Philosophy Now Forum

Considering prior threads I am going to skip right to the point and this may confuse some people, so I will elaborate on why I state point one if someone asks.

P(x)=-P(x)

1. Negates both non contradiction and excluded middle as P=-P through x.

2. Thus only the law of identity remains which is observed in the above formula.

3. However the law of identity, with out the other laws is no longer defined except through itself:
P=P
(P=P)
((P=P)=(P=P))
(((P=P)=(P=P))=((P=P)=(P=P)))

3. Thus identity is grounded in the repetition of P=P as a context: ( )

4. (P)=(P) observes P as a context, but the connector "=" is undefined unless it is equivalent to P:
As (=)P(=) with (P)=(P). Thus P=P must be ((P)P) where one identity as a context is defined by the context it contains.

5. However this necessitates that context as identity is subject to itself ((( ))) and thus never fully defined except throug a continual reptition.

6. Each context effectively is inherent a means of inversion to another context where this inversion is continually repeated. The reptition is what gives it form as the context itself is inherently "void". Context "( )" is a point of inversion as the assumption "•" of an assumption "•" where the assumption "P" is assumed as "P" as a context "( )". The assumption of P assumes a context of P: (P)

7. Thus the principle of identity is void and must be replaced with a "Principle of Inherent Void"
However principle in itself is a context of context with a context effectively being nothing itself, so we are left with: The Assumption of Inherent Void: ( • )

The Assumption of Inherent Void works for donuts and Swiss cheese...

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:56 pm The Assumption of Inherent Void works for donuts and Swiss cheese...

-Imp

Or are the donuts "void" and the hole is what is real? Isomorphism is tricky....

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 10:31 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:56 pm The Assumption of Inherent Void works for donuts and Swiss cheese...

-Imp

Or are the donuts "void" and the hole is what is real? Isomorphism is tricky....

Any description of a donut hole has to be about the donut.

Or doughnut in the english spelling of the word.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 10:37 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 10:31 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:56 pm The Assumption of Inherent Void works for donuts and Swiss cheese...

-Imp

Or are the donuts "void" and the hole is what is real? Isomorphism is tricky....

Any description of a donut hole has to be about the donut.

Or doughnut in the english spelling of the word.

(H ---> D)



True, but every description of the donut is about the hole as well.

(D ---> H)



Thus both the Donut and the Hole describe eachother.

(D <---> H)


However this description means nothing as it is an assumed context, thus it needs a further context to determine it:

((D <---> -D)x)



However this repeats again and again

(((x)x1)x2)...)



Where donut and hole are effectively just, empty contexts that are assumed:

(D), (H)


Each context as assumed is strictly a point of inversion to another context Thus donut and hole are merely assumed points of inversion and context is just the assumption of an assumption. The donut as assume is further assumed as a context. The same applies for "hole". Thus the donut is a point of inversion, as a context, into another context.

( • )

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2019 4:09 am Each context as assumed is strictly a point of inversion to another context Thus donut and hole are merely assumed points of inversion and context is just the assumption of an assumption. The donut as assume is further assumed as a context. The same applies for "hole". Thus the donut is a point of inversion, as a context, into another context.

A concept is a thing and yet no thing is a concept.

All there is here are concepts nothing more than mere concepts aka (Assumptions)


In describing the hole, the donut stands in it's way, yet both are needed to define the other.
Both the 'donut' and the 'nothing' are not the 'no thing' in which they appear. They are both 'objects' (of seeing/knowing).

The no thing that sees/knows this is not.

What is left?

Answer comes > VOID

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2019 7:29 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2019 4:09 am Each context as assumed is strictly a point of inversion to another context Thus donut and hole are merely assumed points of inversion and context is just the assumption of an assumption. The donut as assume is further assumed as a context. The same applies for "hole". Thus the donut is a point of inversion, as a context, into another context.

A concept is a thing and yet no thing is a concept.

All there is here are concepts nothing more than mere concepts aka (Assumptions)


In describing the hole, the donut stands in it's way, yet both are needed to define the other.
Both the 'donut' and the 'nothing' are not the 'no thing' in which they appear. They are both 'objects' (of seeing/knowing).

The no thing that sees/knows this is not.

What is left?

Answer comes > VOID

And this voids itself as well.