Philosophy Now Forum

When-so-ever symbolic logic diverges from the deductive logical inference
symbolic logic errs. The Principle of Explosion is one place where symbolic
logic diverges from the deductive logical inference, thus the Principle of
Explosion is erroneous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy
The non-sequitur error occurs in every logical inference where the truth
of the conclusion does not depend upon the truth ALL of the premises.

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-non ... ur-1691437
A non sequitur is a fallacy in which a conclusion does not
follow logically from what preceded it. Also known as irrelevant
reason and fallacy of the consequent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
The principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso (sequitur) quodlibet (EFQ),
"from falsehood, anything (follows)", or ex contradictione (sequitur)
quodlibet (ECQ), "from contradiction, anything (follows)"), or the
principle of Pseudo-Scotus, is the law of classical logic, intuitionistic
logic and similar logical systems, according to which any statement
can be proven from a contradiction.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:42 pm When-so-ever symbolic logic diverges from the deductive logical inference
symbolic logic errs. The Principle of Explosion is one place where symbolic
logic diverges from the deductive logical inference, thus the Principle of
Explosion is erroneous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy
The non-sequitur error occurs in every logical inference where the truth
of the conclusion does not depend upon the truth ALL of the premises.

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-non ... ur-1691437
A non sequitur is a fallacy in which a conclusion does not
follow logically from what preceded it. Also known as irrelevant
reason and fallacy of the consequent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
The principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso (sequitur) quodlibet (EFQ),
"from falsehood, anything (follows)", or ex contradictione (sequitur)
quodlibet (ECQ), "from contradiction, anything (follows)"), or the
principle of Pseudo-Scotus, is the law of classical logic, intuitionistic
logic and similar logical systems, according to which any statement
can be proven from a contradiction.

Look up the fallacy of fallacy thread...all fallacies are negated through themselves and eachother.

Putting labels on things and calling them principles is well a principle of assumption where we assume reality through a context with this statement itself being a context, hence an assumption.

The principle of explosion is negated by it's own nature as a principle.

Even logical symbols negate themselves through a progressive morphing leaving us with basic point, linear and circular forms as the constants...but the assumptive logic thread shows the paradox of using these as groundings as the system must be assumed as true to be true, but assumption is inevitable with all systems...so the paradox goes deeper.



The principle explosion in American terminology can be called a "truth bomb" where so many patterns and axioms the observer hold closely are fundamentally wiped out leaving a blank state of mind where the observer assumes reality for what it really is....enlightenment through destruction of illusion.