Re: Assumptive Logic
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:42 pm
Are you saying 'change is the only constant' or are you quoting from http://wisdomofchopra.com/ ?
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Are you saying 'change is the only constant' or are you quoting from http://wisdomofchopra.com/ ?
What I am saying is that asking how many dimensions space has, when a dimension is a spatial axiom is like asking how many axioms compose and axiom...one and many.Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:42 pmAre you saying 'change is the only constant' or are you quoting from http://wisdomofchopra.com/ ?
What you fail to realize is that choice theory necessitates all computation as fundamentally random.Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:42 pmAre you saying 'change is the only constant' or are you quoting from http://wisdomofchopra.com/ ?
That's one definition of a dimensionality. There are others.
It necessitates no axioms whatsoever. You get to choose those.
And that definition is an assumption following the above OP logic. One assumption leading to another assumption effectively results in the point existing as its own fractal, where fractals are just continuums.Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:59 pmThat's one definition of a dimensionality. There are others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_dimension
Assumption is self evident, hence is an axiom.Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:01 pmIt necessitates no axioms whatsoever. You get to choose those.
Then you get to compute their consequences.
A system without axioms still computes. It just computes no consequences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_loop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOP_(code)
That's one way to define an axiom - sure.
Duh! That's why it's called the axiom of choice. That's why you have
Functions are axioms....the basic axioms of arithmetic observe this.Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:44 pmThat's one way to define an axiom - sure.
I am pointing out that if you are practicing phenomenology and directly examining the structure of conscious experience e.g purely observing, then there are no axioms. There are only phenomena.
which are assumed thus observing assumption itself as a phenomena
Duh! That's why it's called the axiom of choice. That's why you have
But it is no less true that axioms emerge only after phenomenological bracketing.
After you aim your intention at a particular sub-set of your awareness.
After individuate an object or an experience from the surroundings.
If anything is assumed, functions are! Not axioms. You need choice-functions.
OK, if you insist on re-defining the commonly understood meaning of axiom, but in the conceptual space functions 'exist' BEFORE axioms 'exist'.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:17 pmOK, if you insist on re-defining the commonly understood meaning of axiom, but in the conceptual space functions 'exist' BEFORE axioms 'exist'.
the commonly held meaning of axiom is self evident truth. The blanck slate /beginners mind as formless assuming itself gives rise to form. Assumption and space are inseperable, this necessitates assumption as both form and function.
I addressed this a while ago in the monadic calculus where +1 is both a form and function. You cannot have a positive number without it in fact being a function. The best you can do is created a function observing the recursion of form/functions through further form/functions but this function itself is also a form.
It is like saying is a line a form or a function?
It is a form in the respect it is the negation of void (point as formless negated through line), but the line is also a function as it is composed of x to infinite points. A simple line composed of 4 lines can be observed simultaneously as 1/4, 4/1, +1, +4, 5(0), 1/0, 4/0, etc.
Thus the line of 1 observes 4 as a function where 4 is a function and form of .25. Numbers are functions.
If you do the which came first, the function or the form you end up in a relativistic loop where either one applied first results in a different axiomization to begin with.
If you observe each as function and form, then each phenomenon is inherently void in and of itself as it exists through an inversion into another axiom, while dually being a perpetual middle.
For example:
(1(0)->1(0)) = 1 and 2(0)
Zero negates itself into one, but effectively is localized into 1 entity when it does so thus resulting into to points that effectively in themselves are nothing. This can be observed where the -> = 1
(2(0)->1(0)) = 1/2, 3(0)
-> is thus equal to 2.
(1(0)->2(0)) = 2/1, 3(0)
-> is thus equal to 1.
In each respect 1 exists as a form and 0 as a means of inversion of one form to another is a function. 1(0) observes form and function.
Etc.
The axioms of arithmetic are defined recursively. WITH functions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms#Addition
Phenomenological bracketing is a function.
bracketing is also a form.
0 voiding 0 or mass negating itself into volume observes the same principle.
Will you provide an example please?surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:55 pmThis is true but arguments that are only valid and not sound do not have to possess true premisesAge wrote:
If we are to look at the nature of any sound and valid argument it is grounded in true premises
This type of argument will is completely reasonable sensible and naturally easy to understand
They just have to be logically consistent within themselves but the premises can actually be false
If you have any examples, then will you provide one of them.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:55 pmArguments can sometimes be hard to understand because of the specific subject matter or the number of premises they have or both
This, I think, is because of how they are written, and not because of the argument itself.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:55 pmSo while they may be sound and valid and reasonable and sensible this does not automatically guarantee that they will be easy as well
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:31 pmsurreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:34 amSome statements are rigorous enough to be accepted as a priori where no assumptions are being madeEodnhoj wrote:
A priori is assumption as knowledge prior to sense experience results in a blank slate that is purely assumptive in nature
This is assuming knowledge exists prior to sense experience as empirical senses may dually give rise to reason as well
That is the problem, bachelor is assumed in definition (not all people know what a bachelor is...ie a child, a foreigner, different sub culture, as well if you ask for a definition not all will say unmarried, some will say single others, single man, others young single man, etc.) with each definition being assumed (ie what means "single"...some unmarried, or not dating, or not in open relationship) with each of these definitions assumed.
You cannot begin with an a priori statement that is not assumed strictly because a prior demands that which appears prior to the senses (not that we dont assume what we sense) can be relegated fundamentally to space according to kant. We are left with thr axiom of space which is assumed, but it is this very nature of space in platonic forms in which these assumptions are "mapped".
But the problem occurs in that the geometric nature in which assumptions are observed inevitably leads to an infinite number of axioms.
For example the statement that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori because this is the actual definition of the word
It is also the only one so there is no possibility of ambiguity that can happen with words with more than one definition
Not really, see above example...or just ask "age" what a bachelor is...rofl.
A 'bachelor' IS what 'it' is defined as, obviously. Or, exactly how AND what surreptituous57 is explaining things, to you.
And whether a priori came before a posteriori or vice versa is probably something that will never be known
I dont think there is a specific order as they are two entirely different and independent types of knowledge
Not really considering both are mediated as knowledge and viewed, in some respects, as a temporal (or from a position of either outside of time or outside a timezone).