God(s)

[Eodnhoj7]

All fallacies are assumed, we pull them out of thin air. To negate it to assume a phenomenon and invert it against itself or another phenomenon.

Assumption is both a fallacy and an act of creating fallacies.

They still have gravity (if even temporary) - if even pulled from thin air. To assume is to allow its gravity to act on, thus knowing the properties of the gravity a priori allows for knowledgeable assumptions that need only last as needed in trying for knowledge.

One becomes two and two becomes one, it is a triad of dualisms.

It's also an orientation system to traverse dimensions: their existing at 90-degree angles to one another means a fold exists in as many as three:

I am <-* as above
that <-* tat tvam asi
I am <-* so below

So if having:

as above: "good" from the higher in equivalence to the lower
acting against a being P
so below: "evil" from the lower in equivalence to the higher

Whatever P believes is good/evil ...

Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

... ends up with what?

See gravity / stacked brick fallacy in math section.

[nothing]

See gravity / stacked brick fallacy in math section.

It is itself fallacious - the fallacy of it owing to a (local) assumption(s) not seen/accounted for even in the first proposition, thus is imbued into the rest.

1. All logics and maths are composed of assumptions.

Derived by way of would be well, but the active 'composed of' is not necessarily true. The rest collapses but:

2. These assumptions are justified by the proofs which stem from them.

proofs do not only justify assumptions: they annihilate existing ones. Therefor:

3. These assumptions are connected through the proofs, but are not connected in and of themselves except through the proof where the proof as an extension of these assumptions becomes an assumption itself.

generally has an inverse state: assumptions are also connected through proofs yet uncovered which thus annihilate (ie. process of) upon discovery. Until such a time they may appear unrelated, but converge upon discovery.

4. Nothing holds the assumptions together except the multitude of assumptions that stem from them. An analogy would be a large house built upon bricks with no mortar, with the weight of the bricks holding them together...nothing more.

You can not reasonably compare a conscious being (if even regressed in assumption) to a bundle of bricks.

i. Bricks have a fixed relative weight/value. A 15lb brick is a 15lb brick.
ii. Assumptions are held together by the faith of the (un)conscious being, which is not necessarily physical in nature, but a property of the being nonetheless and according to their respective value system as attained to by their own conscience.

5. This increase in proofs, as various assumptions stemming from the original assumption, gain a truth value based upon an inherent mass where the core assumptions multiply and multiply through various proofs.

Relative truth value, and the mass is not necessarily inherent - it is variable, like investment interest. The variability depends on whether the assumption stands to either lose/gain which, once other conscious agents are involved, involves game theory.

6. Truth value is thus equated to mass, with mass existing as obscure formlessness due to infinite and or progressing to infinite "complexity as multiplicity".

Suffers the same as 5, and belief-based ignorance is better equated to mass because the belief-based propositions are definite propositions, thus definitely measurable. Truth value suffers having no such definite state for being relative.

7. Truth value is thus formless mass of increasing assumptions that pulls the assumptions together but continual fragments the original assumptions as each proof is a variation of the original assumption. A metaphor for this would be with the increasing number of bricks that hold the foundational non-mortared bricks of a house together comes increased pressure on these non mortared bricks that cause them to crack.

The analogy is better if the bricks are belief-based ignorance(s). Not all assumption is empty-to-begin: you can assume a context as one 'state' and exit another. There are thus assumptions that resolve with accompanying knowledge, thus are not dead as a brick. A belief-based ignorance is dead in all contexts, thus has a definitely measurable gravity acting.

8. With the increase in proofs comes an increase fragmentation of the original assumption where the assumption as an empty context is negated as a context all together thus have no value, neither true nor false.

The original assumption doesn't simply erode away: it is either reconciled or exists in an ongoing/indefinite state as a fixed property of that being in their experience.

[Eodnhoj7]

See gravity / stacked brick fallacy in math section.

It is itself fallacious - the fallacy of it owing to a (local) assumption(s) not seen/accounted for even in the first proposition, thus is imbued into the rest.

All fallacies are fallacious, but this does not negate they exist.

I can say circularity is subject to fallacy of authority, thus circularity is logical. But the fallacy still exists as continually being negated as it is subject to infinite regress.

So circularity is both true and false.

1. All logics and maths are composed of assumptions.

Derived by way of would be well, but the active 'composed of' is not necessarily true. The rest collapses but:

2. These assumptions are justified by the proofs which stem from them.

proofs do not only justify assumptions: they annihilate existing ones. Therefor:

No, because now you have a new assumption which is ths truth itself.

3. These assumptions are connected through the proofs, but are not connected in and of themselves except through the proof where the proof as an extension of these assumptions becomes an assumption itself.

generally has an inverse state: assumptions are also connected through proofs yet uncovered which thus annihilate (ie. process of) upon discovery. Until such a time they may appear unrelated, but converge upon discovery.

4. Nothing holds the assumptions together except the multitude of assumptions that stem from them. An analogy would be a large house built upon bricks with no mortar, with the weight of the bricks holding them together...nothing more.

You can not reasonably compare a conscious being (if even regressed in assumption) to a bundle of bricks.

Actually the recursive reasoning is the same, and the bundle of bricks is a projection of consciousness .

i. Bricks have a fixed relative weight/value. A 15lb brick is a 15lb brick.
ii. Assumptions are held together by the faith of the (un)conscious being, which is not necessarily physical in nature, but a property of the being nonetheless and according to their respective value system as attained to by their own conscience.

5. This increase in proofs, as various assumptions stemming from the original assumption, gain a truth value based upon an inherent mass where the core assumptions multiply and multiply through various proofs.

Relative truth value, and the mass is not necessarily inherent - it is variable, like investment interest. The variability depends on whether the assumption stands to either lose/gain which, once other conscious agents are involved, involves game theory.
Variables are contexts. X+Y=Z is a series of contexts which can equate to just about anything.

6. Truth value is thus equated to mass, with mass existing as obscure formlessness due to infinite and or progressing to infinite "complexity as multiplicity".

Suffers the same as 5, and belief-based ignorance is better equated to mass because the belief-based propositions are definite propositions, thus definitely measurable. Truth value suffers having no such definite state for being relative.

Not really, a complex proof is just a mass of connected assumptions forming a new assumption.

7. Truth value is thus formless mass of increasing assumptions that pulls the assumptions together but continual fragments the original assumptions as each proof is a variation of the original assumption. A metaphor for this would be with the increasing number of bricks that hold the foundational non-mortared bricks of a house together comes increased pressure on these non mortared bricks that cause them to crack.

The analogy is better if the bricks are belief-based ignorance(s). Not all assumption is empty-to-begin: you can assume a context as one 'state' and exit another. There are thus assumptions that resolve with accompanying knowledge, thus are not dead as a brick. A belief-based ignorance is dead in all contexts, thus has a definitely measurable gravity acting.

Your knowledge, as being subject to any and everything that is true, with any and everything that is true being infinite, is unprovable thus a belief.

8. With the increase in proofs comes an increase fragmentation of the original assumption where the assumption as an empty context is negated as a context all together thus have no value, neither true nor false.

The original assumption doesn't simply erode away: it is either reconciled or exists in an ongoing/indefinite state as a fixed property of that being in their experience.

The original assumption is intrinsically empty due to its progression. It must continually progress, but in doing so you get a mass of knowledge which effectively becomes formless again.

[nothing]

All fallacies are fallacious, but this does not negate they exist.

I can say circularity is subject to fallacy of authority, thus circularity is logical. But the fallacy still exists as continually being negated as it is subject to infinite regress.

So circularity is both true and false.

It's a limited framework: you can allow that the circle has knowable properties that are presently unknown, thus to transit the circle as (*P) as a definite known will, over time, yield the properties of that circle via P to whatever degree P can later be removed from the equation. Whatever degree(s) to which P is unknown can/will be conflated with the properties of the circle. Therefor, the more P knows of its own self, the more it can remove itself and discern the properties of the circle it is "trying" to find the form-to-be-negated and what is the barrier(s).

No, because now you have a new assumption which is ths truth itself.

You can not assume a truth unless it was first assumed as a possibility then later discovered to be a truth, in which case yields assumption as absent therefrom.

Actually the recursive reasoning is the same, and the bundle of bricks is a projection of consciousness .

You assume your consciousness as a dead bundle of bricks? What an absurd assumption (!)

Variables are contexts. X+Y=Z is a series of contexts which can equate to just about anything.

They can also be properties with variable/fixed gravity according to context.

Not really, a complex proof is just a mass of connected assumptions forming a new assumption.

One who is themselves in a regress of assumption would see all as regress of assumption.

A proof necessitates cessation of such regresses: be them unconscious assumptions or conscious beliefs sustained through faith.

Your knowledge, as being subject to any and everything that is true, with any and everything that is true being infinite, is unprovable thus a belief.

Knowledge is the subject/body of any and everything that is not true.
"Everything that is true is infinite" is an assumption.
Inability to prove anything to another does not constitute a "belief" - it would take an ignorant believer to believe that if something is unproven, it is necessarily a belief. It's not necessarily true.

The original assumption is intrinsically empty due to its progression. It must continually progress, but in doing so you get a mass of knowledge which effectively becomes formless again.

Any assumption contains the gravity of the ignorance(s) of the being(s) concerned. To say "assumption is intrinsically empty" is relatively absurd: like breathing-in is intrinsically empty. It fills the lungs with oxygen needed to purify blood. In the same way, assumption fills the consciousness needed to discern/discard truth/falsity.

[Eodnhoj7]

All fallacies are fallacious, but this does not negate they exist.

I can say circularity is subject to fallacy of authority, thus circularity is logical. But the fallacy still exists as continually being negated as it is subject to infinite regress.

So circularity is both true and false.

It's a limited framework: you can allow that the circle has knowable properties that are presently unknown, thus to transit the circle as (*P) as a definite known will, over time, yield the properties of that circle via P to whatever degree P can later be removed from the equation. Whatever degree(s) to which P is unknown can/will be conflated with the properties of the circle. Therefor, the more P knows of its own self, the more it can remove itself and discern the properties of the circle it is "trying" to find the form-to-be-negated and what is the barrier(s).

No, because now you have a new assumption which is ths truth itself.

You can not assume a truth unless it was first assumed as a possibility then later discovered to be a truth, in which case yields assumption as absent therefrom.

Actually the recursive reasoning is the same, and the bundle of bricks is a projection of consciousness .

You assume your consciousness as a dead bundle of bricks? What an absurd assumption (!)

Variables are contexts. X+Y=Z is a series of contexts which can equate to just about anything.

They can also be properties with variable/fixed gravity according to context.

Not really, a complex proof is just a mass of connected assumptions forming a new assumption.

One who is themselves in a regress of assumption would see all as regress of assumption.

A proof necessitates cessation of such regresses: be them unconscious assumptions or conscious beliefs sustained through faith.

Your knowledge, as being subject to any and everything that is true, with any and everything that is true being infinite, is unprovable thus a belief.

Knowledge is the subject/body of any and everything that is not true.
"Everything that is true is infinite" is an assumption.
Inability to prove anything to another does not constitute a "belief" - it would take an ignorant believer to believe that if something is unproven, it is necessarily a belief. It's not necessarily true.

The original assumption is intrinsically empty due to its progression. It must continually progress, but in doing so you get a mass of knowledge which effectively becomes formless again.

Any assumption contains the gravity of the ignorance(s) of the being(s) concerned. To say "assumption is intrinsically empty" is relatively absurd: like breathing-in is intrinsically empty. It fills the lungs with oxygen needed to purify blood. In the same way, assumption fills the consciousness needed to discern/discard truth/falsity.

Your argument is grounded in circular form, space can be axiomized an infinite number of ways as the nature of atomizing requires spatial forms (circular/linear reasoning and point of awareness) to justify it.

Form justifies it, but it fails to acknowledge it's own premises. Your are basically creating a graph at the end of the day as a means of dictating what reality is and is not.

You fail to see your argument ignores this assumption: space as the foundation for truth.

[nothing]

Your argument is grounded in circular form, space can be axiomized an infinite number of ways as the nature of atomizing requires spatial forms (circular/linear reasoning and point of awareness) to justify it.

Form justifies it, but it fails to acknowledge it's own premises. Your are basically creating a graph at the end of the day as a means of dictating what reality is and is not.

You fail to see your argument ignores this assumption: space as the foundation for truth.

Failing to acknowledge it's own premises would be the same as any believer believing themselves to-be, rather than knowing themselves to-be. If *P is knowingly designated as suffering belief-based ignorance, the ignorance is worked into the onset as +P having a body of knowledge counterpart -P that can be attained to as +P knows itself (via inference) towards -P.

'Space as the foundation for truth' is both incoherent and meaningless to me.

[Eodnhoj7]

Your argument is grounded in circular form, space can be axiomized an infinite number of ways as the nature of atomizing requires spatial forms (circular/linear reasoning and point of awareness) to justify it.

Form justifies it, but it fails to acknowledge it's own premises. Your are basically creating a graph at the end of the day as a means of dictating what reality is and is not.

You fail to see your argument ignores this assumption: space as the foundation for truth.

Failing to acknowledge it's own premises would be the same as any believer believing themselves to-be, rather than knowing themselves to-be. If *P is knowingly designated as suffering belief-based ignorance, the ignorance is worked into the onset as +P having a body of knowledge counterpart -P that can be attained to as +P knows itself (via inference) towards -P.

'Space as the foundation for truth' is both incoherent and meaningless to me.

Really because you grounded assumptions by assuming them into new assumptions....it is a spiral. The tech you use it not composed of atoms, which are 99.999 formless, fundamentally being space?

[nothing]

Really because you grounded assumptions by assuming them into new assumptions....it is a spiral. The tech you use it not composed of atoms, which are 99.999 formless, fundamentally being space?

The only real assumptions that are detrimentally "grounded" are the assumptions associated with P = P as having no variability.
CKIIT uproots this unfortunate imposition of an unnecessary boundary condition.

Spirals can move in two directions:
clockwise (+) and counter-clockwise (-)
from any given point in any given space
(unless locally restricted).

Therefor, it is not only a spiral:
it is potentially two spirals (!).
One leads to suffering/death.
The other, the inverse of.

Only one needs to be known:
suffering/death. The inverse of
can be left unknown and discovered
by knowingly moving away from
the known one. Requires: knowing the one.

Why would you resist moving away from war (+) towards peace (-)?

[Skepdick]

Therefor, it is not only a spiral:
it is potentially two spirals (!).

The constituents of the spiral don't exist in a vacuum. They exist in a space.
All the possible configurations of the constituents result in what's known as the state-space.

And the "spiral" has certain degrees of freedom.

It's the good ol' epistemic/ontological/metaphysical spanner: do holes exist? ( https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/holes/ )

Why would you resist moving away from war (+) towards peace (-)?

Because dying on your feet is often better than living on your knees.
Because the terms of peace you would impose on me if you win the war are less favourable than the terms of peace I will impose on you if I win the war.

[nothing]

The constituents of the spiral don't exist in a vacuum. They exist in a space.
All the possible configurations of the constituents result in what's known as the state-space.

They most certainly can/do exist in a vacuum: space is empty, and ether is not space.

The degrees of freedom of the spiral are dependent upon the ether: lines of dielectric force and waves of magnetic force create an electromagnetic 'fabric' ie. grid. In any event: any "singular" spiral can be traversed in one of two directions which relates to any monopole scalar wave function: here-to-there or there-to-here.

Because dying on your feet is often better than living on your knees.
Because the terms of peace you would impose on me if you win the war are less favourable than the terms of peace I will impose on you if I win the war.

It's not necessarily a one-or-the-other. Such would be a local collapse for not seeing a third option.

[Skepdick]

They most certainly can/do exist in a vacuum: space is empty, and ether is not space.

There are many things that aren't space. Time is not space. Nothing is not space. Entropy is not space.

You haven't described a single property of this 'ether' you speak of - all you've told us is what it isn't. It's a distinction without a difference.
You might as well be speaking about the Christian God using via negativa ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology )

The degrees of freedom of the spiral are dependent upon the ether: lines of dielectric force and waves of magnetic force create an electromagnetic 'fabric' ie. grid.

You seem to be talking about quantum fields. You know those exist in space, right? The notion of an 'ether' hasn't been used in physics for a few centuries now.

It's not necessarily a one-or-the-other. Such would be a local collapse for not seeing a third option.

I didn't say it is one or the other - that is just your mis-interpretation. If that is a logical collapse then you are guilty of it.

There are hundreds of, if not thousands of reasons to prefer war over peace. The question (you posited) demanded a single counter-example.

[nothing]

There are many things that aren't space. Time is not space. Nothing is not space. Entropy is not space.

Space-time is an inter-dependent fabric.

You haven't described a single property of this 'ether' you speak of - all you've told us is what it isn't. It's a distinction without a difference.
You might as well be speaking about the Christian God using via negativa ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology )

i. Knowing what is not, is a valid property to be known.
ii. I did describe a property of the ether: it has both lines of force and waves of force.

The ether is not to be confused with any god - it does not require one, however the Christian truth-of-the-way-of-the-living seems identical to truth-by-way-of-negation, thus creation ex nihilo mandates the annihilation of something.

You seem to be talking about quantum fields. You know those exist in space, right? The notion of an 'ether' hasn't been used in physics for a few centuries now.

Not quantum fields: ether. I understand ether is presently not used in physics, but I find GR only valid to a particular context which collapses at the quantum level.

I didn't say it is one or the other - that is just your mis-interpretation. If that is a logical collapse then you are guilty of it.

There are hundreds of, if not thousands of reasons to prefer war over peace. The question (you posited) demanded a single counter-example.

Then why use it as a reason if "Because dying on your feet is often better than living on your knees" are not the only options?

I posed the question not to demand counter-example, but consideration for all examples one chooses war.
There are belief-based ideologies that systematically attempt to reduce others into "believing" there is no other choice.
It takes a believer to believe war is the only choice.

[Skepdick]

i. Knowing what is not, is a valid property to be known.

It isn't. If "not you" was a property then it applies to the entire universe minus you.

It's obscurantism.

ii. I did describe a property of the ether: it has both lines of force and waves of force.

So it's a geometric concept? Like space.

Not quantum fields: ether. I understand ether is presently not used in physics, but I find GR only valid to a particular context which collapses at the quantum level.

I didn't mention GR. I mentioned QFT. At quantum level the quantum fields are properties of space. So the notion of "ether" is not used neither at GR scale nor at Quantum scale.

Then why use it as a reason if "Because dying on your feet is often better than living on your knees" are not the only options?

Because it's one example where war would be preferable to peace.

I posed the question not to demand counter-example, but consideration for all examples one chooses war.

OK. Another example where war is a better alternative to peace is where the peaceful options have proven ineffective at driving the expected change.

There are belief-based ideologies that systematically attempt to reduce others into "believing" there is no other choice. It takes a believer to believe war is the only choice.

You are undermining your own argument. Peace is ALWAYS an alternative (but not always a better) choice to war.

Both times the Germans invaded peace didn't work out for the French.

[Eodnhoj7]

They most certainly can/do exist in a vacuum: space is empty, and ether is not space.

There are many things that aren't space. Time is not space. Nothing is not space. Entropy is not space.

False, time is distance and distance is space as it is length. If I have an hour glass, and time is measured by the falling of sand through a specific hole, the actually pulling through of the sand through the hole results in a specific length a quantity of sand is stretched out if one is to see it span out.

The falling of a drop of water, given the rotation of a hand on a clock, observes the droplet as having a specific length in which the hand moves.

The number of spins that occur with an atom, per second, when stretch out from a circumference to a linear line is a length.

Time is space relative to another space, the ratio of linear movements.



Nothing, as a state of relation between phenomena is space. If I have an empty cup, it is empty if a specific set of wave functions. When it is full it contains them. So the cut and the liquids are relative wave functions that over lap when unified (ie water in the cup).

Entropy is the divergence of one phenomenon into another, thus constituting a length of time as well as the shape and size of the phenomenon itself.

You haven't described a single property of this 'ether' you speak of - all you've told us is what it isn't. It's a distinction without a difference.
You might as well be speaking about the Christian God using via negativa ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology )

The degrees of freedom of the spiral are dependent upon the ether: lines of dielectric force and waves of magnetic force create an electromagnetic 'fabric' ie. grid.

You seem to be talking about quantum fields. You know those exist in space, right? The notion of an 'ether' hasn't been used in physics for a few centuries now.

It's not necessarily a one-or-the-other. Such would be a local collapse for not seeing a third option.

I didn't say it is one or the other - that is just your mis-interpretation. If that is a logical collapse then you are guilty of it.

There are hundreds of, if not thousands of reasons to prefer war over peace. The question (you posited) demanded a single counter-example.

[Eodnhoj7]

Really because you grounded assumptions by assuming them into new assumptions....it is a spiral. The tech you use it not composed of atoms, which are 99.999 formless, fundamentally being space?

The only real assumptions that are detrimentally "grounded" are the assumptions associated with P = P as having no variability.
CKIIT uproots this unfortunate imposition of an unnecessary boundary condition.

Spirals can move in two directions:
clockwise (+) and counter-clockwise (-)
from any given point in any given space
(unless locally restricted).

Therefor, it is not only a spiral:
it is potentially two spirals (!).
One leads to suffering/death.
The other, the inverse of.

Only one needs to be known:
suffering/death. The inverse of
can be left unknown and discovered
by knowingly moving away from
the known one. Requires: knowing the one.

Why would you resist moving away from war (+) towards peace (-)?

Actually P is subject to other variable under a tautology.