But if this is all you wanted to provide then this will do I am just unsure of why only this ?

As I have already explained I do not have the mental energy to answer all of your questions
And also any example I did give would only result in even more questions being asked of me

Age beliefs he knows all with all being "?"

[Eodnhoj7]

I do not recall ever suggesting that you should or would answer all of my clarifying questions

You have on occasion made reference to the fact that others here do not actually bother to answer many of the questions that you ask of them
I notice that when I have told you just now that I do not have the mental energy to answer all of your questions you decide to ask me six more
Now had I to answer every single question you ever asked me I would never leave the forum but I just dont have that level of energy at my age

I am curious as to what energy 'you', human beings, think is needed to 'think'?

Thoughts happen continuously so what do 'you' mean by 'mental energy'?

Where do 'you' think 'you' get energy from to think?

By the way I do not want 'you' to answer ANY more questions I pose. I just ask them so that "others" can think more about how they, themselves, 'think'.

What is the 'mental' part of 'mental energy'?

By the way ALL of these questions can be very quickly, and very simply and easily answered, which combined with other answers forms a perfect picture of ALL-THERE-IS.

See, the very thing from WHERE ALL-Knowing comes from and is SEEN from gets closed off by the very act of 'thinking', or more specifically thinking/assuming/believing, that the truth is already KNOWN individually.

Thanks for the thought....and the assumption as well as your personal beliefs.