For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
So you are playing with Triadic logic but you haven't read the works of the father of triadic logic?
You do understand that it is you who permits such time?Eodnhoj7 wrote:False, I barely read Peirce, my time has not permitted me yet. ...
Then your symbols are even more meaningless than I thought. As has been said, so far all you are doing is observing patterns in your own mind, as to whether they are universal you'd have to explain them in a way that others could understand and agree with and to be honest most of what you've say is barely comprehensible.False as to creating a semiotic, I am just observing certain universal principles exist ...
Which 'current logical model'? As there are many, if you mean propositional logic then in my opinion you haven't found any fault at all as the fault lies with you chasing symbols around without the ground and in my opinion the ground in this case is that there are things or states of affairs, no things or states of affairs no logic as logic arises from there being things or states of affairs.and the current logical model is faulty on its own terms (ie "on its own terms").
Actually the foundational axioms are everything, considering it is the axioms which not only determine the framework but the framework which determine the axioms. The framework and axioms are effectively "one"; thus necessitating a form of reciprocation where the axiom and framework are systems that exist through 1 as 1. This previous statement may seem to abstract at first, but it sets the premise where all logical systems (through the logical system itself) are conducive to understanding and manifesting the nature of "unity".
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:31 pmYou do understand that it is you who permits such time?Eodnhoj7 wrote:False, I barely read Peirce, my time has not permitted me yet. ...
However you appear to have read quite a bit as you've got to firstness and secondness.
False, Firstness and Secondness reflect the pythagorean foundation of Unity and Multiplicity which stems back to presocratic egyptian philosophy and religion. This unity/multiplicity dichotomy, observed centuries prior to Pierce in the work of Nagarjuna in Eastern Philosophy, necessitates a universal underlying form of not just conscsiousness within the human condition in how we exist through a measurement process but simultaneously universal principles reflecting across a myriad of philosophies.
Then your symbols are even more meaningless than I thought. As has been said, so far all you are doing is observing patterns in your own mind, as to whether they are universal you'd have to explain them in a way that others could understand and agree with and to be honest most of what you've say is barely comprehensible.False as to creating a semiotic, I am just observing certain universal principles exist ...
False, meaning is determined through context with the context of the symbols being determined not just in there actual "use" but simultaneously there description through "English" as a medial context between the languages.
In simpler terms the symbols, described by other symbols (english), have meaning through description alone.
Which 'current logical model'? As there are many, if you mean propositional logic then in my opinion you haven't found any fault at all as the fault lies with you chasing symbols around without the ground and in my opinion the ground in this case is that there are things or states of affairs, no things or states of affairs no logic as logic arises from there being things or states of affairs.and the current logical model is faulty on its own terms (ie "on its own terms").
The current logical model, that which is derived through Aristotelian properties of identity, observes a common median among all logical models regardless of there variation.
This variation of one principle to another, or in broader terms "one axiom to another", is a universal foundation for logic where logic itself exists through logic as a self referential property....which I have said a million times already.
Then why didn't you say "unity" and "multiplicity"?Eodnhoj7 wrote:False, Firstness and Secondness reflect the pythagorean foundation of Unity and Multiplicity which stems back to presocratic egyptian philosophy and religion. This unity/multiplicity dichotomy, observed centuries prior to Pierce in the work of Nagarjuna in Eastern Philosophy, necessitates a universal underlying form of not just conscsiousness within the human condition in how we exist through a measurement process but simultaneously universal principles reflecting across a myriad of philosophies.
Great! Then I look forward to you giving us the meaning of each of your symbols and the deductive or inference rules associated with them or even better just making your arguments in English.False, meaning is determined through context with the context of the symbols being determined not just in there actual "use" but simultaneously there description through "English" as a medial context between the languages.
In simpler terms the symbols, described by other symbols (english), have meaning through description alone.
You mean propositional logic is at the ground of all the logical models?The current logical model, that which is derived through Aristotelian properties of identity, observes a common median among all logical models regardless of there variation.
So you have and each time I point out to you that you go in symbolic circles because the ground of the contingent propositions with respect to truth is not to be found in the logic but in the world. The truth of the proposition "the cat sat on the mat" is down to a cat actually sitting on the mat or not.This variation of one principle to another, or in broader terms "one axiom to another", is a universal foundation for logic where logic itself exists through logic as a self referential property....which I have said a million times already.[/color]
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:38 pmThen why didn't you say "unity" and "multiplicity"?Eodnhoj7 wrote:False, Firstness and Secondness reflect the pythagorean foundation of Unity and Multiplicity which stems back to presocratic egyptian philosophy and religion. This unity/multiplicity dichotomy, observed centuries prior to Pierce in the work of Nagarjuna in Eastern Philosophy, necessitates a universal underlying form of not just conscsiousness within the human condition in how we exist through a measurement process but simultaneously universal principles reflecting across a myriad of philosophies.
I have. I observed all "contradiction" as "falseness" (with this statement observing a multiplicity in itself as one term is projected to another leading to approximation of both) is a deficiency of unity by observing a unified phenomenon approximately through a lens of multiplicity.
I discussed this multiple times where contradiction is strictly incompleteness, but this incompleteness always observes a simultaneous set of complete elements. "The failure of contradiction thread" as well as other's observes this point.
Great! Then I look forward to you giving us the meaning of each of your symbols and the deductive or inference rules associated with them or even better just making your arguments in English.False, meaning is determined through context with the context of the symbols being determined not just in there actual "use" but simultaneously there description through "English" as a medial context between the languages.
In simpler terms the symbols, described by other symbols (english), have meaning through description alone.
I have been...you just ignore it when it is inconvenient for you. Regardless of the symbol used, there is always an english translation and/or a symbolic classical notion with it.
You mean propositional logic is at the ground of all the logical models?The current logical model, that which is derived through Aristotelian properties of identity, observes a common median among all logical models regardless of there variation.So you have and each time I point out to you that you go in symbolic circles because the ground of the contingent propositions with respect to truth is not to be found in the logic but in the world. The truth of the proposition "the cat sat on the mat" is down to a cat actually sitting on the mat or not.This variation of one principle to another, or in broader terms "one axiom to another", is a universal foundation for logic where logic itself exists through logic as a self referential property....which I have said a million times already.[/color]
p.s.
Have you read any Hegel as you sound like you are trying to recreate his view of logic?
Yes, I argue for circles...that is why they go in circles. The self-referentiality is unavoidable. However I also show that while this circularity is not just inevitable (and mandatory for a complete system) is still allows for a progressive linear expansion to account for change...so that "linear" reasoning you "worship" is not left out.
We went over the cat sat on the mat, it is simultaneously a true and false statement...we covered this already.
I read, or read parts of the majority of the major philosopher's out there. What Hegel did was not new, his process of synthesis is observed elsewhere universally...as well in the basic laws of nature. Convergence and Divergence are not limited to him.
You'll have to explain what you mean bu "unity" and "multiplicity" for me to make even the slightest sense of what you are saying.Eodnhoj7 wrote:I have. I observed all "contradiction" as "falseness" (with this statement observing a multiplicity in itself as one term is projected to another leading to approximation of both) is a deficiency of unity by observing a unified phenomenon approximately through a lens of multiplicity.
I discussed this multiple times where contradiction is strictly incompleteness, but this incompleteness always observes a simultaneous set of complete elements. "The failure of contradiction thread" as well as other's observes this point.
I must have missed it? Show me where you clearly explain your 'logical' symbols and the inference rules associated with them that allow deductions, etc.I have been...you just ignore it when it is inconvenient for you. Regardless of the symbol used, there is always an english translation and/or a symbolic classical notion with it. ...
Personally I prefer spirals as circles pretty much don't exist anywhere in nature.Yes, I argue for circles...that is why they go in circles. The self-referentiality is unavoidable. However I also show that while this circularity is not just inevitable (and mandatory for a complete system) is still allows for a progressive linear expansion to account for change...so that "linear" reasoning you "worship" is not left out.
We went over the cat sat on the mat, it is simultaneously a true and false statement...we covered this already.
I read, or read parts of the majority of the major philosopher's out there. What Hegel did was not new, his process of synthesis is observed elsewhere universally...as well in the basic laws of nature. Convergence and Divergence are not limited to him.
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 7:02 pmYou'll have to explain what you mean bu "unity" and "multiplicity" for me to make even the slightest sense of what you are saying.Eodnhoj7 wrote:I have. I observed all "contradiction" as "falseness" (with this statement observing a multiplicity in itself as one term is projected to another leading to approximation of both) is a deficiency of unity by observing a unified phenomenon approximately through a lens of multiplicity.
I discussed this multiple times where contradiction is strictly incompleteness, but this incompleteness always observes a simultaneous set of complete elements. "The failure of contradiction thread" as well as other's observes this point.
Reread all the posts I argue. Unity stems from a 1 dimensional (not 0 dimensional) spatial point.
Multiplicity is an approximation of the one point through many points, where the 0d point as "void" is observed strictly through multiple points.
For example I may observe 2 dots in space. These 2 dots exist within a 0d point that is equivalent to a boundless field (all points as formless are simultaneously formless fields) in which the 2 dots (as extensions of the 1 point) are inverted from a unified state of pure order to a multiplicity. "Void" or 0 dimensionality is "inversion" and not a thing in and of itself but only is observe through multiplicity.
These multiple 1d dots, as a 1d dots, are the same thing and exist through eachother and as eachother; hence in observing there state of multiplicity through the 0d point. Thus the 1d dots, which form all phenomenon, are actually just the same dot observed in multiple states where a third element of "synthesis occurs" in which the 1d dots moving towards a unity (which is observed in the respect the 1d dot is always moving through itself as itself) in the "void" observes an inherent element of synthesis in which the creation of unity through synthesis is the negation of void (multiplicity) in accords that void "voids" itself out through "being" (in this case the 1d point).
So "The All/I AM' is trifold: Unity/Mulitiplicity with this "Unity/Multiplicity" existing as 1 in itself; hence 1 through 3 and 3 through 1 quantitatively speaking.
These axioms are spatial, and exist as it considering the dot is the simplest and most complex axiom that exists. It is simple as even in a blank state of consciousness it exists as is; therefore in a scenario of complete sensory deprivation the point as pure space (remember the point is a boundless field) always exists as self-evident for what it is, with all phenomena folding through it as it folds through itself.
With this in mind, the point as space is the foundation for all phenomenon and as such logic itself where all "being" exists as 1 and we observe this unified reality approximately. Any logical system, means of defining reality through perspective, is a distortion of this unity. However this distortion, is part of the 1, hence become undistorted by moving towards a sense of unity conducive to "synthesis" in which it takes on the same attribute of the 1d point moving through itself as itself.
I must have missed it? Show me where you clearly explain your 'logical' symbols and the inference rules associated with them that allow deductions, etc.I have been...you just ignore it when it is inconvenient for you. Regardless of the symbol used, there is always an english translation and/or a symbolic classical notion with it. ...Personally I prefer spirals as circles pretty much don't exist anywhere in nature.Yes, I argue for circles...that is why they go in circles. The self-referentiality is unavoidable. However I also show that while this circularity is not just inevitable (and mandatory for a complete system) is still allows for a progressive linear expansion to account for change...so that "linear" reasoning you "worship" is not left out.
We went over the cat sat on the mat, it is simultaneously a true and false statement...we covered this already.
I read, or read parts of the majority of the major philosopher's out there. What Hegel did was not new, his process of synthesis is observed elsewhere universally...as well in the basic laws of nature. Convergence and Divergence are not limited to him.
False, all spiral exists as two cycling points minimum. One on the outside and one one the inside. The circling of each respective point observes that points observes as 1 movement, considering the "circling" of the points observes multiple points that when observed from one time line exist as a cycle. For example I may observe a point on the hand of the clock continually spinning, however if I look at all those movements from an outside time zone all of those movements exist as 1 circle. All forms are strictly just infinite grades of movement...hence you get a synthesis of Platonic Form and Aristotelian Materialism as 1 entity. Hence the "spiral" exists in a seperate time zone as a circle within a circle from one angle, and from a seperate angle a "cone" or "pyramid".
We did go over 'the cat sat on the mat' and if I remember you tried to claim P^¬P true due to it relating to some future event or possibility , as such how do you deal with 'the cat is sitting on the mat'? Was my reply I think.
"The cat sitting on the mat" is always an approximate statement due to its dependency on time. There will always be a cat sitting on the mat in one physical/abstract context or another. In a seperate respect there will always not be. What defines it as true/false is the context.
Now taking the "The cat sitting on the mat" and expanding the context to further time/space (or time/place) expands the context so that we gain with increasing definition and increase in context.
This context, in the fact it increase, gains more symmetry with the observer in the respect the observer is able to maintian some form of unity with the context; thus we gain "objectivity" as a form of "common sense" or "group perspective" in which the context acts an underlying "binding median". However even with the progression of context, resulting in a progression of objectivity, there will always be a context (or objective notion/group perspective) left out...thus all statements are simultaneously true and false.
Aristotelian logic is always subject to time/space, and because it is does not over this it exists as "true" but is "false" due to its incompleteness as it requires a higher order logic to exist through.
Aristotelian logic is both correct and incorrect. It is correct as a unified localized system where one axiom projects to another, it is incorrect that because it requires a strict linear progression it is never complete due to an absence of self-referentiality.
Obviously I am proving it! That is how all confirmation bias works.
Because I can CHOOSE to stop replicating those patterns. I can CHOOSE to stop creating.
False, you cannot as all your habits are replications of prior phenomenon. Add the fact your inherent language systems is grounded on divergence of one variable into another, ie "finiteness", you are just in a self-maintained loop.Logik wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:27 pmObviously I am proving it! That is how all confirmation bias works.
You count your hits and your misses under the same banner.
If it's unfalsifiable - it's religion.
Which is why we came up with science.
I already argue that all reality has simultaneous positive/negative/neutral values as "meaning". Arguing in simpler terms:
"All rise leads to a fall"
"All fall leads to a rise"
"You have to take the bad with the good".
"There is a silver lining in all things".
is nothing new. Arguing a universal foundation of metaphysics, in "space", is just restating forgotten memories of a time long ago.
As to the "science":
Science is grounding in circular reasoning, it is just a reinvention of the wheel.
Second you fail to take into account, science is falsifiable...and you elevate it to a religion in the respect you do not believe it is falsifiable.
The hypocrisy...ROFL!!!
"I am going to kill philosophy...grrr".
The arrogance and narcissism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_pointer
False, because you strictly are replicating it approximately. That fact it is a programmed already negated the foundation of an empty system. In simpler terms, as it states in the beginning, you are assigning a value.
Because I can CHOOSE to stop replicating those patterns. I can CHOOSE to stop creating.
Error.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:56 pmFalse, you cannot as all your habits are replications of prior phenomenon. Add the fact your inherent language systems is grounded on divergence of one variable into another, ie "finiteness", you are just in a self-maintained loop.Logik wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:27 pmObviously I am proving it! That is how all confirmation bias works.
You count your hits and your misses under the same banner.
If it's unfalsifiable - it's religion.
Which is why we came up with science.
I already argue that all reality has simultaneous positive/negative/neutral values as "meaning". Arguing in simpler terms:
"All rise leads to a fall"
"All fall leads to a rise"
"You have to take the bad with the good".
"There is a silver lining in all things".
is nothing new. Arguing a universal foundation of metaphysics, in "space", is just restating forgotten memories of a time long ago.
As to the "science":
Science is grounding in circular reasoning, it is just a reinvention of the wheel.
Second you fail to take into account, science is falsifiable...and you elevate it to a religion in the respect you do not believe it is falsifiable.
The hypocrisy...ROFL!!!
"I am going to kill philosophy...grrr".
The arrogance and narcissism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_pointer
False, because you strictly are replicating it approximately. That fact it is a programmed already negated the foundation of an empty system. In simpler terms, as it states in the beginning, you are assigning a value.
Because I can CHOOSE to stop replicating those patterns. I can CHOOSE to stop creating.
Second if you choose to stop creating...you are just creating a new system of movements (ie not programming and taking up a 9-5 or something); hence you have no choice. You would just be replicating divergence further by your actions.
False; non-sense is the inability to sense. It is neither a true or false statement as it...well...cannot be sensed. If it cannot be sensed no right or wrong value can be applied to it.Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:01 pmError.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:56 pmFalse, you cannot as all your habits are replications of prior phenomenon. Add the fact your inherent language systems is grounded on divergence of one variable into another, ie "finiteness", you are just in a self-maintained loop.Logik wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:27 pm
Obviously I am proving it! That is how all confirmation bias works.
You count your hits and your misses under the same banner.
If it's unfalsifiable - it's religion.
Which is why we came up with science.
I already argue that all reality has simultaneous positive/negative/neutral values as "meaning". Arguing in simpler terms:
"All rise leads to a fall"
"All fall leads to a rise"
"You have to take the bad with the good".
"There is a silver lining in all things".
is nothing new. Arguing a universal foundation of metaphysics, in "space", is just restating forgotten memories of a time long ago.
As to the "science":
Science is grounding in circular reasoning, it is just a reinvention of the wheel.
Second you fail to take into account, science is falsifiable...and you elevate it to a religion in the respect you do not believe it is falsifiable.
The hypocrisy...ROFL!!!
"I am going to kill philosophy...grrr".
The arrogance and narcissism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_pointer
False, because you strictly are replicating it approximately. That fact it is a programmed already negated the foundation of an empty system. In simpler terms, as it states in the beginning, you are assigning a value.
Because I can CHOOSE to stop replicating those patterns. I can CHOOSE to stop creating.
Second if you choose to stop creating...you are just creating a new system of movements (ie not programming and taking up a 9-5 or something); hence you have no choice. You would just be replicating divergence further by your actions.
Because your speak nonsense that even a stupid computer can't parse.