Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:47 pm**

Fallacy of Symbolism

1. All symbols result in further symbols and exist in a dualistic state, this will be observed in using the premise of mathematical symbols, and as such are premised in recursion.

2. (+/-), (*/÷), (^/√), (±/∓), (∴/∵), (=/≠), (≈/~), (≜/≅), (↔/→), (</>), (≪/≫), (≤/≥), (≦/≧), (◅/▻), (⊂/⊃), (⟨|/|⟩), (∀/𝔹), (∈/∋), (∉/∌), ((∈/∋)/(∉/∌)), (⊤/⊥), (∪/∩), (∨/∧), (⋉/⋊), (Δ/∇), (∏/∐), ...

3. All mathematical symbolism is subject to Circularity, and as such mathematics is dependent upon the creation of symbols as a projection of perspective, where all symbols maintain a dual thetical and antithetical element.

****Subject to Expansion

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:10 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
****Subject to Expansion

Please spare us.

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:32 pm**

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:10 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:****Subject to Expansion
Please spare us.

That's probably subject to circularity or expansion. No escape.
EB

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:02 pm**

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:32 pm
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:10 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:****Subject to Expansion
Please spare us.
That's probably subject to circularity or expansion. No escape.
EB

Premised on its symbolism, mathematics is a complex exercise in circular reasoning.

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:11 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:02 pm Premised on its symbolism, mathematics is a complex exercise in circular reasoning.

Recursion is not circularity. It is induction/computation.

The mistake you are making is allowing yourself to continuously expand your grammar/semantics rather than synthesise them from your primitives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_primitive

This is the same error all philosophers make. Drawing distinction without a difference.

You treat 3*4 as a new symbol, rather than recognise it as just another way of saying 3+3+3+3 or 4+4+4

Equivocation does nothing for semantics.

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:59 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:11 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:02 pm Premised on its symbolism, mathematics is a complex exercise in circular reasoning.
Recursion is not circularity. It is induction/computation.

Recursion is circular and this can be observed in the base nature of black box theory.

"the repeated application of a recursive procedure or definition."
http://www.bing.com/search?q=recursion+ ... 4BECEF85F2

***"f" = Black Box, "A" equals variable input.

1. 1A → f → (1A,1A)=2B

2. (1A,1A)=2B → f → ((1A,1A)=2B, (1A,1A)=2B)=4D

3. f = (2(x) ∧ (x)/2) = 1(x) where "A" exists through multiple variations

4. The black box, as a function, effectively exists through this recursion principle and is grounded on it as the black box is a "variable" of change in itself. The black box effectively is a "symbol" through which other symbols are changed (inverted from one to many and many to one).

5. f = (2(x) ∧ (x)/2) = 1(x)

where X = (1A, 2B, 4D, 8G...) and X ∋ ((1,2,4...) ∵ X ∋ (A,B,D...)) therefore X ∋ f.

6. The Black Box always contains itself as its own variable through the cycling of the variables.

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:04 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:59 pm Recursion is circular and this can be observed in the base nature of black box theory.

No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_bounded_automaton

A linear bounded automaton is a nondeterministic Turing machine that satisfies the following three conditions:
Its input alphabet includes two special symbols, serving as left and right endmarkers.
Its transitions may not print other symbols over the endmarkers.
Its transitions may neither move to the left of the left endmarker nor to the right of the right endmarker.

This is basically the theoretical grounding for bounded rationality. And why QM requires renormalization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:06 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:11 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:02 pm Premised on its symbolism, mathematics is a complex exercise in circular reasoning.
Recursion is not circularity. It is induction/computation.

The mistake you are making is allowing yourself to continuously expand your grammar/semantics rather than synthesise them from your primitives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_primitive

This is the same error all philosophers make. Drawing distinction without a difference.

You treat 3*4 as a new symbol, rather than recognize it as just another way of saying 3+3+3+3 or 4+4+4

Equivocation does nothing for semantics.

All semantics is grounded in Equivocation because of the law of identity.

Distinction as "difference" observes all differences dually observing a connection. For example I may differentiate A into B and C and B and C may be "different" in the respect they are separated, but they are connected through "A".

Because of the multiplicioutous nature of semantics, the expansion of any semantic symbolism causes a basing "contraction" of the symbols by observing a common bond through "synthesis". Expansion and Contraction always require a synthetic element.

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:08 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:06 pm All semantics is grounded in Equivocation because of the law of identity.

So throw it away. As per ((P=P) = (-P = -P)) → ¬ (P ∨ -P) thread...

A = A → F

Draw a distinction between identity and essence. As per the paradigm of physical information.

A distinction between the things and your conception of the thing.

Noumena/phenomena.

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:11 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:04 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:59 pm Recursion is circular and this can be observed in the base nature of black box theory.
No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_bounded_automaton

A linear bounded automaton is a nondeterministic Turing machine that satisfies the following three conditions:
Its input alphabet includes two special symbols, serving as left and right endmarkers.
Cycling through the repetition of the symbols with the symbols themselves effectively encapsulating the potential variation of other symbols. The symbols themselves, the left and right endmarkers, effectively exist as a variation of binary codes where the symbols they contain act as not just connectors but variations of the symbols themselves existing through the symbols.

It is deterministic because of this progress of recursive division.

Its transitions may not print other symbols over the endmarkers.
Its transitions may neither move to the left of the left endmarker nor to the right of the right endmarker.

This is basically the theoretical grounding for bounded rationality. And why QM requires renormalization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:13 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:11 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:04 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:59 pm Recursion is circular and this can be observed in the base nature of black box theory.
No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_bounded_automaton

A linear bounded automaton is a nondeterministic Turing machine that satisfies the following three conditions:
Its input alphabet includes two special symbols, serving as left and right endmarkers.
Cycling through the repetition of the symbols with the symbols themselves effectively encapsulating the potential variation of other symbols. The symbols themselves, the left and right endmarkers, effectively exist as a variation of binary codes where the symbols they contain act as not just connectors but variations of the symbols themselves existing through the symbols.

It is deterministic because of this progress of recursive division.

Its transitions may not print other symbols over the endmarkers.
Its transitions may neither move to the left of the left endmarker nor to the right of the right endmarker.

This is basically the theoretical grounding for bounded rationality. And why QM requires renormalization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization

Of course. I've said it over and over that logic/mathematics is the ASSUMPTION that the world has structure.
Whether it does or it doesn't - logic is just a mirror of our minds.

But, that is the essence of symbol-manipulation. The essence of our language and thought.

The human need for structure. It's a tool for managing the ginormous complexity of the universe.

We need categories to function. And in a way - we are trying to define ourselves. In a language of our own making.

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:29 pm**

Infinities are out-of-memory errors for the human mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_memory

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:31 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:08 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:06 pm All semantics is grounded in Equivocation because of the law of identity.
So throw it away. As per ((P=P) = (-P = -P)) → ¬ (P ∨ -P) thread...

A = A → F

Draw a distinction between identity and essence. As per the paradigm of physical information.

A distinction between the things and your conception of the thing.

Noumena/phenomena.

It is a false premise as the paradigm of physical information is a conception of interpretation along with the fact we don't fully understand the paradigm of physics yet not only due to its ever expanding nature but it in itself is probabilistic.

1. A = A → F

2. A = A → ((F = F) ∵ (F ∈ A))

3. (F → F) ∵ ((A → F) ∧ (F ∈ A))

4. (F → A) ∵ (F → F)

5. (A = (A → F) ∧ (F → A)) ∴ (A=(A=F) ∧ (A=A)=F)

6. A=F

7. (A=A)=(F=F) → (A,F)

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:33 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:13 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:11 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:04 pm
No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_bounded_automaton

A linear bounded automaton is a nondeterministic Turing machine that satisfies the following three conditions:
Its input alphabet includes two special symbols, serving as left and right endmarkers.
Cycling through the repetition of the symbols with the symbols themselves effectively encapsulating the potential variation of other symbols. The symbols themselves, the left and right endmarkers, effectively exist as a variation of binary codes where the symbols they contain act as not just connectors but variations of the symbols themselves existing through the symbols.

It is deterministic because of this progress of recursive division.

Its transitions may not print other symbols over the endmarkers.
Its transitions may neither move to the left of the left endmarker nor to the right of the right endmarker.

This is basically the theoretical grounding for bounded rationality. And why QM requires renormalization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization

Of course. I've said it over and over that logic/mathematics is the ASSUMPTION that the world has structure.
Whether it does or it doesn't - logic is just a mirror of our minds.

But, that is the essence of symbol-manipulation. The essence of our language and thought.

The human need for structure. It's a tool for managing the ginormous complexity of the universe.

We need categories to function. And in a way - we are trying to define ourselves. In a language of our own making.

How is it a language of our own making considering the "blank slate" of consciousness is equivalent to a boundless field, or "point space". The question comes from the base symbolism of the "dot"...which came first the man or the symbol?

"In the beginning was the word."

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:36 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:29 pm Infinities are out-of-memory errors for the human mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_memory

Actually they are not considering all causal chains of human memory (passive structure) effectively are composed of and composing further memories in one respect while simultaneously acting as the foundation through which we form further memories. I may have a memory of "x" as being "good" which in turn results in further actions through "x" as a means of perception which in turn form further memories.

Philosophy Now Forum

Fallacy of Mathematical Symbolism

Fallacy of Mathematical Symbolism

Re: Fallacy of Mathematical Symbolism

Re: Fallacy of Mathematical Symbolism

Re: Fallacy of Mathematical Symbolism

Re: Fallacy of Mathematical Symbolism

Re: Fallacy of Mathematical Symbolism

Re: Fallacy of Mathematical Symbolism

Re: Fallacy of Mathematical Symbolism

Re: Fallacy of Mathematical Symbolism

Re: Fallacy of Mathematical Symbolism

Re: Fallacy of Mathematical Symbolism

Re: Fallacy of Mathematical Symbolism

Re: Fallacy of Mathematical Symbolism

Re: Fallacy of Mathematical Symbolism

Re: Fallacy of Mathematical Symbolism