Contradiction of Identity
Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:12 pm
CONTRADICTION OF IDENTITY
Philosophy is both a series of equations that occurs through these equations as definition through certain laws of definition. In simpler terms these equations are both self referencing and express themselves tautologically through further equations much in the same manner to define defintion requires the same laws of definition to define it. This is a spiral.
These equations act as identity laws, not just of philosophy but as philosophy itself. Philosophy is a tautology of identity laws that stem beyond Aristotelian principles of the Principle of Identity: (P-->P), The Law of Non-Contradiction (P=/=P) and the Law of Excluded Middle (P v -P).
Laws of identity are unavoidable in philosophy as an assumed context is constant, this assumed context is identity itself.
The nature of tautologies are expressed as points of awareness, a continual regress of assertions, and circularly self referencing. This triad is called the Munchausseen Trilemma. However the original Aristotelian laws of identity are contradictory if applied under the Munchauseen Trilemma:
1. "P" is an assumed variable as a point of view of the observer.
2. (P=P) leads to an infinite regress as ((((P=P)=(Q=Q))=(R=R))=(S=S))=....
3. (P=P) has the same premise as the conclusion thus is circular.
Dually each of the laws is subject to the trilemma:
(P=P) is subject to circularity as P is both the premise and conclusion.
(P=/=-P) is subject to infinite regress as -P equates to (R,S,T,...) as variables which are not P
(Pv-P) is subject to assumed assertions as P and -P are strictly taken without proof.
Dually the laws are contradictory if applied to themselves in a circular self referential manner:
((P=P)v(-P=-P)) necessitates under the law of excluded middle one principle of identity exists or the other thus negating the principle of identity into existing in seperate states of either one identity or the other.
(P=P)v(P=/=-P) necessitates that under the law of excluded middle either the law of identity exists or the law of non contradiction. ****If one is false, then P=-P either way. If (P=P) is false then (P=-P) and (P=/=-P) simultaneously. If (P=/=-P) is false then (P=P) and (P=-P) simultaneously
((P=P)=(-P=-P)) necessitates under the law of identity that two opposing values are equal through the law of identity thus negating the law of non contradiction where P cannot equal not P.
((P=P)=/=(-P=-P)) necessitates under the law of non-contradiction that two principles equal through the law of identity are not equal thus the law of identity is not equal to itself.
((P=P)=(-P=-P)) v ((P=P)=/=(-P=-P)) necessitates either the law of identity or the law of non contradiction results, thus negating either the fallacious use of the law of identity or the fallacious use of the law of non-contradiction but not both. Either the law of identity or the law of non contradiction is negated. If the law of non contradiction is negated then the law of identity ceases to exist as P = -P. If the law of identity is negated then the law of non contradiction is negated as P = -P.
On top of it, in physics, Newton's Law "For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction" necessitates P = -P. However the Aristotle's Principle of Non Contradiction states P =/= -P. A contradiction between Newtonian physics and Aristotelian logic occurs.
For "every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" demands two assertions: that of the action and that of the opposite reaction. The first action is thetical, the second is antithetical. One is the opposite of the other thus is its negation. For example a "ball moving to the right" is a thetical assertion. The "ball not moving to the right" necessitates its antithetical assertion.
The "ball does not move to the right" necessitates the "ball moving to the left" as an opposite movement. So while the "ball not moving to the right" does not necessitate "the ball moving to the left" (as the ball can move up or down), the "ball moving to the left" is still a negative and falls under an opposite.
These contradictions in identity occur precisely because of isomorphic and recursive contexts, yet isomorphism, recursion and contextuality are the grounding for all identity properties thus mandating original identity properities as faulty due to the absence of self referentiality.
Philosophy is both a series of equations that occurs through these equations as definition through certain laws of definition. In simpler terms these equations are both self referencing and express themselves tautologically through further equations much in the same manner to define defintion requires the same laws of definition to define it. This is a spiral.
These equations act as identity laws, not just of philosophy but as philosophy itself. Philosophy is a tautology of identity laws that stem beyond Aristotelian principles of the Principle of Identity: (P-->P), The Law of Non-Contradiction (P=/=P) and the Law of Excluded Middle (P v -P).
Laws of identity are unavoidable in philosophy as an assumed context is constant, this assumed context is identity itself.
The nature of tautologies are expressed as points of awareness, a continual regress of assertions, and circularly self referencing. This triad is called the Munchausseen Trilemma. However the original Aristotelian laws of identity are contradictory if applied under the Munchauseen Trilemma:
1. "P" is an assumed variable as a point of view of the observer.
2. (P=P) leads to an infinite regress as ((((P=P)=(Q=Q))=(R=R))=(S=S))=....
3. (P=P) has the same premise as the conclusion thus is circular.
Dually each of the laws is subject to the trilemma:
(P=P) is subject to circularity as P is both the premise and conclusion.
(P=/=-P) is subject to infinite regress as -P equates to (R,S,T,...) as variables which are not P
(Pv-P) is subject to assumed assertions as P and -P are strictly taken without proof.
Dually the laws are contradictory if applied to themselves in a circular self referential manner:
((P=P)v(-P=-P)) necessitates under the law of excluded middle one principle of identity exists or the other thus negating the principle of identity into existing in seperate states of either one identity or the other.
(P=P)v(P=/=-P) necessitates that under the law of excluded middle either the law of identity exists or the law of non contradiction. ****If one is false, then P=-P either way. If (P=P) is false then (P=-P) and (P=/=-P) simultaneously. If (P=/=-P) is false then (P=P) and (P=-P) simultaneously
((P=P)=(-P=-P)) necessitates under the law of identity that two opposing values are equal through the law of identity thus negating the law of non contradiction where P cannot equal not P.
((P=P)=/=(-P=-P)) necessitates under the law of non-contradiction that two principles equal through the law of identity are not equal thus the law of identity is not equal to itself.
((P=P)=(-P=-P)) v ((P=P)=/=(-P=-P)) necessitates either the law of identity or the law of non contradiction results, thus negating either the fallacious use of the law of identity or the fallacious use of the law of non-contradiction but not both. Either the law of identity or the law of non contradiction is negated. If the law of non contradiction is negated then the law of identity ceases to exist as P = -P. If the law of identity is negated then the law of non contradiction is negated as P = -P.
On top of it, in physics, Newton's Law "For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction" necessitates P = -P. However the Aristotle's Principle of Non Contradiction states P =/= -P. A contradiction between Newtonian physics and Aristotelian logic occurs.
For "every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" demands two assertions: that of the action and that of the opposite reaction. The first action is thetical, the second is antithetical. One is the opposite of the other thus is its negation. For example a "ball moving to the right" is a thetical assertion. The "ball not moving to the right" necessitates its antithetical assertion.
The "ball does not move to the right" necessitates the "ball moving to the left" as an opposite movement. So while the "ball not moving to the right" does not necessitate "the ball moving to the left" (as the ball can move up or down), the "ball moving to the left" is still a negative and falls under an opposite.
These contradictions in identity occur precisely because of isomorphic and recursive contexts, yet isomorphism, recursion and contextuality are the grounding for all identity properties thus mandating original identity properities as faulty due to the absence of self referentiality.