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.
.