Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:02 pm**

Every classical logician understands the three laws of thought.

Identity: (A == A) is True
LEM: (A OR not A) is True
LNC: (A AND not A) is False

P1: The laws of Classical logic are the universal laws of thought.
P2: IF we violate the law of identity THEN LNC will be violated also.

Proof that premise P2 is false follows: https://repl.it/repls/StrangeLiquidPolyhedron

Conclusion1. It is not always necessary to adhere to the law of Identity.
Conclusion 2. We can use Para-consistent logic to contradict Classical logic.
Conclusion 3. The classical laws of logic are not universal.

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:37 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:02 pm Every classical logician understands the three laws of thought.

Identity: (A == A) is True
LEM: (A OR not A) is True
LNC: (A AND not A) is False

P1: The laws of Classical logic are the universal laws of thought.
P2: IF we violate the law of identity THEN LNC will be violated also.

Proof that premise P2 is false follows: https://repl.it/repls/ImprobableDownrightClick

Conclusion1. It is not always necessary to adhere to the law of Identity.
Conclusion 2. We can use Para-consistent logic to contradict Classical logic.
Conclusion 3. The classical laws of logic are not universal.

False:

1. PxP
2. xPx
3. Px

Where x is the active operator and P is the passive variable.

Aristotelian identity properties are valid, but they are incomplete relative to their own standard.

Point three observes all active/passive axioms (variable/operator) as inseperable.

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:47 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:37 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:02 pm Every classical logician understands the three laws of thought.

Identity: (A == A) is True
LEM: (A OR not A) is True
LNC: (A AND not A) is False

P1: The laws of Classical logic are the universal laws of thought.
P2: IF we violate the law of identity THEN LNC will be violated also.

Proof that premise P2 is false follows: https://repl.it/repls/ImprobableDownrightClick

Conclusion1. It is not always necessary to adhere to the law of Identity.
Conclusion 2. We can use Para-consistent logic to contradict Classical logic.
Conclusion 3. The classical laws of logic are not universal.
False:

1. PxP
2. xPx
3. Px

Where x is the active operator and P is the passive variable.

Aristotelian identity properties are valid, but they are incomplete relative to their own standard.

Point three observes all active/passive axioms (variable/operator) as inseperable.

Present your counter-argument in a Turing-complete logic please.

I do not know what a "active operator" is and what a "passive variable" is or how they behave in the real world.

I have no idea what PxP, xPX or Px mean...

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 6:35 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:47 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:37 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:02 pm Every classical logician understands the three laws of thought.

Identity: (A == A) is True
LEM: (A OR not A) is True
LNC: (A AND not A) is False

P1: The laws of Classical logic are the universal laws of thought.
P2: IF we violate the law of identity THEN LNC will be violated also.

Proof that premise P2 is false follows: https://repl.it/repls/ImprobableDownrightClick

Conclusion1. It is not always necessary to adhere to the law of Identity.
Conclusion 2. We can use Para-consistent logic to contradict Classical logic.
Conclusion 3. The classical laws of logic are not universal.
False:

1. PxP
2. xPx
3. Px

Where x is the active operator and P is the passive variable.

Aristotelian identity properties are valid, but they are incomplete relative to their own standard.

Point three observes all active/passive axioms (variable/operator) as inseperable.
Present your counter-argument in a Turing-complete logic please.

I do not know what a "active operator" is and what a "passive variable" is or how they behave in the real world.

I have no idea what PxP, xPX or Px mean...

It is real simple:

P is Cat
x is "is"

1. Cat is Cat observes that "cat" is defined in accords to "is" but "is" is not defined.
2. "is Cat is" observes that "is" is defined through "Cat" but "Cat" is not defined.
3. "Cat is" observes both "Cat" and "is" defined through eachother as one.

Cat observes a Noun, as a passive form that is not active, ie no "change". Similar to how a triangle is just a form.
Is observes a verb, an active state which is not a passive form. Similiar to how we may observe a fire as a constant state of change.
"Cat is" observes the noun/passive form

The "Cat is Cat" observes how the active state effectively is observed through multiple forms. Multiplicity is change. Dual "is Cat is" observes "is" effectively as a "form" defined through "Cat" where "Cat" effectively is an active state observing multiple forms of "Is" (although standard language does not allow for this).

Cat is a form/function. "Is" is a form function.

Px observes both as not just one and the same but one form function existing through another isomorphically, as Px observes both points 1 and 2.

All center axioms are the connectors.

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2019 6:43 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 6:35 pm It is real simple:

P is Cat
x is "is"

Yes. This is simple.

https://repl.it/languages/python3

Code: Select all

# P is Cat
class Cat(object):
  pass

# x is "is"
P = Cat()

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 6:35 pm 1. Cat is Cat observes that "cat" is defined in accords to "is" but "is" is not defined.

This is getting a little more complex but "is" is defined. It's called an assignment operator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assignmen ... r_science)

We assign Cat to P

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 6:35 pm 2. "is Cat is" observes that "is" is defined through "Cat" but "Cat" is not defined.

I lost you here. Is this the same "is" as the assignment operator?
I don't understand what "is Cat Is" means.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 6:35 pm 3. "Cat is" observes both "Cat" and "is" defined through eachother as one.

Nope. Definitely not following.

Philosophy Now Forum

Paraconsistent logic and Classical logic as comlpimentary

Paraconsistent logic and Classical logic as comlpimentary

Re: Paraconsistent logic and Classical logic as comlpimentary

Re: Paraconsistent logic and Classical logic as comlpimentary

Re: Paraconsistent logic and Classical logic as comlpimentary

Re: Paraconsistent logic and Classical logic as comlpimentary