Logic as Multi-Dimensional Tautological Assertions

[Eodnhoj7]

Logic as Multi-Dimensional Tautological Assertions





1. All logical systems require axioms.



2. These axioms are unproven except through the proofs in which they are used.





3. The proof justifies the axiom and the axiom justifies the proof.





4. Proof and axiom, as a tautological change, become interchangeable: a proof is an axiom and an axiom is a proof by degree of interpentrating boundaries.





5. This interchangeability, as equivocation, results in relative obscurity as it is self-referencing where the axiom is no longer the axiom and the proof is no longer the proof as both become indefinite as a synthetic assertion of distinction.





6. Axioms/proofs are only that which are accepted to deal with this indefiniteness, thus logic requires intuition as a means to contain attention on the dynamic as justifying





7. Intuition thus expands the circle of axiom=proof to axiom=proof=intuition.





8. However intuition is not universal as the axiom=proof would not have to be taught if it where such as the intuition is the meta-structure which justifies the axiom/proof through the repetition of axiom/proof dynamics in a means where they are embedded in the observer. This embedding is through attentive focus to reorient perception thus is not universal but localized.



9. In the equivocation of "axiom=proof=intuition" the intuition not being universal necessitates the axiom/proof as not universal for universality does not require directed an contained attention for justification and embedding in perspective.





10. This absence of universality necessitates a multiplicity of logics, all of which may not agree.





11. This absence of agreement in logics results in the axiom of "Logic" being obscure yet logic was used to deduce this thus logic interrelated with relative non-logics of the given logic.





12. Logic=no logic as the identity of the logic is the axiom=proof=intuition structural emergence as pure pattern. The axiom/proof dynamics is scaled onto intuition, by repetition, where the intuition scales back to align the axiom/proof it observes. In these respect logic is a multidimensional tautological dynamic that in itself is not logical.



13. The multiplicity of logics is the multiplicity of axiom=proof=intuition dynamics which is inseperable from basic assertion thus the multiplicity of logics is a subset to distinction emergence and dissolution, as the variety of logics are subject to this and are a variety because of this.





14. Multiplicity of logical structure is fragmentation of logical structure thus what remains is illogical space by which logic is derived thus equating such space to the foundations of logic itself.



15. By default logic is paradoxical and contradictory on its own terms. Any logic used to argue foundations beyond such paradox and contradiction is subject to the very same paradox and contradiction of logic itself.



16. What remains is multidimensional asserted tautological distinctions.

[Advocate]

Logic is rigorously discovered relationships that always replicate. You've inverted the map and the territory.

Also, proof is always and only sufficient evidence to convince a rational skeptic. Neither of those things is nearly as complicated as you've made then out.

[Gary Childress]

Logic as Multi-Dimensional Tautological Assertions





1. All logical systems require axioms.



2. These axioms are unproven except through the proofs in which they are used.





3. The proof justifies the axiom and the axiom justifies the proof.





4. Proof and axiom, as a tautological change, become interchangeable: a proof is an axiom and an axiom is a proof by degree of interpentrating boundaries.





5. This interchangeability, as equivocation, results in relative obscurity as it is self-referencing where the axiom is no longer the axiom and the proof is no longer the proof as both become indefinite as a synthetic assertion of distinction.





6. Axioms/proofs are only that which are accepted to deal with this indefiniteness, thus logic requires intuition as a means to contain attention on the dynamic as justifying





7. Intuition thus expands the circle of axiom=proof to axiom=proof=intuition.





8. However intuition is not universal as the axiom=proof would not have to be taught if it where such as the intuition is the meta-structure which justifies the axiom/proof through the repetition of axiom/proof dynamics in a means where they are embedded in the observer. This embedding is through attentive focus to reorient perception thus is not universal but localized.



9. In the equivocation of "axiom=proof=intuition" the intuition not being universal necessitates the axiom/proof as not universal for universality does not require directed an contained attention for justification and embedding in perspective.





10. This absence of universality necessitates a multiplicity of logics, all of which may not agree.





11. This absence of agreement in logics results in the axiom of "Logic" being obscure yet logic was used to deduce this thus logic interrelated with relative non-logics of the given logic.





12. Logic=no logic as the identity of the logic is the axiom=proof=intuition structural emergence as pure pattern. The axiom/proof dynamics is scaled onto intuition, by repetition, where the intuition scales back to align the axiom/proof it observes. In these respect logic is a multidimensional tautological dynamic that in itself is not logical.



13. The multiplicity of logics is the multiplicity of axiom=proof=intuition dynamics which is inseperable from basic assertion thus the multiplicity of logics is a subset to distinction emergence and dissolution, as the variety of logics are subject to this and are a variety because of this.





14. Multiplicity of logical structure is fragmentation of logical structure thus what remains is illogical space by which logic is derived thus equating such space to the foundations of logic itself.



15. By default logic is paradoxical and contradictory on its own terms. Any logic used to argue foundations beyond such paradox and contradiction is subject to the very same paradox and contradiction of logic itself.



16. What remains is multidimensional asserted tautological distinctions.

If logic is so problematic, then how are you going to prove that logic is problematic? What is it that you are now using to prove that logic is problematic?

[puto]

Eodnhoj7
I could write a whole paragraph on the use of logic in philosophy, since the fourth century BCE. Logic is the method and technique to arrive at truth of inference, methods, and techniques of philosophy. The classic philosophers' used deduction. The Age of Enlightenment philosophers' had used induction. What part of logical truths what you term tautological assertions, do you not understand? Do your persuasive arguments to refute others' to your favorable or unfavorable attitude toward what is denoted by the definiendum?

[Eodnhoj7]

Eodnhoj7
I could write a whole paragraph on the use of logic in philosophy, since the fourth century BCE. Logic is the method and technique to arrive at truth of inference, methods, and techniques of philosophy. The classic philosophers' used deduction. The Age of Enlightenment philosophers' had used induction. What part of logical truths what you term tautological assertions, do you not understand? Do your persuasive arguments to refute others' to your favorable or unfavorable attitude toward what is denoted by the definiendum?

You can write a whole paragraph, or even a book, on the use of logic in philosophy....if you strongly desire...but inevitably it will resort to "logic because of logic" as you will use logic, or the logic of history, to explain logic.

[Eodnhoj7]

Logic as Multi-Dimensional Tautological Assertions





1. All logical systems require axioms.



2. These axioms are unproven except through the proofs in which they are used.





3. The proof justifies the axiom and the axiom justifies the proof.





4. Proof and axiom, as a tautological change, become interchangeable: a proof is an axiom and an axiom is a proof by degree of interpentrating boundaries.





5. This interchangeability, as equivocation, results in relative obscurity as it is self-referencing where the axiom is no longer the axiom and the proof is no longer the proof as both become indefinite as a synthetic assertion of distinction.





6. Axioms/proofs are only that which are accepted to deal with this indefiniteness, thus logic requires intuition as a means to contain attention on the dynamic as justifying





7. Intuition thus expands the circle of axiom=proof to axiom=proof=intuition.





8. However intuition is not universal as the axiom=proof would not have to be taught if it where such as the intuition is the meta-structure which justifies the axiom/proof through the repetition of axiom/proof dynamics in a means where they are embedded in the observer. This embedding is through attentive focus to reorient perception thus is not universal but localized.



9. In the equivocation of "axiom=proof=intuition" the intuition not being universal necessitates the axiom/proof as not universal for universality does not require directed an contained attention for justification and embedding in perspective.





10. This absence of universality necessitates a multiplicity of logics, all of which may not agree.





11. This absence of agreement in logics results in the axiom of "Logic" being obscure yet logic was used to deduce this thus logic interrelated with relative non-logics of the given logic.





12. Logic=no logic as the identity of the logic is the axiom=proof=intuition structural emergence as pure pattern. The axiom/proof dynamics is scaled onto intuition, by repetition, where the intuition scales back to align the axiom/proof it observes. In these respect logic is a multidimensional tautological dynamic that in itself is not logical.



13. The multiplicity of logics is the multiplicity of axiom=proof=intuition dynamics which is inseperable from basic assertion thus the multiplicity of logics is a subset to distinction emergence and dissolution, as the variety of logics are subject to this and are a variety because of this.





14. Multiplicity of logical structure is fragmentation of logical structure thus what remains is illogical space by which logic is derived thus equating such space to the foundations of logic itself.



15. By default logic is paradoxical and contradictory on its own terms. Any logic used to argue foundations beyond such paradox and contradiction is subject to the very same paradox and contradiction of logic itself.



16. What remains is multidimensional asserted tautological distinctions.

If logic is so problematic, then how are you going to prove that logic is problematic? What is it that you are now using to prove that logic is problematic?

Quote where I said logic is problematic in the text.

[Gary Childress]

Logic as Multi-Dimensional Tautological Assertions





1. All logical systems require axioms.



2. These axioms are unproven except through the proofs in which they are used.





3. The proof justifies the axiom and the axiom justifies the proof.





4. Proof and axiom, as a tautological change, become interchangeable: a proof is an axiom and an axiom is a proof by degree of interpentrating boundaries.





5. This interchangeability, as equivocation, results in relative obscurity as it is self-referencing where the axiom is no longer the axiom and the proof is no longer the proof as both become indefinite as a synthetic assertion of distinction.





6. Axioms/proofs are only that which are accepted to deal with this indefiniteness, thus logic requires intuition as a means to contain attention on the dynamic as justifying





7. Intuition thus expands the circle of axiom=proof to axiom=proof=intuition.





8. However intuition is not universal as the axiom=proof would not have to be taught if it where such as the intuition is the meta-structure which justifies the axiom/proof through the repetition of axiom/proof dynamics in a means where they are embedded in the observer. This embedding is through attentive focus to reorient perception thus is not universal but localized.



9. In the equivocation of "axiom=proof=intuition" the intuition not being universal necessitates the axiom/proof as not universal for universality does not require directed an contained attention for justification and embedding in perspective.





10. This absence of universality necessitates a multiplicity of logics, all of which may not agree.





11. This absence of agreement in logics results in the axiom of "Logic" being obscure yet logic was used to deduce this thus logic interrelated with relative non-logics of the given logic.





12. Logic=no logic as the identity of the logic is the axiom=proof=intuition structural emergence as pure pattern. The axiom/proof dynamics is scaled onto intuition, by repetition, where the intuition scales back to align the axiom/proof it observes. In these respect logic is a multidimensional tautological dynamic that in itself is not logical.



13. The multiplicity of logics is the multiplicity of axiom=proof=intuition dynamics which is inseperable from basic assertion thus the multiplicity of logics is a subset to distinction emergence and dissolution, as the variety of logics are subject to this and are a variety because of this.





14. Multiplicity of logical structure is fragmentation of logical structure thus what remains is illogical space by which logic is derived thus equating such space to the foundations of logic itself.



15. By default logic is paradoxical and contradictory on its own terms. Any logic used to argue foundations beyond such paradox and contradiction is subject to the very same paradox and contradiction of logic itself.



16. What remains is multidimensional asserted tautological distinctions.

If logic is so problematic, then how are you going to prove that logic is problematic? What is it that you are now using to prove that logic is problematic?

Quote where I said logic is problematic in the text.

Fair enough. Perhaps you haven't. I stand corrected.

[puto]

Eodnhoj7
The part of logic you do not understand is arriving at truth. You are persuasive, as in your classical education of philosophy of persuasion that is your belief of truth. You believe yourself to be a genius by pointing out the obvious. Pointing, out the obvious does not make you a genius what you understand does. Anybody with any education can point out the obvious. Logic is a method to arrive at that truth. Persuasion only works when it is favorable or unfavorable to you. Socrates (c. fifth century BCE) believed that rhetoric was to reveal the truth discovering and revealing what the, "Good is." Coming, to a conclusion does involve rhetoric. Prove to me, you understand, as I believe you to be educated in the classical philosophy of persuasion as your believing.

[Eodnhoj7]

Eodnhoj7
The part of logic you do not understand is arriving at truth. You are persuasive, as in your classical education of philosophy of persuasion that is your belief of truth. You believe yourself to be a genius by pointing out the obvious. Pointing, out the obvious does not make you a genius what you understand does. Anybody with any education can point out the obvious. Logic is a method to arrive at that truth. Persuasion only works when it is favorable or unfavorable to you. Socrates (c. fifth century BCE) believed that rhetoric was to reveal the truth discovering and revealing what the, "Good is." Coming, to a conclusion does involve rhetoric. Prove to me, you understand, as I believe you to be educated in the classical philosophy of persuasion as your believing.

Prove to me your classics are a self-derived tautology of "truth because truth". If you differ, that is fine, and yet the identity of truth as "truth=truth" only reveals foundations you seek to hide.

I see no refutation of the text on your part which reveals to me the limits of your idolized classical logic.

[puto]

Eodnhoj7
I am yes attacking the person. You are a weird person. All you do is look to argue. Not in a logical sense, but just to, "Pat yourself on the back." Just don't break your arm in doing so. You just want to argue not in a philosophical sense, but to argue. You have a psychological problem.

[Eodnhoj7]

Eodnhoj7
I am yes attacking the person. You are a weird person. All you do is look to argue. Not in a logical sense, but just to, "Pat yourself on the back." Just don't break your arm in doing so. You just want to argue not in a philosophical sense, but to argue. You have a psychological problem.

You see that is the difference between me and you. I never attacked you once when we disagreed. I directed attention to the argument you provided and not at you.

So you attack? Why...well the obvious thing is that you have no ground to stand on with your logic. If you did you would be arguing logic.

But relative to arguing?

You claim such things but you where first to post:

"What part of logical truths what you term tautological assertions, do you not understand? Do your persuasive arguments to refute others' to your favorable or unfavorable attitude toward what is denoted by the definiendum?"

All I claimed, and argued, is that logic is composed of a tautological nature.

And the above was how you responded.

So you disagree. Okay.

But I see no coherent rebuttal with your disagreement. I see emotionally charged assertions. Which is fine, but contradictory if one is arguing logic.

Point exactly where in the text, provided in the op and in the context of the op, that I am refuting logic.

[puto]

Eodnhoj7, you won as that is what you wanted, not a philosophical argument.

[Skepdick]

The part of logic you do not understand is arriving at truth.

It’s 2026. How can anyone still believe this?!?

What do you depart with to arrive at truth? Logic promises validity, never soundness. You can’t arrive at more truth than you started with.

Logic is truth-preserving not truth-producing. Garbage in - garbage out.

[Eodnhoj7]

Eodnhoj7, you won as that is what you wanted, not a philosophical argument.

There was no competition. You started from the beginning arguing and all I did was respond.

But if you feel the need to protect your logic from being revealed as multi-dimensional tautological assertions....than by all means feel free to do so.

Go on, claim what you are so convinced about.

[Eodnhoj7]

The part of logic you do not understand is arriving at truth.

It’s 2026. How can anyone still believe this?!?

What do you depart with to arrive at truth? Logic promises validity, never soundness. You can’t arrive at more truth than you started with.

Logic is truth-preserving not truth-producing. Garbage in - garbage out.

I would not be as generous as you are, this is given the same logic they claim is true is the same logic that argue to derive truth thus logic is effectively deriving itself as nested assumptions within assumptions.

Logic is self-embedding assumptions.

It is an ourobos of the psyche.