The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 9:57 pm A contradiction, you say!! Where?!

There, look, there!!

Where's the ... the ....?

I know what you're looking for! Hehehe!

Hahaha! Please, let's kill time!

Let's!

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 7:53 pm

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 9:57 pm A contradiction, you say!! Where?!

There, look, there!!

Where's the ... the ....?

I know what you're looking for! Hehehe!

Hahaha! Please, let's kill time!

Let's!

In looking for a contradiction and seeing none a contradiction occurs.
In looking for no contradiction and seeing one a contradiction occurs.

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 2:22 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 7:53 pm

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 9:57 pm A contradiction, you say!! Where?!

There, look, there!!

Where's the ... the ....?

I know what you're looking for! Hehehe!

Hahaha! Please, let's kill time!

Let's!

In looking for a contradiction and seeing none a contradiction occurs.
In looking for no contradiction and seeing one a contradiction occurs.

Si, contradictions are everywhere. We should do something about them.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 9:22 pm

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 2:22 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 7:53 pm

In looking for a contradiction and seeing none a contradiction occurs.
In looking for no contradiction and seeing one a contradiction occurs.

Si, contradictions are everywhere. We should do something about them.

To contradict contradictions would be a contradiction; order is a contradiction as well as disorder. Why?

1. A square is symmetrical thus ordered. However there is the space inside the square and the space outside a square. The space between the inner and outer is the square itself as space, thus the square is the contradiction of space being seperated from space as space.

2. A form stands apart from another form thus creating asymmetry; this asymmetry is irrational as there is no balance because one form stands apart from another form.... thus a contradiction occurs.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 10:09 pm An {abstract} circle is the only kind of actual circle, an {empirical} tree has no perfect
mathematical abstraction because unlike a circle it is not an object of mathematics.

An abstract circle is a model that empirical circles can only imprecisely approximate.

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 7:29 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 9:22 pm

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 2:22 am

Si, contradictions are everywhere. We should do something about them.

To contradict contradictions would be a contradiction; order is a contradiction as well as disorder. Why?

1. A square is symmetrical thus ordered. However there is the space inside the square and the space outside a square. The space between the inner and outer is the square itself as space, thus the square is the contradiction of space being seperated from space as space.

2. A form stands apart from another form thus creating asymmetry; this asymmetry is irrational as there is no balance because one form stands apart from another form.... thus a contradiction occurs.

You lost me there pal. Nonetheless, I have a vague idea of what you're getting at. I like it! However ... from this and other posts, ya should be of a particular flavor, like the strange (flavor) quark which means all bets are off, that is to say times up!

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 11:26 pm

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 7:29 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 9:22 pm

To contradict contradictions would be a contradiction; order is a contradiction as well as disorder. Why?

1. A square is symmetrical thus ordered. However there is the space inside the square and the space outside a square. The space between the inner and outer is the square itself as space, thus the square is the contradiction of space being seperated from space as space.

2. A form stands apart from another form thus creating asymmetry; this asymmetry is irrational as there is no balance because one form stands apart from another form.... thus a contradiction occurs.

You lost me there pal. Nonetheless, I have a vague idea of what you're getting at. I like it! However ... from this and other posts, ya should be of a particular flavor, like the strange (flavor) quark which means all bets are off, that is to say times up!

There is space inside a circle.

There is space outside the circle.

The space between the inner and outer is the circle (the circle is space between spaces).

Space dividing space is a contradiction and all forms require this contradiction as all forms are space dividing space.

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 11:55 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 11:26 pm

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 7:29 am

You lost me there pal. Nonetheless, I have a vague idea of what you're getting at. I like it! However ... from this and other posts, ya should be of a particular flavor, like the strange (flavor) quark which means all bets are off, that is to say times up!

There is space inside a circle.

There is space outside the circle.

The space between the inner and outer is the circle (the circle is space between spaces).

Space dividing space is a contradiction and all forms require this contradiction as all forms are space dividing space.

Are ya sure about that?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 11:23 pm

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 11:55 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 11:26 pm

There is space inside a circle.

There is space outside the circle.

The space between the inner and outer is the circle (the circle is space between spaces).

Space dividing space is a contradiction and all forms require this contradiction as all forms are space dividing space.

Are ya sure about that?

A form is a space between spaces thus space is divided against itself. All forms are composed of space as they have boundaries/limits.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 11:55 pm If all logic is dependent upon forms and forms are relative then all logic is relative.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 11:55 pm If logic is relative then it is true under some contexts but not in others.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 11:55 pm These prior statements are logical forms, i.e. 'if a is b and b is c then a is c' and 'if a then b', thus the statements are not universally true as they are relative.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 11:55 pm A self-contradiction occurs as the statement is true under certain contexts, false in other contexts, but both true and false in light of all contexts.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 11:55 pm The problem occurs as the statements 'logic is dependent upon forms' and 'forms are relative' are true statements universally as they can be repeatably verified empirically (i.e. we can see forms in all logic and we can also see that forms are relative as they compare and contrast to other forms).

Under these terms correct abstractions and correct empirical observations contradict.

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 1:35 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 11:23 pm

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 11:55 pm

Are ya sure about that?

A form is a space between spaces thus space is divided against itself. All forms are composed of space as they have boundaries/limits.

Please respond to the anticipated objection.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 2:04 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 11:55 pm If all logic is dependent upon forms and forms are relative then all logic is relative.

But not all actual existing forms are relative.
So not so-called 'all logic' is relative.
Therefore the rest is moot.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 11:55 pm If logic is relative then it is true under some contexts but not in others.

Will you provide actual examples?

If no, then why not?

Also, what does the word 'logic' even mean to you?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 11:55 pm These prior statements are logical forms, i.e. 'if a is b and b is c then a is c' and 'if a then b', thus the statements are not universally true as they are relative.

And, according to you OWN 'logic' here "eodhnoj7" what you just CLAIMED here is NOT universally true. Therefore, this means that what you say and claim here is just your OWN truth ONLY, or in other words is true to you ONLY. Which upon further examination WILL BE SEEN to be the ACTUAL UNIVERSAL Truth.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 11:55 pm A self-contradiction occurs as the statement is true under certain contexts, false in other contexts, but both true and false in light of all contexts.

AGAIN, this is 'true' to you ONLY, but False in ACTUAL ACTUALITY.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 11:55 pm The problem occurs as the statements 'logic is dependent upon forms' and 'forms are relative' are true statements universally as they can be repeatably verified empirically (i.e. we can see forms in all logic and we can also see that forms are relative as they compare and contrast to other forms).

Under these terms correct abstractions and correct empirical observations contradict.

False AGAIN. But, AGAIN, NOT to you, ALONE.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 11:11 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 2:04 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 11:55 pm If all logic is dependent upon forms and forms are relative then all logic is relative.

But not all actual existing forms are relative.
So not so-called 'all logic' is relative.
Therefore the rest is moot.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 11:55 pm If logic is relative then it is true under some contexts but not in others.

Will you provide actual examples?

If no, then why not?

Also, what does the word 'logic' even mean to you?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 11:55 pm These prior statements are logical forms, i.e. 'if a is b and b is c then a is c' and 'if a then b', thus the statements are not universally true as they are relative.

And, according to you OWN 'logic' here "eodhnoj7" what you just CLAIMED here is NOT universally true. Therefore, this means that what you say and claim here is just your OWN truth ONLY, or in other words is true to you ONLY. Which upon further examination WILL BE SEEN to be the ACTUAL UNIVERSAL Truth.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 11:55 pm A self-contradiction occurs as the statement is true under certain contexts, false in other contexts, but both true and false in light of all contexts.

AGAIN, this is 'true' to you ONLY, but False in ACTUAL ACTUALITY.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 11:55 pm The problem occurs as the statements 'logic is dependent upon forms' and 'forms are relative' are true statements universally as they can be repeatably verified empirically (i.e. we can see forms in all logic and we can also see that forms are relative as they compare and contrast to other forms).

Under these terms correct abstractions and correct empirical observations contradict.

False AGAIN. But, AGAIN, NOT to you, ALONE.

You contradict the argument I provided. My argument occurs through the senses, as it must be typed and read (physical reality is formed through it), and your abstractions do not align with it. My point stands.