Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: The More I study Logic and Math, the more I realize how completely absurd it is when using "space" as its own proof system (consider "space" is the only universal axiom that axioms due to the simple "dot").....This statement:

((P=P) = (-P = -P)) → ¬ (P ∨ -P)

is complete bullsh't...but it is true. ...

No wonder our faith in mathematics/aristotelian logic, in helping us develop computing power, ...

has led to the state of economic, moral, and cultural (identity) chaos we are in today. ...

This is more absurd than anything even Wittgenstein worked on...unless someone has a different opinion. ...

Take some time to reread it again and again...it is true and makes no sense what so ever. The only thing that can be observed "rationally" is that the principle of excluded middle does not exist and all statements are "identities" properties necessitate a law of "necessitated middle".


...

In logic, the law of identity states that each thing is identical with itself

In mathematics, logic, and computer science, a type theory is any of a class of formal systems, some of which can serve as alternatives to set theory as a foundation for all mathematics. In type theory, every "term" has a "type" and operations are restricted to terms of a certain type.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 3:22 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: The More I study Logic and Math, the more I realize how completely absurd it is when using "space" as its own proof system (consider "space" is the only universal axiom that axioms due to the simple "dot").....This statement:

((P=P) = (-P = -P)) → ¬ (P ∨ -P)

is complete bullsh't...but it is true. ...

Well you may be right as I don't understand an equals sign being used in propositional logic(which logic did you get this from?) but what do you mean by 'it is true'? As if we use the biconditional instead of the equals sign then the above is false and in fact is a contradiction as it is always false. Is that what you meant, that it is true that it is false?

Propositional Logic is still premised in the Law of Identity and the Law of Non-Contradiction.

The statement it true in the respect the argument is premised on all All right angles are equal. However a right angle can be not equal to another right angle and still be equal to it. Identity can be observed as P=P and P=-P thus negating a law of excluded middle.

No wonder our faith in mathematics/aristotelian logic, in helping us develop computing power, ...

It led to computing engines in a roundabout way but what developed and develops computing power was/is Materials Science.

has led to the state of economic, moral, and cultural (identity) chaos we are in today. ...

No idea what this is about?

No surprise.

This is more absurd than anything even Wittgenstein worked on...unless someone has a different opinion. ...

Can't tell if I have, which of Wittgenstein's thoughts were you thinking about?

That meaning is relative to context, or the framework, in which the symbol is observed as the constant is a perpetual framework where each symbol effectively is its own framework.

((A=A)=(A>A)=(A∋A)=(A → A) ∧ (B=B)=(B>B)=(B∋B)=(B → B))

Each logical symbol is strictly an extension of another symbol.

Take some time to reread it again and again...it is true and makes no sense what so ever. The only thing that can be observed "rationally" is that the principle of excluded middle does not exist and all statements are "identities" properties necessitate a law of "necessitated middle".


...

Does it? I'd have thought it led to asserting P v ¬P.

It does as the right angle is both equal to and not equal to the right angle. Both angles are 90 degrees, but one set of 90 degrees fits within a fraction of a degree of the other 90 degree angle.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:18 pm Each logical symbol is strictly an extension of another symbol.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:53 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:18 pm Each logical symbol is strictly an extension of another symbol.

Because you are choosing to reduce things ad infinitum.

You have to choose something as ontological grounding. Your semantic foundation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_(complexity)

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm All "reduction" is simultaneous progress from a separate angle of observation.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm There is no ontological grounding without ending in a series of definitions as to "what ontology is".

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm I may have an ontological grounding for "x", but "x" is negated and changed to "y" if the ontological premises for "x" are redefined. Metaphorical someone may build a house, I may want to destroy the house, but the house is guarded completely....so I just dig a series of tunnels under the grounding of the house (re-definition of the structure) until the house collapses. I don't even have to touch the house.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm However the Reduction of things ad-infinitum, is in itself a contradiction by contradiction through contradiction.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:40 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm All "reduction" is simultaneous progress from a separate angle of observation.

Not really. It's just deconstruction. Zooming in. Breaking things down into their composite parts.

All "zooming in" is a simultaneous "expansion".

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm There is no ontological grounding without ending in a series of definitions as to "what ontology is".

The smallest irreducible building blocks (given current epistemology). Leptons, quarks and photons.

"Given current epistemology" and the deductionary nature of time does not necessitate "Lepton, Quarks and Photons" being the final foundation for anything within physics considering "physics" itself exists as a process of "time"...effectively negating any real sense of "science" and reducing observation to a spontaneous/chaotic element.

A final "irreducible" element effectively is point space equivalent to a pre-socractic notion developed thousands of years ago.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm I may have an ontological grounding for "x", but "x" is negated and changed to "y" if the ontological premises for "x" are redefined. Metaphorical someone may build a house, I may want to destroy the house, but the house is guarded completely....so I just dig a series of tunnels under the grounding of the house (re-definition of the structure) until the house collapses. I don't even have to touch the house.

Yes. Because you are still seeking a foundation. Be like a bird and fly.

Relativism is a foundation.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm However the Reduction of things ad-infinitum, is in itself a contradiction by contradiction through contradiction.

Planck distances puts a theoretical limit on "infinite" reduction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E ... ng_theorem

Actually it doesn't because it measures a particle's movement until it exhibits random behavior through quantum connection necessitating an inverse expansion into "fields" again where the "field" effectively exists as it's own particulate relative to other fields.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25962


If a function {displaystyle x(t)} x(t) contains no frequencies higher than B hertz, it is completely determined by giving its ordinates at a series of points spaced {displaystyle 1/(2B)} {displaystyle 1/(2B)} seconds apart.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:51 pm All "zooming in" is a simultaneous "expansion"

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm "Given current epistemology" and the deductionary nature of time does not necessitate "Lepton, Quarks and Photons" being the final foundation for anything within physics considering "physics" itself exists as a process of "time"...effectively negating any real sense of "science" and reducing observation to a spontaneous/chaotic element.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm A final "irreducible" element effectively is point space equivalent to a pre-socractic notion developed thousands of years ago.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm Relativism is a foundation.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm Actually it doesn't because it measures a particle's movement until it exhibits random behavior through quantum connection necessitating an inverse expansion into "fields" again where the "field" effectively exists as it's own particulate relative to other fields.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm Points space "seconds" apart, still necessitates a form of linear time as a composition of "points".

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:02 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:51 pm All "zooming in" is a simultaneous "expansion"

Potato potatoh. Relative to the observer.

It doesn't matter the dualistic foundation of relativity, as the relation of one atom to another atom, necessitates that all contraction results in a further expansion.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm "Given current epistemology" and the deductionary nature of time does not necessitate "Lepton, Quarks and Photons" being the final foundation for anything within physics considering "physics" itself exists as a process of "time"...effectively negating any real sense of "science" and reducing observation to a spontaneous/chaotic element.

Incompleteness does not detract from pragmatic utility.

Incompleteness necessitates pragmatic utility as an "undefined" state and in these respects "pragmatism" is merely a conceptual point of division seperating one phenomenon from another.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm A final "irreducible" element effectively is point space equivalent to a pre-socractic notion developed thousands of years ago.

Or you can plug the hole now with information theory. A findal irreducible element is either a point of finite dimensions (1) or nothing (0).
If you can't tell the difference - there is no difference.

Actually 1 exists in a simultaneous indefinite state because its finite nature demands it to be progressively defined through itself resulting in an infinite series. In these terms there only is "1" and we observe multiple ones because of its finite nature where 0 (and this can be seen through the points of the number line) effectively approximating "1" through multiple "1"'s.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm Relativism is a foundation.

Yes, it is my foundation and that of every scientist. Protagoras.

Man as a measure makes man as a constant necessitating that Protagoras's statement is one of absolute truth and "man" is the "beginning, middle and end". This is reflected in Christianity and Buddhism, as well as the formless nature of consciousness in "Taoism".



However, pragmatically there is still an opportunity for solid ground. The triad you point out is the same phenomenon as consensus in a PAXOS implementation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxos_(computer_science) ).

Three points a consensus makes. Two perspectives (A and B) observing a 3rd point C and agreeing on the value of C.

Yes but an "anti-pragmatist" perspective requires a dual thetical/antithetical nature thus necessitating that pragmatism, by synthesis alone, is not the "solid" ground with "sythesis" being embodied through a dual "convergence/divergence" only being a medial point between absolute and relative truth.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm Actually it doesn't because it measures a particle's movement until it exhibits random behavior through quantum connection necessitating an inverse expansion into "fields" again where the "field" effectively exists as it's own particulate relative to other fields.

Finite fields. Finite states.

Not really as the fields relative to other fields in turn cause the interactions where the particles exist in various states. I can have one particle A exist in simultaneously different states of movement, but what causes "Particle A = Particle A" is a common bond of movement.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm Points space "seconds" apart, still necessitates a form of linear time as a composition of "points".

Yes. Finite number of points.

Contradiction, 0 cannot be quantified without effectively observe x*0=0. Second, there can be no "finiteness" without an infinite series acting as a form of recursive justification for its absolute nature. Finiteness is akin to randomness as the approximation of unity. Finiteness is contradictory by nature as it is necessitated by a base dualism of one phenomenon relative to another.

Second a finite point can only be quantified, rationally, if there is a 1 dimensional point...however this causes problems in modern math/logic, as it necessitates everything as connected.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:56 pm It doesn't matter the dualistic foundation of relativity, as the relation of one atom to another atom, necessitates that all contraction results in a further expansion.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm Actually 1 exists in a simultaneous indefinite state because its finite nature demands it to be progressively defined through itself resulting in an infinite series.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm ]Yes but an "anti-pragmatist" perspective requires a dual thetical/antithetical nature thus necessitating that pragmatism, by synthesis alone, is not the "solid" ground with "sythesis" being embodied through a dual "convergence/divergence" only being a medial point between absolute and relative truth.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm Not really as the fields relative to other fields in turn cause the interactions where the particles exist in various states.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm Contradiction, 0 cannot be quantified without effectively observe x*0=0.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm Second a finite point can only be quantified, rationally, if there is a 1 dimensional point...however this causes problems in modern math/logic, as it necessitates everything as connected.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:04 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:56 pm It doesn't matter the dualistic foundation of relativity, as the relation of one atom to another atom, necessitates that all contraction results in a further expansion.

And what about entanglement?

Approximation of a unified state where any percievable randomness is an extension of the position of the observer as well as the "indefinite" nature of unity. Quantum Entanglement is a contradiction by nature.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm Actually 1 exists in a simultaneous indefinite state because its finite nature demands it to be progressively defined through itself resulting in an infinite series.

Only if you allow infinities in your grammar/semantics. I don't entertain them.

Then you are lying to yourself considering a strict premise of "relativity" alone as an absolute statement makes it effectively "infinite".

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm ]Yes but an "anti-pragmatist" perspective requires a dual thetical/antithetical nature thus necessitating that pragmatism, by synthesis alone, is not the "solid" ground with "sythesis" being embodied through a dual "convergence/divergence" only being a medial point between absolute and relative truth.

But it solves the symbol-grounding problem. And that is huge. Symbols stop being descriptive. They have physical presence/effect on reality by being interpreted. They have agency through computers/robots/automata.

That's huge.

The symbol grounding problem is not a problem if the fallacies are negated, as it stands as such it still is a problem as 1 symbol exists through a form of variation of the other symbols due to the law of identity. You are always left with an undefined symbols as the premise and go back to the munchausseen trillema where the grounding for all symbols is premised in the basic point, line circle reflected in the Monad(s), Bindhu, Yin/Yang, etc.

Take for example:

1. P=P where P effectively is any symbol.
2. Equality is a symbol.
3. (=)=(=) where we are left with "( )" as undefined in one respect, the symbol as having a triadic nature "===", the symbol as an active, passive and neutral state, and the symbol as always maintaining a dualistic notion of "definition" ("=" in this case) and "non-defined chaotic element ("( )" in this case as well).

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm Not really as the fields relative to other fields in turn cause the interactions where the particles exist in various states.

Interactions == behaviorism. That is what science models.

You just split one term into two terms causing a degree of deficiency in definition unless you progress further.



I can have one particle A exist in simultaneously different states of movement, but what causes "Particle A = Particle A" is a common bond of movement.

[/color]

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm Contradiction, 0 cannot be quantified without effectively observe x*0=0.

0 is a mathematical error. A pragmatic invention. It doesn't "exist".

Actually as an "invention", and all phenomenon existing through the inventive nature of man through your premised on protagoras, it exists.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm Second a finite point can only be quantified, rationally, if there is a 1 dimensional point...however this causes problems in modern math/logic, as it necessitates everything as connected.

Everything-as-connected == memory == spacetime.

Memory, as linear, is not always connected. Time is effectively the individuation of "space" and can be observed under the thread "the paradox the road and the creation and space".

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:18 pm Quantum Entanglement is a contradiction by nature.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm Then you are lying to yourself considering a strict premise of "relativity" alone as an absolute statement makes it effectively "infinite".

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm 1. P=P where P effectively is any symbol.
2. Equality is a symbol.
3. (=)=(=) where we are left with "( )" as undefined in one respect, the symbol as having a triadic nature "===", the symbol as an active, passive and neutral state, and the symbol as always maintaining a dualistic notion of "definition" ("=" in this case) and "non-defined chaotic element ("( )" in this

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm You just split one term into two terms causing a degree of deficiency in definition unless you progress further.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm Actually as an "invention", and all phenomenon existing through the inventive nature of man through your premised on protagoras, it exists.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm Memory, as linear, is not always connected. Time is effectively the individuation of "space" and can be observed under the thread "the paradox the road and the creation and space".

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:34 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:18 pm Quantum Entanglement is a contradiction by nature.

But it's useful! It contradicts the adage "change is the only constant".

There's something that doesn't change! It's as good as solid ground. You no longer need the relative observer.

"Usefulness" is just a projection of will. Change, dualism, as a constant still leads to one truth and we are left with a triad as 1.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm Then you are lying to yourself considering a strict premise of "relativity" alone as an absolute statement makes it effectively "infinite".

Finite universe. Finite number of particles. "Absolute" statements. are necessarily contextual.

Contextuality is a self-referential statement, and as such is absolute and approximated through multiple variations.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm 1. P=P where P effectively is any symbol.
2. Equality is a symbol.
3. (=)=(=) where we are left with "( )" as undefined in one respect, the symbol as having a triadic nature "===", the symbol as an active, passive and neutral state, and the symbol as always maintaining a dualistic notion of "definition" ("=" in this case) and "non-defined chaotic element ("( )" in this

Again. Doesn't matter. When you define it in terms of its behaviour the symbol means whatever it does in the context that it does it in.

Yeah it does do it in the context of what does it, but the problem occurs in the respect one context is alway antithetical to another and solutions might effectively be "problems".

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm You just split one term into two terms causing a degree of deficiency in definition unless you progress further.

Behaviourism..... describes the interaction of terms. Not the terms themselves.

Terms are descriptions at a conceptual level at minimum.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm Actually as an "invention", and all phenomenon existing through the inventive nature of man through your premised on protagoras, it exists.

Again. Behaviourism.

0 has no relativistic consequences. It's an absolute. All it produces is errors (when you divide by it) or obliteration (when you multiply by it).
It's a black hole.

But you said absolute does not exist, hence if 0 is an absolute then there is not absolute. But the problem occurs in the respect you say 0 is a creation of man; hence what man creates is not absolute either and there is no moral or ethical grounding for your stance.

On its own it has no causal consequences. It does not interact with its surroundings.

On it's own it cancels itself out because it is nothing. Nothingness cannot be observed except through somethingness and in these respects it sets a foundation for a dualism.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 pm Memory, as linear, is not always connected. Time is effectively the individuation of "space" and can be observed under the thread "the paradox the road and the creation and space".

Any memory address can have an effect on any other memory address as the clock "ticks" in a computer system.

Translated into quantum: Global hidden variables. Worst case.

Hidden variable is still a defined variable where what is "known" effectively encapsulates what is not known leading to a from of self-referentiality in what is known.