The Material and the Medial
The question of what counts as 'matter' has been somewhat confusing of late. At a naive level it's often just associated with 'stuff' - the tangible and palpable, composed by atoms and somesuch. But the probing of matter has often left us with, ironically, the immaterial: voids and fields, things that seem to slip away from any intuitive sense of the 'hardness' and 'roughness' of matter. So here's one way I like to think about the material in a way that might hopefully bypass some of the issues involved here: the material as the medial, or as media.
The medial is the middle. It is what belongs 'in between': from the Greek metaxy, which Plato spoke of as the place between Gods and mortals, and which today commonly designates means of information transmission: the newspaper, the internet, the book: species of media. In this sense, one can say that a basic definition of materialism might be the insistence upon the irreducibility of the medial: the fact that nothing takes place without being shaped and conditioned by the media in (and by) which it occurs.
To understand this, it helps to reflect on it's opposite: the im-mediate. The immediate has both temporal and spatial connotations - for something to happen 'immediately' is for it to take no time, to encounter no resistance or friction which would cause delay. One also speaks of the immediacy of place, an instantaneity, where, to take a sci-fi example, one would be able to teleport from one place to another without having to traverse the space in-between. To insist on the mediality of all things is to insist that all immidiacy must nonetheless be subject to a minimal medicacy: there is always the traction of time and space, the recalcitrance of matter to have to deal with (the Heraclitian maxim on nature's elusiveness must be read as a materialist maxim par excellence: 'Nature loves to hide').
To understand matter as medium though, also requires a rethinking of the nature of mediality itself. Although 'mediums' are often understood as a kind of epiphenomenon, a kind of cloth by which the 'real thing' is wrapped up in (the TV as a medium for its content), media studies since McLuhan have long recognized that 'the medium is the message': media has its own substantiality and being, in a way that doesn't just transparently 'facilitate' the passage of things, but in a deep and important way, shapes and defines the very nature of what it is that is being communicated. In a word then, the materialist insists that the world is medial through and through: everything that is, has a density recalcitrant to all ideal(ized) first principles (arche) and immedial fantasies (God being among them).
To pervert Aristotle: the accidental is the essential (and the essential is the accidental).
The medial is the middle. It is what belongs 'in between': from the Greek metaxy, which Plato spoke of as the place between Gods and mortals, and which today commonly designates means of information transmission: the newspaper, the internet, the book: species of media. In this sense, one can say that a basic definition of materialism might be the insistence upon the irreducibility of the medial: the fact that nothing takes place without being shaped and conditioned by the media in (and by) which it occurs.
To understand this, it helps to reflect on it's opposite: the im-mediate. The immediate has both temporal and spatial connotations - for something to happen 'immediately' is for it to take no time, to encounter no resistance or friction which would cause delay. One also speaks of the immediacy of place, an instantaneity, where, to take a sci-fi example, one would be able to teleport from one place to another without having to traverse the space in-between. To insist on the mediality of all things is to insist that all immidiacy must nonetheless be subject to a minimal medicacy: there is always the traction of time and space, the recalcitrance of matter to have to deal with (the Heraclitian maxim on nature's elusiveness must be read as a materialist maxim par excellence: 'Nature loves to hide').
To understand matter as medium though, also requires a rethinking of the nature of mediality itself. Although 'mediums' are often understood as a kind of epiphenomenon, a kind of cloth by which the 'real thing' is wrapped up in (the TV as a medium for its content), media studies since McLuhan have long recognized that 'the medium is the message': media has its own substantiality and being, in a way that doesn't just transparently 'facilitate' the passage of things, but in a deep and important way, shapes and defines the very nature of what it is that is being communicated. In a word then, the materialist insists that the world is medial through and through: everything that is, has a density recalcitrant to all ideal(ized) first principles (arche) and immedial fantasies (God being among them).
To pervert Aristotle: the accidental is the essential (and the essential is the accidental).
Comments (320)
First principle: all that is real to me, is within my mind.
Second principle: I communicate with others, and am forced to conclude that there are others in the same situation as me, with realities inside their minds. Therefore there is a multiplicity of realities.
Third principle: There is a separation between my mind and the minds of others which creates the multiplicity, and this is the medium of material existence.
We proceed now with science and logic to model the medium, to figure out this separation.
Hmm, this is not quite what I had in mind. A biological example maybe: genes were once thought to be something like blueprints from living organisms. DNA -> Organism. As if a recipe. But more and more, we've come to understand that there's a whole bunch of medial process that work between gene and organism (transcription, translation, protein folding structures and their regulation, feedback loops of all sorts, and lots more) all of which contribute non-trivially to the process of gene expression. In every case, the 'mediums' through which genes are expressed lend their wight of materiality to the process. Bodies are not just hereditary vessels and carriers for genes and their abstract, symbolic code: the fleshly, palpable, damp body plays a irrepressible role in its own unfolding. And not just incidentally, but essentially.
Or, moving one level up, evolution itself works not merely on a genotype, but on a the whole developmental system (roughly: organism + environment) which supports and non-trivially plays a role in the evolution of a species. With the advent of 'evo-devo' approaches to evolution, the entire developmental context of evolution must be taken into account, and the environment cannot be reduced to a mere holding-chamber in which evolution takes place unaltered by the constitution of that very environment. Again, it's the principle of the irreducibility of the medium that is exemplified here im both examples.
Or, moving yet another level up, the internet was once touted as a democratic, 'flattened' space where all would get to have their say, and everyone would be able to participate equally and freely. But this didn't pay attention to the specificities of the kind of medium the internet is, which lends itself better to quick, eye-baiting moments of interaction (Twitter, 'comment sections', and 3-10 minute videos are precisely geared to the kind of medium the internet is), which has led the internet to become the widely stratified, uneven network that it is. Elsewhere, there have been arguments made to the effect that it was the postal system that enabled literature to flourish as it did in the 17th century: the medium of transmission being central to it's development.
Or, in the realm of political theory, the last few years have seen a backlash against conceptions of politics that do not take into account uneven relations of powers across societies (I have in mind Rawls in particular), which do not take into account the medial nature of how politics works (with varying roles played by different institutions, different distributions of money and wealth, access to infrastructure and information, etc etc). One could speak of a difference between an idealist and materialist approach to political theory.
Anyway, those are just four (three?) examples that come to mind. The list could be expanded indefinitely.
However, I think that the contrast you are drawing is rather between more and less abstract levels of explanation. Abstraction removes detail, and detail is where your "materiality" is. The more abstract an explanation, the more immaterial it seems, as it were, its ontology consisting of made-up concepts like "genes" and "networks," instead of familiar, immediately perceptible "stuff."
Yeah, this would definately be another instance of what I'm referring to.
Quoting SophistiCat
This is not a bad way to put it, although I might quibble a bit with 'perceptibiltiy'. That aside, it leads very nicely into Whitehead's dictum that 'the abstract does not explain, but must itself be explained'. Yet another way to look at it is as an anti-hylomorphic stance. Contrary to hylomorphic schemas according to which intelligible form (morphe) descends from on high onto dumb, passive matter (hyle) in order to account for individuation, a materialism is one in which matter itself has powers of individuation, or powers of activity proper to itself. It's a denial of the need - or efficacy - of any abstract, God-descendent animating spirits to account for the richness of the world. Matter as self-in-form-ing, immanent only to itself.
Its a question of returning to matter its own autonomy and independence, while at the same time insisting upon its irreducibility.
Matter behaves. This fuzzy language leads to all kinds of confusion, including the idea of emergence, and ideas of mind.
Of course it does. (Scientific) explanation is nothing other than abstracting a general rule/regularity/model out of concrete material instances. All explanations are abstractions - including those that you hold up as examples of the triumph of materialism. Rather than these fleshier theories being a case of us getting wise to the materiality of the world, they are simply the result of more mature, more elaborate theorizing, which, while still being abstract (as all theories are, by definition), can afford to incorporate more detail.
As for the question of whether these abstract forms are immanent or transcendent, whether matter possesses its own powers or is animated from without, I am not even convinced that this is something worth asking. In any case, this rarefied metaphysical debate gains no purchase in empirical sciences.
Seems to be a more elaborate version of my comment above ;). Nice post.
While I'd like to think that yes, materialism does entail more mature, more elaborate theorizing than the various idealisms which it arrays itself against, I think you're vastly understating the influence and pervasiveness of the latter. If one accepts materialism in the sense outlined here, people like Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg become nothing other than arch-Idealists; searches for reductive 'theories of everything', where all the universe follows from a small handful of first principles, turn out to be idealist desiderata par excellence. To say that these debates have no purchase in the sciences is just to leave implicit and untheorized attitudes which pervade them through and through, ones which determine the direction of research projects along with the very questions asked ay the outset.
From this perspective its no surprise that the completion of the Human Genome Project - for instance - left scientists incredibly underwhelemed regarding its results. And that the concerns there have hardly affected the billions of research dollars being poured into the current Human Brain Project, which will undoutably be of equal a massive disappointment to everyone, everywhere. To think these questions are irrelavent is naivety, and a willful and damaging one at that.
I read @SophistiCat to be saying, even your seemingly matieralistic-oriented notions are idealist in a way- just a more sophisticated version. As he said here:
Quoting SophistiCat
I can't speak for SophistiCat, but I don't think he was necessarily equating abstraction with idealism per se. Rather, he was pointing to the fact that "true" materialism would have as little abstraction as possible, as it would merely be the "stuff" at the basis of the discussion. Thus, it can be said that concepts like "genes", "networks," and the like (which I presume you take as central to your position in regards to how material organizes itself and emerges) would even be going a step too far.
We'll see. This would be very silly though.
Actually no, it would be a valid critique of the inability of materialist conceptions to get to the heart of materialism.
True it is not fully elaborated, and I can only speculate for his elaboration, but I think the premise is a strong starting point. Here we are, constantly the Aristotleans, labeling material into elaborate forms. In this particular thread, you say, Quoting StreetlightX
Well, here we are again, idealizing matter into all sorts of superstructures- this time it is the information as material. We do everything we can to get away from the material of the material- networks, information, organization, etc. The material itself gets lost in these abstractions of what is the case. You have already crossed the boundary into meaning but have not explained the content. Emergence is put in the picture, yet the material is lost. Emergence is gotten through fiat, and the term "information" is its spooky crutch that magically lets the "materialist" theorizer to get from point the substrate to the emergent scenario with ease. This is what I meant when I said "matter behaves", as it is the start of all this fiat. Matter is matter is matter. Matter doesn't matter to matter. As soon as you start abstracting from that, you have already put something other than matter in the equation.
This is just warmed over mysterian trash. Not worth engaging.
Typical response fromsomeone who doesn't have a good answer. If you had something interesting to say you would not need to resort to these tools of rhetoric. But instead you hide behind the shroud of superiority you want to project on this forum.
C'mon. Because I said "matter is matter is matter"? You realize that was to point to the idea that to assert emergence and information, is to already put something other than the material in the picture. It's almost an illegal move, if you will. Sure it seems to be the case that things are emerging into hierarchical structures that then influence the bottom structures, let's say, but then what are these formal structures themselves but abstractions of the matter? These are placeholder concepts, abstractions, for what the matter itself is or is doing.
You are good at the rhetorical devices. This is just handwaving and parsing of terms so you don't have to deal with the central issue. No, you didn't say emergence and technically only mentioned the term information once. However, these type of concepts are central to what you are discussing. For example, you mention the idea of "being shaped by and conditioned by the media in (and by) which it occurs." You also mentioned "immediacy of transmission". This is very much in the realm of information. The information is shaped by its materiality. You also discuss "transversing" and "passage of things". Sure this can be strictly material substrate, but words like transmission, media, passage of things, and transversing strongly hint at a kind of theory of information via the emergence from material substrate. Form created through material. Yet, the form can become magically "information" on its own, which is the illegal move I describe.
If you're OP wasn't even about information and simply that matter shapes things.. then it wasn't worth commenting on anyways. My original point was that abstractions from the "matter" at hand in materialism are removed from the heart of materialism as to what is going on, which is the material itself. Excuse me for seeing a thread-line in your threads. I won't attempt to connect your ideas together, no matter how adjacent. Perhaps you do not have coherent ideas from thread to thread. You discuss many abstractions such as networks, forms, and the like in threads like these: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2235/networks-evolution-and-the-question-of-life/p1 https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3293/intelligence-abstraction-and-monkeys/p1 https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3208/non-organic-evolution-sub-specie-evolutionis/p1
No, the OP was not about information, which it barely spoke about - very perceptive of you.
In the philosophical of epistemology the order will have to be what do the people know?
what is knowledge? or what is THE knowledge and last is How is the knowledge acquired?
Quoting StreetlightX
This is a good read Immanuel Kant also argued about space and time but his view was of geometric
patterns His readings are not very clear but I can see what he is really forming
Quoting StreetlightX
Actually schopenhauer1 is right here. StreetlightX assigns to matter the capacity to act, (behave), and this is what is contrary to the pure concept of matter as passive, and is a display of classical mysticism.
If we proceed in Streetlight's vein of mysticism, we ought to assign to the behaviour of matter the adverb of "evil". That is what this line of thinking leads to, the notion that the activity of matter, by its very nature, is evil, and this activity must be brought under the control of the mind which seeks the good.
things likes "the sky are happy" dont atract me.
Good Luck!
Idealism is in the shadows only because the OP is using ancient idealistic language: Matter as the grand companion of Form. Add some phenomenology to it, and it becomes respectable philosophy, except for the part where we try to say that matter as medium is all there is, that doesn't make sense. Better to think of it as a yin/yang situation.
Physics basically is an attempt to describe the behavior of the material world. Various forms of energy are part of the material world (which, per Chomsky, means that materialism can't be identical to physicalism).
I don't see the problem with matter as medium. All that separates two points, space, time, physical existence, can all be rolled into the concept "matter". It only becomes a problem under a monist guise, because those non-dimensional points which are separated by matter must be given some real existence, as other than matter, otherwise "medium' has no meaning here. So, to say the medium is "all there is" is really contradictory, because "medium" implies the middle, between that which is not the medium.
In my view, that part is a mistake. Insofar as It's the case that physics sees such things as somehow fundamental, it's an upshot of the instrumental, mathematical approach to physics. That's fine insofar as it goes--basically as an instrumental, practical approach to making predictions, but it shouldn't be taken literally as ontology.
Media and form are two sides of one coin. I'm not sure about matter separating non-dimensional points. I've never heard of that.
It's only a suggestion of how one could try to conceive of matter as a medium, and also as "all there is". However, the problem I described remains, how to account for those non-dimensional points, with matter remaining as all there is. And without those points, matter is not a "medium".
One of the big issues with any metaphysical ism, material or otherwise is how it handles emergence.
You’re stretching to make materialism the messiness it rightly is, which I’ll give you. Perhaps I was too harsh on my assessment of abstraction. But it could be said that even the messy ecological view that pervades your materialism, can be said to be even too “formal” (in the literal sense). Of course then it remains to be said whether the thing at hand can be discussed intelligently without these abstractions. This is probably your basis for calling my claim “mysterian”. The fact remains that it is a line of reasoning to be explored as the point is that material is itself before it is the abstracted concepts applied after the fact.
To understand "matter", not necessarily limited physics specifically, is to understand not just the nature of our reality, and the inherent problems it curtails, but society itself.
To equate matter as a medium, or center point of origin, leaves us with a necessary understanding of point space being the foundation of any concept of the atom.
If we look at the atom, as strictly a part which is composed of and composes further parts, as evidenced by physics (with fields taking on the same nature due to their existence and relation to further fields) we are reduced to point space.
Take an atom, or part, observe it from a distance and it is reduced to a point. Look at the atom closer and we see it, due to its curvature/angulature, it is composed of further atoms/parts that effectively equate to point space. Look at these atoms/parts closer and the point space continues.
What we understand of the atomist perspective is continual point space as the foundation for not just the atom but relativistivally is the atom as well. Where atoms are composing/composed of further atoms, points exist in the same function and manner.
One point inverts to many and many invert to one, with the point and atom simply being a median of inversion or change through which movement occurs. The point/atom as composed of and composing further points necessitate a relativistic nature of a field where the point composed of further point effectively acts as a boundless field or void conducive to a 0d point.
The point/field acts as a means of inversion between a unity/multiplicity which is the foundation for all phenomenon.
0d Point space would give logical foundation to dark matter, black holes, but elements of the human psyche that exists through this material medium; hence a far reaching effect occurs that gives a hopeful notion of unity within the sciences.
However the 0d point, or void conducive to the presocratic notion of the apeirion, as nothingness necessitates a form of relation as nothingness cannot be observed on its own terms except relative to being. The 0d point/darkmatter/blackholes/void is the foundation of relativity in these regards considering as "inversive" it is nothing or "mass" on its own terms which cannot be observed without contradiction.
As inversive of being, 0d point space exists as a dual to being with being being necessitated through directed movement requiring an "inversion of inversion" as an ethereal point space. This ethereal point space, as pure infinite movement as unchanging can be equated to not just a foundational glue to being (reminiscent of the Hindu akashic record) but being itself through a 1d point.
The 0d point effectively inverts the 1d point to many points, with the 1d point existing as one point considering void is nothing (which takes into account relativity and quantum connection simultaneously) and what exists as 1 through many is effectively the same. A point in locality A is still the same point in locality B considering the composition of both points is still composed of the same points and existing within a singular point field.
And I will cut it off here to keep it short.
If one is to speak in terms of "emergence", then the first order would be to determine what emerges, and what does it emerge from. The different "isms" might treat these fundamental principles differently, so that talking "emergence" without first determining these principles might be very confusing.
Quoting eodnhoj7
How could there be a 1d point? Wouldn't that be a line, and therefore a multitude of points marking a specific order? And if the point, instead of being 0d is infinitesimally small, without that specific order, then it occupies a 3d area, not a 1d point, though it may be ordered as a sphere or something else. So it cannot be correct to represent the emergence of being with a 1d point.
I am not really seeing the opposition that you are setting up here. I can understand you pitting reductionist physicalism against non-reductionist physicalism, but that's a different debate. What does this have to do with the question of matter?
You were talking about "the principle of the irreducibility of the medium," but what your examples suggested was that all you wanted was for your reductive explanations to incorporate more of the underlying messy details. Which is fine; as I said, this is the trajectory that sciences take anyway as they explore their domains in-depth. But there is also a place for big-picture, high-concept theorizing of the likes of Dawkins and Gould - and Darwin for that matter.
It is a key feature of our world that regularities emerge at multiple levels of detail. The picture does not dissolve into noise as we step back and take it in at a larger scale; instead, new patterns come into focus as we scale up or down. This is why we have multiple sciences, all of them more-or-less viable as empirical models. And even within one science, such as evolutionary biology, we can grasp general outlines of a theory, even if they are not exceptionless and do not afford a very precise fit. How else could Darwin have made his great discovery without the benefit of genetics and molecular biology and evo-devo, if the patterns that he noticed were not there to be seen with a naked eye?
For that matter, how could we ever have any "special sciences," anything other than what we call "fundamental physics" if we could not idealize the medium, neglect and smooth out messy details - and still end up with an acceptably accurate model? How could there be evolutionary biology if we could not (mostly) ignore the medium of chemistry and physics? How could we have so much success with the Big Bang theory if we could not ignore the medium of stars and pretty much everything else and idealize it as a perfect fluid?
Besides, what is medium at one level is the nuts and bolts at another, more fine-grained level. You acknowledge this yourself when you pick examples from different sciences that look at the world at different levels of detail. So where exactly is that medium that you are talking about? What is it?
Yes and No.
The point projecting to a point as point results in a 1d point. For example if projected in one direction it becomes a 1 directional line. The one directional line project in all directions in one direction becomes the circle. The nature of the point is defined by its projection in one direction, in both cases.
So point A projecting to point B Results in this extradimensional nature.
Point B projecting to point A Results in this same extradimensional nature.
Point A to Point B and Point B to point A shows a from of alternation in time where The line changes directions through a form of repetition. Now this repitition is dependent upon the point as extradimensional.
If point A and Point B are directed towards eachother simultaneously, with this alternation occurring at a rate of infinity the line takes one an intradimensional nature through the points. It is not a two directional line, as this would require the two directional line to extend from a center point of 0 (like the number line) and the issues of alternation continues.
So A and B are directed towards eachother simultaneously and the line acts as a connector between the points, where prior the projection shows the point moving away from the point resulting in the line. The point moving towards the point, as a point, connected through the line:
1) observes the point existing through Points as 1 pure direction. The point exists through the point as point and exists on its own terms.
2) The multiple points, connected through the line, as 1 point observes the 1 unified point being observed through multiplicity as an approximation of it. This cannot occur for the 0d point as it is strictly void. The 1d point would be pure being. This line, as a connector, does not have any directional qualities in itself except through the point being directed towards itself as itself; hence the line as absent of direction takes an -1 dimensional nature.
3. The 0d point as nothing inverts completely to everything as 1d pure movement.
The 1d line as directional inverts to the -1d line as negative directional. The 1d line does not invert back to the 0d point specifically because the 1d line is not pure direction. It's extradimensional nature, projecting away from itself, necessitates a dual intradimensional counterpart. Projecting away from origin and project too origin are inversive duals. Hence the intradimensional line, as negative dimensional, exists as the points moving towards eachother as point.
The 1d line, as projective/extradimensional, exists as a dual to the -1d line as non-projective/intradimensional.
The circle, composed of infinite -1d lines, observes infinite points existing through 1 point as a point.
I think there's a misunderstanding here: I'm not against 'big picture claims' (Gould is wonderful, as is Darwin!), and I invoked Weinberg and Dawkins not as avatars of 'big picture thinking' but because the specific ways in which they theorize the 'big picture' are severely misguided. Each, in their own way, attempts to assign full explanatory power (in physics and biology respectively) to a privileged ontological stratum so that certain parts of reality are simply reduced to epiphenomena that have no material agency.
That's the point: I'm not at all trying to furnish a 'non-reductionism physicalism' - whatever that might mean - but rather, give full 'ontological rights', if we can speak that way, to all of what is often simply dismissed as medial. The equation of the material with the medial isn't meant to reduce the medial to the material. Quite the opposite: it is meant to expand our understanding of what counts as material. So to these kinds of questions:
I want to answer: precisely because - and not in spite of - the fact that the material is not exhausted by chemistry and physics, nor by the stars. Recall again the etymology of media: the state of being-in-the-middle; the point is to rethink materialism not as origin (arche) or as fundament, but as being-in-the-middle of things. Or better yet, the idea is to rethink what it means to be fundamental, where what is fundamental is precisely all that is often thought of as 'accidental' (hence the inversion of Aristotle I briefly invoked at in the OP). Your questions seem to make it as though I disagree with you on the reality of 'larger scales', as it were. But this is just the opposite of what I'm attempting.
No. no. this is all wrong. Producing 1d lines in all directions from a point will never make a circle. That's very obvious. A circle requires that the lines from the point are all the same length, and are connected with a curved line. Where does the necessary curved line come from? That curved line, which connects through the medium between the individual straight lines, is essential. Likewise, a point projected to another point does not make a 1d line segment. The line segment requires a connection through the medium, between the points. That's why people say, no matter how many 0d points you put together, they will never make a line, because you cannot get to 1d from 0d in that way.
Your analogies are leaving out a very important point, the connection through the medium. You cannot get "intradimensional nature", from the 0d point, in this way, because there is a fundamental incompatibility between 0d and 1d, which we might call the medium. The same incompatibility is what gives us the irrational ratios between 1d and 2d. The two perpendicular sides of a square, representing two distinct dimensions produce an irrational ratio. The ratio between the diameter of a circle, and its circumference, being the relation between a 1d line, and a 2d curve, is also irrational. The medium, that which lies between the dimensions, is fundamentally unintelligible to us, because we understand space in terms of dimensions. So whatever it is which separates the dimensions ( and there necessarily is a separation according to the incompatibility described above), the medium, is fundamentally unintelligible, because it lies outside of our understanding (between the dimensions).
Point 8 specifically deals with the nature of the line and 0d point.
Point 11 observes the interdimensional nature of the 1d point and the paradox of the 0d point and 1d point.
1) Pi is the foundation for the circle as infinite lines stemming from a center point, for Pi can be measured from infinite positions within the same circle. Pi as a line, varies in length with the circle however is always the same measurement. The line always exists as one directional and 3.14159.
2) The circumference of a circle as infinite points stemming from a center point, observes the circumference being formed from that center point being infinite lines. The circle as composed of a curved line, with the line being composed of infinite points, still necessitates this definition. However this leads to point 3:
3) The radian, as a curved line which gives the premise of the circle being formed from a curved line, is founded in Pi as a straight line. The line projects to another line of the same length, which exists at 90 degrees to the original line and is curved to the circumference to produce and angle of 57.3 degrees. Considering the radian is premise in an angle, and the angle can be applied in infinite variations within the circle, the circle is composed of infinite lines.
4)All straight lines are Pi and give the foundation of not just the circle as infinite lines, considering Pi can be held in infinite positions within the same circle, but with the circle as a constant infinite lengths of Pi as well with Pi existing as a line. The line is both 1 directional and 3.14159...
5) The circle, through infinite Pi's observes the circle composed of infinite angles with these angles equivalent to degrees as a number much less than one approaching 0. The angle as a degree of "much less than one approaching zero" observes the angle being equivalent to the line where all lines are angles of quantum degrees.
6) The line as a quantum angle, observes the width (not length) of the line as perpetually approaching point zero and hence is sizeless. The circumference of the circle as infinite points, which is still necessitated by a curved line defintion which further necessitates the infinite angles observed in point 3, observes these points connected to the center point of the circle and hence infinite lines.
7) The curved line, as infinite points, can be observed as composed of infinite straight lines forming infinite angles.
8) The line is the projection of a point in one direction, where the 0d point as formless exists as a directive quality. The line takes the nature of directed movement being the foundation of all limits, considering the Pi nature of each line necessitates the line not being infinite but perpetually changing hence moving. The 0d point is strictly void or nothing, hence is given form by direction and movment where direction and movment is the foundation of all limits.
So a line between two points observes the alternation between being and nonbeing (void) where void (0d point) as the inversion of being (where being exists if and only if there is directed movement) into multiple being as multiple lines.
9) To observe the line as a connector between points is to observe the line as non directional. The line as directional observe a projection of one point away from its origins resulting in multiple points. However if the line connects the points, it necessitates that through the line the points are directed towards eachother simultaneously and the line becomes non directional considering the points are directed towards eachother through eachother as eachother. The line is absent of directional qualities (negative dimensional) and the point exists pure direction through itself as itself as 1d.
10)Where one line may be infinitely smaller than another line, where relativistically it may equate to a point, each line observed as a line between two point only is still the same infinite line between two points where size is merely a relation between the lines as a relation between multiple infinities. All lines as Pi are infinite.
11) The 1d point as pure being, pure direction, existing through eachother as eachother observes the 1d point as existing through infinite points as an infinite point. The 0d point acts as an inverter of unity/multiplicity and is not anything other than an observation of relation where the 1d point can only be observed in multiples. The 1d point as direction through itself, by its inherent negative dimensional connection, observes this multiplicity by its inversion through the 0d point point. The negative dimensional line in turn is composed of infinite 1d points.
Being appears in a fractured statement when viewed through 0d point space (void) as a veil equivalent to darkness.
The 1d line is an inversion of the negative dimensional line into a line of direction.
However the 1d line cannot connect points because of its one directional nature necessitates a projective nature of point away from point, hence the 1d point cannot project away from itself (as it exists through itself as itself) therefore it must be the 0d point. The 0d point cannot only project past itself by inverting through itself into a 1d nature of the line.
Void must be void of itself, so the 1d line observes the void of void or the 0d point dividing itself as infinity through the line. This 1d line is an inversion of the of both the 0d point through 0d point (or an inversion of inversion) and the -1 dimensional line.
Now the 0d point as nothing, necessitating it as inversive considering it is nothing in itself, inverts itself into the 1d line as a 1 directional unit considering the line is a unit. All units exists through further units as the projective nature of the line occurs if and only if there is somewhere to project to...This necessitates further units. We can see this with the degree existing in relation to further degrees.
The 0d point cancels itself out to units as multiplicity, but also Unity as pure directed movement. Nothing cancels itself out into pure being. However considering this 1d point, as the inversion of inversion, still occurs through the 0d point as an inverter, the 1d point is observed as multiple points existing through eachother as the -1d line. The 0d point, by inverting the 1d point into multiple connected points (still existing as one) inverts the -1d line (as absent of direction in itself resulted from the 1d point observed in multiple position) into 1 directional and seperative.
***will continue.
View it this way:
1 is a function through the line, hence 1 is a equivalent to a process of directed movement where the line and 1 are the same through Pi.
All fractals are composed of further fractals as evidence by Pi.
1) Pi is: the symbol ? denoting the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter
b : the ratio itself : a transcendental number having a value rounded to eight decimal places of 3.14159265
http://www.bing.com/search?q=Pi+definit ... 1B982EA403
2) Pi is a line between two points that exists from the center point of the circle to the circumference. All lines in turn exists as center points of a circle towards is circumference where all lines exist as the ratio of Pi as 3.14159...
3) The line as composed of infinite points is composed of infinite lines, hence the line is composed of infinite circles as all lines exist as Pi.
4) The line is composed as infinite circles projecting, hence the line is equivalent not just to infinite points but infinite quantum circles as well.
5) Each line, as composed of infinite further lines, is composed of infinite "pi's" where the line as Pi is composed of further Pi's. Hence Pi is divided by an infinite number of Pi being divided by Pi. All functions exists through further functions as 1 function, hence 1 is equivalent to a function that is a continuum. 1 is a continuous function.
Hence Pi dividing itself observes Pi as its own function of self-division conducive to 1 through the line where 1 is Pi as a function of perpetual self division.
f(x)= 3.14159?(x??)
............f(x)= (3.14159?(x??) =1
................f(x)= (3.14159?(x??)
.........................f(x)=...
or
f(x)= (3.14159?(x??))/( f(x)= (3.14159?(x??))/(f(x)= (3.14159?(x??))/…)) = 1
X= a continuous series to infinity where the counting of Pi has stop. X= the limit of Pi as a finite rounded number.
Hence “x = all number with all number equivalent to 1.”
Pi is not a line, it is the relation between two measurements. As it is an irrational ratio, we can conclude that the two measurements are actually incommensurable.
1. The radius is the center point of the circle to its circumference.
2. Dividing the circumference by pi results in the diameter
3. It would be equivalent to me saying c/3.141... = d.
4. The radius is half of the diameter.
5. Each radius in itself is a diameter, of another circle.
6. Now if I divide the circumference by Pi, like I said before, I get the diameter.
7. If I multiply the diameter by Pi, I get the circumference.
8. Pi results in both diameter and circumference base upon its relation to each respectively.
9. Now the diameter and circumferance are based upon relative units of measurement (cm, inches, feet, whatever) with these units of measurement being lengths. One length is merely a ratio of the number of time one line fits in or contains another line.
10. The division of circumference by pi, resulting in diameter, observes the circumference as a length being divided by pi into another length of diameter. The diameter, as a length, is multiplied by pi into another length equating to circumference.
11. Pi respectively multiplies/divides lengths into further lengths.
As the mutiplication/division of a length requires another length, Pi is a constant length of a line as regardless of the size of a line relative to another line, a line is always a line.
So I may multiply a 1 line 3 times and get 3 lines as 1 line which is 3 times larger than the original. So in multiplying the original line I fundamentally divided it it 1/3 of a line.
I may divided 1 line into three 1/3 lines. In dividing the line I multiply the original line into being three times larger than the new lines, while multiplying the number of lines.
Regardless of whether the line is multiplied/divided, it stays as a line.
Now considering the line of x is multiplied/divided, in accords with itself, where the line effectively folds inwards (through division) into fraction of itself, or folds outwards (through multiplication) the line is the constant standard for the ratios.
12. For the line to multiply by 3.141... would require the line to contain a set number of ratios in it as other lines in one respect with the number of these ratios existing as one in itself. So I may have a diameter of x, multiply it by pi, and get circumference y, however this new measurement is still one length composed of a specific number of ratios. What changes is the number of lines the line is composed of, as a line is still a line on its own terms.
Therefore in another respect 1 constant line, multiplied by 3.141 would cause a line of length 3.141.
With the original line as 1/Pi of the new line where pi as a length divides the one line into many.
In these respects each line, as a unit defined by its directional qualities is both 1 and Pi and Pi and 1. Pi is a unit of length as one is a unit of length, with both being continuous. All lines as 1 unit of length observes Pi as a unit of length.
No. Pi is not itself a length. It is the number that a length is divided, or multiplied by. The length of the diameter is multiplied by 3.14... to give the length of of the circumference. But 3.14... is not itself a length, it represents a ratio, a relationship between the circumference and diameter which is constant for any circle. You can know that Pi is not a length because it's always the same number no matter what size the circle is.
A ratio is the number of times one phenomena fits in another, in these respects we can use a line.
Pi = c/d.
The diameter fits into the circumference 3.141... times; Hence a diameter of one observes a circumference of 3.141... .
The diameter is a determined ratio of parts. To say it is x units, with each unit being composed of further units to infinity, observes the diameter as 1 length composed of x units. However as one length, determined by the number of units composing it, with the number of units further composing it resulting in not just infinite units but a number of units approaching infinity, the diameter can be observed as 1 unit as one 1d line.
The diameter as one fitting into the circumference 3.141... times observes the circumferance as 3.141...
The circumferance, as a length of 3.141, when unraveled, observes a line in itself that is equivalent to a diameter for one circle, with the diameter being a relative radius of another circle.
So a diameter of Pi results in a circle with a circumference of 9.8696
And a radius of Pi results in a circle with a circumferance of 19.739.
In these respects the diameter of 1 results in a circumferance of Pi, hence a line equivalent to Pi where Pi becomes a length.
So the circle fundamentally observes three lengths:
Radius as 1/2 Diameter as 1 line
Diameter as 2 radius as 1 line.
Circumferance as 1 Pi as one line.
So while pi = c/d or c/2r we are left with the circumferance being pi if the diameter is one infinity and the radius is 2 infinities as one infinite.
The circumferance in turn equates to a length which can be applied as both diameter and radius considering both are lengths.
Pi is a length, not just a ratio and alternates with 1 as the foundation of length.
All lines are equivalent to Pi just as all lines are equivalent to one in themselves.
Each line is one line, as an identified thing, a line. But a line is not the number one. Nor is the number one a line, except as a numeral, you might make a line to signify the number one.
Quoting eodnhoj7
"Line" has no such definition, which would allow you to say that a ratio is a line.
Quoting eodnhoj7
This assumption is itself problematic. You cannot "unravel" the circumference of a circle. If you took the circumference and made it into a straight line, it would no longer be the circumference of the circle, it would be a straight line. This is why PI has an issue, which makes it irrational, it assumes that a curved line (2d) can be measured as a straight line (1d), as if the circumference of a circle were like a string, which could be cut and laid out in a straight line.
In reality though, a curved line is necessarily two dimensional while a straight line is one dimensional. And, there is an incommensurability between two dimensions, expressed by the irrational ratio between two perpendicular side of a square, which indicates that a two dimensional line, the curved line of a circumference, is fundamentally not a measurable as a straight line. The curved "line" of a circle is fundamentally irrational, and not a "line" at all, because it requires (or assumes as a premise) that the irrational ratio between two dimensions has been resolved, and that a two dimensional line is measurable in the same manner as a one dimensional line. But this is clearly false, the nature of the relationship between two dimension has not between understood, and therefore not resolved.
Quoting eodnhoj7
To say that a line may have a length which is equivalent to pi, is not to say that pi is a length. It is actually nonsense. It is nonsense because pi has no units of measurement, metres, or centimetres, it is just a value for the "number of times" the diameter goes into the circumference. So to say that a line has the length of pi is nonsense, because no unit of measurement has been specified. And, if a unit of measurement were indicated, we must respect the unresolved (irrational) nature of pi, which would indicate that the exact number of units, or exact length of the line is really undeterminable. This is due to the incommensurability of one dimension in relation to another. A curved line cannot be measured as a straight line.
Quoting eodnhoj7
Nonsense. "Pi" is unresolved, irrational, while "one" is resolved, rational. Therefore there is a fundamental difference between "one" and "pi". To say that there is one unit which has the length of pi, is nonsense because it would render your unit as undeterminable. That's fundamentally contradictory, to determine an undeterminable unit of measurement.
What I would call reductive physicalism envisions a unique (but so far only hypothetical) Theory of Everything, usually identified with fundamental physics, that fixes everything in existence. All other theories and explanations, from chemistry to psychology, at best supervene on and approximate this TOE. The TOE thus has a unique status. Its ontology is the only true ontology, and its causality is the only true causality - everything else being illusory and epiphenomenal. With some variations, this is a pretty popular view among physical scientists (especially physicists, natch) and scientifically-minded laymen.
Those who reject this view, but still adhere to a broadly empiricist epistemology, which moreover does not privilege mental phenomena in its explanatory scheme, often stake their position as non-reductive physicalism. But there are different ways that one can oppose the thoroughgoing reductionism that I just outlined. One can reject the premise of a single TOE and propose instead a patchwork of theories that operate in different regimes, scales and domains. (Clearly, these theories cannot be entirely independent of each other, but presumably their interrelationship does not amount to a straightforward top-down reduction.) One can take an issue with epiphenomenalism (and here too there are different options). You seem to be rejecting the primacy of some fundamental physical ontology and instead insisting on a multiplicity of coequal ontologies.
I am sympathetic to this view, but I might be coming to it from a somewhat different direction, one that deemphasizes ontology in favor of epistemology. To my mind, ontology is theory-dependent.Theory comes first, and whatever entities it operates with, that is its ontology.
The definitions you argue are correct under standard axioms of mathematics. The problem, as axioms, is that they are subject to a multitude of fallacies: authority, bandwagon, no true scotsman (pseudo fallacy for some), straw man (the axioms form a position not previously held), red herring (each axiom diverts to another axiom), etc.
The axioms are determined as true because of the arguments, as strucutures, which stem from them. These argument/structures, in turn are justified according to there symmetry with symmetry being the replication of certain qualities/quantities that show a common bond.
All axioms, therefore, are composed of further axioms, and there are infinite further axioms considering all axioms are justified according to there replicative symmetry. Instead of the word replication, one may use the word "mirroring" or "recursion".
1) Each line exists because of its directional qualities. It's quantifiable nature is inseparable from its direction. All empirical phenomena, as the premise for quantity, exist because of the directional nature in time. All quantity exists because of time, hence it directional.
2) A ratio, as how many times a phenomena can fit into another phenomena, with all phenomena as directional due to time, necessitates that ratio as existing as linear. How many times 3 lines can fit into one still necessitates the three lines as 1. The same applies for how many time 3 lines can fit into 6 lines as two lines.
3. The circumferance unraveled into a straight line, as 3.141 Diameter as one line, is still a length through the 1 diameter as 3.141... .Pi is also transcendental number with any line as Pi necessiting all lines as infinite. This is symmetrical to further definitions of the line as infinite between 0d points.
4. A curved line can be composed of infinite 1d lines as quantum angles, a curved line is multiple straight lines as an approximation of the straight line. The line exists because of its directional qualities, and the curved line exists if and only if there are Euclidian axioms, with the Euclidean axioms necessitating the line as having a directional quality as point directed to point..
5. Pi as a line observes the line, at minimum as three dimensional where it is three directions in one, with the fractal nature observing infinite directions through these three. The line can exist as:
A. 1 line
B. 1 quantum angle.
C. 1 quantum frequency as multiple angles
D. Points A,B,C as individuating (multiplying/dividing) through eachother, into infinite directions reference itself back to a circle.
***due to lack of diagrams, I may have to expound on this point further.
6. To say pi is a length is not nonsense, considering all lengths are premised in a relation of parts. 1 unit relative to another unit is the foundation for all length, and this in itself leads to an infinite regress where 1 as a unit is one as a length. Pi as a length is composed of units already, where 1 length can be argued strictly as 1. If the diameter is 1, then the circumferance is of a length equivalent to Pi. It is not a problem in math but rather a problem in establishing units of measurement.
7. If the curved line of a circumferance is not as measurable as a straight line, then Pi is wrong because the measurement of the circumferance and diameter/straight line cannot form a ratio.
8. The curved line of a circle as irrational, neccessitates a continuum in that it is not finite. A line a 1 unit is equally irrational as a continuum.
9. Two dimensionality is opposition as contradiction, where what is "even", effectively is without boundary as no center source gives balance, and therefore unit to the number. All even numbers, as premised in 1 as a medial point, is an opposition of medial points necessitating an inherent seperation. 2 is the beginning of any form of multiplicity where a structure cannot be observed, considering all structure is dependent upon an inherent form of unit as premise in the odd number always having a center medial point which gives balance to the number.
10. The number of times a diameter goes into a circumferance necessites the circumferance as Pi. Pi is 1 line as one lemgth where 1 (diameter) and Pi (circumferance) are interchangeable. All diameters act as pi, amd we can observe the Pi replicates itself into further circles as further circumferance. 1 and Pi are strictly interchangalbe lengths relative to context, and act as foundational measurements.
11. Pi is transcendtal, as it is continuous, and as a foundational measurement give premise to recursion as an element within math, logic, science, etc.
I don't believe that there is a standard axiom of mathematics which states that pi is a line, or a length. If there is, maybe you can produce it.
Quoting eodnhoj7
That something is linear doesn't mean that it is a line, it means that it can be represented by a line. A thing, and its representation are two distinct things. If something is represented by a line this does not mean that it is a line. You argue by equivocation.
Quoting eodnhoj7
It does not necessitate that pi is wrong, it necessitates that pi is irrational. I could argue that being irrational is a case of being wrong, if I argued by equivocation like you. It cannot form an intelligible ratio, that's what "irrational" signifies, it's a ratio which has been determined as real, and existent, but which is unintelligible.
Quoting eodnhoj7
I don't understand this, it appears as nonsense. Why do you assume a continuum? That assumption appears to be unwarranted.
Quoting eodnhoj7
This is nonsense. how do you think that "the circumferance [sic] as Pi" is necessitated?
The axioms of mathematics are still subject to the fallacies observed, thus negating them as a single stand alone quality with the exception of the proof of these axioms under the frameworks through which they exist. Proof is structure as framework, ie Proof is existence.
You are correct there is no standard axiom in math, that observes Pi as a line (let alone a length), however this not negate the principle the axiom is possible, therefore must exist given a continuum of further axioms.
1. Something that is linear is a line, even the linear movement of a particle from point A to point B exists through a line from point A to point B. A line is a localization of directed movement in 1 direction. A curved line, as an approximation of a straight line, can be constituted as infinite straight lines composing and composed of infinite angles.
2. Pi is transcendental and gives both proof and framework, as a number, that numbers exist through continuums. All lines exist as infinite continuums as well. A line can be both a quantity and quality. So can a circle and point. Numbers as spatial qualities have a trifold nature, due to there directed capacity where no number can exist unless directed to another number.
3. The curved line as a continuum observes the curved line as the continuous projection of 0d points (no form) as a line (directed movement as form). All lines and circles are composed of infinite 0d points, necessitating the line and circle existing as not just continuums but having inherent directional qualities as well.
A line may exist in 1 direction relative to another direction (line). A circle may be observed as going in all directions as one direction.
4. The circumference as Pi is necessitated if Pi = C/D and D = 1. I explained this already, multiple times.
Yeah, part of what I'd like to argue is that this kind of approach to things simply is idealism par excellence, and an insidious one at that, insofar as it couches itself in the language of the ‘physical’, despite being a metaphysical (in the pejorative sense) chimera through and through. It always amazes me that those who hew to this kind of view don’t recognise just how shot-through with theology it is. And I don’t mean this as a cheap-shot (like ‘oh science is just the new religion'), but in a properly philosophical key: it shares with theology its ‘emanative’ logic wherein, to botch Plotinus, everything flows from the One and returns to the One - and where the ‘flow’ is just so much detritus and debris. What you call reductive physicalism mirrors, exactly, ancient theological tropes and, from my perspective, is more or less indistinguishable from them.
I perhaps wouldn’t say ‘co-equal ontologies’: my basic intuition is that ontology ought to be dictated by both the things and what we want to know about them, as it were, and that both are subject to change. A dynamic, pluralist ontology, maybe, one attentive to historical currents and issues of scope, scale, and interest, but one still with synthetic ambition. The philosopher Reza Negarestani probably put it best:
"We can generally investigate the space of the universal through particular instances or local contexts. But once we carry out this investigation through the synthetic environment that the interweaving of continuity and contingency create, we can arrive at very interesting results. Looking at the space of the universal, through particular instances or local contexts is in this sense no longer a purely analytical procedure. It is like looking into an expansive space through a lens that does not produce zooming-in and zooming-out effects by simply scaling up and down the same image but instead it produces synthetic and wholly different images across different scales of magnification. It then becomes almost impossible to intuitively guess what kind of conceptual and topological transformations the local context—a window into the universal— undergoes as it expands its scope and becomes more true to the universal”. (Negarestanti, Where Is the Concept? [pdf])
But these are very general methodological remarks that are perhaps not quite to the point. I aver to it because I’ve long had a suspicion that the distinction between ontology and epistemology is not a particularly fruitful one, and that both are abstractions from a more general question about how we go about conceptualizing phenomena, with concepts being reducible to neither side of the epistemology/ontology divide. To bring this back to the OP, one of the reasons I think this, is because this approach is itself dictated (I like to think) by the necessity of avoiding what I see as idealist approaches in which the world is made to ‘pre-fit’ certain a priori conceptions of it, or else follow from some eternal, God-given rules from which everything else is just epiphenomena, as with what you referred to ‘reductive physicalism’.
The problem here is that under a strict definition of "line", the line from point A to point B must be straight, one dimensional. If there are any angles in that course between A and B we are no longer talking about a line, we are talking about a multitude of different lines at angles to each other. If we try to resolve this issue by changing the angles into curves, and claim that we have one curved line instead of many lines at angles to each other, this is not a real resolution. What we would be doing is hiding the multitude of different lines behind the illusion of a curved line. But a curved line is really not a line at all, so that "hiding" is really a matter of deception.
Quoting eodnhoj7
I can see how a line is a continuum but I cannot see how "numbers exist through continuums". Numbers appear to reveal the essence of discreteness by referring to individual units, and discreteness is the converse of continuity. So I really do not see how "numbers exist through continuums", as they are based in the concept of the discrete.
1) There is not a strict definition to a line, or anything for that matter, except through the framework built around it.
2) A line can be both composed of angles (frequency) and exist as an angle within itself without contradiction considering all angles set the premise for size.
For example I may have a frequency of x wavelengths in y length. The frequnecy can ve observed as the repitition of angles.
Now the line appears as a frequency. However if I observe is relative to a much larger angle or frequency, and use that new form as the center point of measurement in which everything is measured against it, then the frequency of x wavelengths and y length "relativistivally" shrinks into a line.
The line, as a unit of relation, is determined by its size relative to other phenomena.
This applies in the same manner to an angle acting as a line. A 1d line exists because of its projection in one direction, this projection from one point to another observes a form of condensation where any phenomenon approaching point 0 (like the number 1) shrinks or turns into a fractal. For the line to shrink would require a previous expansion elsewhere as condensation is a form of shrinking. This shrinking, can be observed in an angle where the apex observes a point of "condensing" where the angle is a projection. Due to size determining the relative nature of the 1d line, an angle of a fractal degree can be observed as a line
3. Keep in mind one phenomena can appear as another due to size which size being the relation of one phenomena to another and using it as a starting point.
4. 1 exists as a unit, as a unit it must continue to exist through further units. It exist through 2 and 1/2, 3 and 1/3, 4 and 1/4, etc. One effectively inverts into one state, then into multiple states with each of these states being 1 number in itself. This progression of numbers manifests as a continuum as each number, composed from and as a unit of one, must follow that same nature and exist through further numbers. 1 along with all numbers composed of 1 as 1 in themselves must exist through a continuum where 1 and 1n exist through infinities as infinities.
Yes there is a strict definition of "line". It is a straight, one dimensional, geometrical figure. If mathematics did not have strict definitions which are adhered to, it would be useless due to equivocation.
Quoting eodnhoj7
No, if there is an angle, then there are two distinct lines, because a line is one dimensional.
Quoting eodnhoj7
As I explained, relations may be represented as a line, in the sense of "linear", but this does not mean that the relation itself is a line, it is merely represented by a line. You still do not seem to have understood this.
Quoting eodnhoj7
No, the progression of numbers does not manifest as a continuum, it is a succession of discrete units. This fact is exemplified by your description referring to "states". If each number represents a different state, then there is a progression of different states, without an active "change" between the states. But that change is necessary to explain why one state is different from the next, and provide continuity between the states. Without the "change" between states, there is no continuity and no continuum. With the change between states, there is a separation and discontinuity between states. Either way, the states are not a continuity.
The definition of the line is determined by the proofs which follow it, necessitating all axioms as subject to equivocation in light of multiple proofs observing different properties. The agreement of what constitutes a proof is subject to bandwagon and authority fallacies as group agreement determines the nature of the proof.
2. So a line cannot change to a point relative to a much larger line? Geometric forms are determined by the framework of reference, which through the nature of the Monad (point, line and circle), is all forms as size through relation is determined by degree but most specifically quantum degrees (if one gives thought to the nature of fractal degrees). The degree, as one line relative to another, is the foundation of all size.
A line as infinite points can be observed as infinite lines.
3. If a line as infinite points is composed of infinite lines, the line is a continuum of relations...you habe not seem to understood this or much of the above argument for that matter.
4. A succession of units is a continuity of units, from which the word continuum is derived. Look it up in a thesaurus if you don't believe me.
5. Each number is a state of progressive relations.
One state of one, is continual division: 1/1, 2/2, 3/3, to infinity. 1 is a divisive function based upon this continuous nature. Infinite change is no change for change is inversion of unity/multiplicity with continual inversion existing as one continuum.
In non Euclidean geometry, the parallel postulate is negated. This alters the understanding of a "plane" which is a two dimensional construct, from the Euclidean understanding of a plane. It does not change the definition of "line" (1d), it changes the way that one dimension is related to another dimension, as a plane. It is a different definition of "plane".
That one dimension may be related to another dimension through various means (different geometries), and the correct way has not been firmly established, supports my claim that there is a degree of unintelligibility to the relationship between one dimension and another.
Quoting eodnhoj7
No, as I explained earlier, an infinite number of 0d points cannot construct a 1d line. A segment of line is what lies between two points, the medium between points. There is a fundamental incompatibility between 0d and 1d which makes it impossible that a line is composed of points, it is composed of line segments which are marked by points. 0d provides absolutely no spatial extension, while 1d "line" implies spatial extension. Contrary to what you claim above, a line and a point are fundamentally incompatible and one cannot be reduced to the other.
Quoting eodnhoj7
It's not that I don't understand your argument, but that I reject it as invalid. A point marks a place on a line. A line is not made of points. That is your invalid assumption, and why I reject your argument.
Quoting eodnhoj7
A thesaurus? Continuous means unbroken, uninterrupted, connected. A unit is an individual thing, bounded and complete. Therefore an interruption is implied between one unit an another. When you say that a "succession of units" is continuous, "continuous" is predicated of "succession". But that such a succession (the activity of one succeeding the other) is continuous is just an assertion. There is nothing inherent within a multitude of units to validate your claim of continuity. Nor is there anything inherent within the concept of succession to validate your claim that a succession is continuous. Therefore you have simply predicated "continuous" of "succession", for absolutely no reason, other than to produce an argument from this axiom. That's begging the question.
I am not bothered by distasteful associations (egad! Theology!) I believe that we should judge ideas on their own merit. Besides, in all likelihood, theological ideas get their inspiration from some of the same intuitions about nature that give rise to materialistic ideas. And those intuitions are realist at their core. I am convinced that, whatever ideology we outwardly proclaim, whatever stuff we say the world is made of and however it is parceled out, inwardly we all believe that much of the world is indifferent to our thoughts and desires. We have some leeway in how we choose to conceptualize it, but there are strong constraints on those conceptualizations that are not up to us to choose. And that is the only ontology that matters. We can quibble about whether chairs or wave-functions "really exist," but that's just semantics. What matters is that there is this recalcitrant something that we all have to acknowledge, on pain of undermining all our empirical knowledge.
Where I believe both the faithful and at times the materialists, especially philosophically less sophisticated scientists, sin again reason is in jumping to strong metaphysical commitments without proper warrant. But in resisting unwarranted metaphysical commitments we can only go so far in the opposite direction. We can allow for a plurality of conceptualizations, but we have to acknowledge that these conceptualizations are all subject to the same constraints. They are different maps of the same territory, and therefore they cannot be truly independent. Then the question legitimately arises: what is the nature of their interdependence?
Reductionism proposes a hierarchical structure of asymmetric dependence - by way of nomological reduction or supervenience (at the very least) - with the TOE at the top. This idea does have some empirical corroboration, but perhaps not enough. Above all, this should be treated as, at best, a provisional conclusion, not as an a priori metaphysical assumption, as often appears to be the case. Moreover, physicalist reductionism edges into the ethical territory when it deprecates non-fundamental conceptualizations, like for example the mind, as less than real, superfluous, causally inert - all the more reason for caution and skepticism.
As for (traditional Christian) theology and supernaturalism in general, it simply doesn't trust matter to behave (as @schopenhauer1 puts it) on its own. The First Cause, the Prime Mover - which you analogize with the TOE - has to be some anthropomorphic agent, which, unlike matter, is not entirely open to empirical examination.
[b]In non Euclidean geometry, the parallel postulate is negated. This alters the understanding of a "plane" which is a two dimensional construct, from the Euclidean understanding of a plane. It does not change the definition of "line" (1d), it changes the way that one dimension is related to another dimension, as a plane. It is a different definition of "plane".
That one dimension may be related to another dimension through various means (different geometries), and the correct way has not been firmly established, supports my claim that there is a degree of unintelligibility to the relationship between one dimension and another.
[/b]
The parrel postulate lead to an open ending to euclidian geometry, through non-euclidian, where the line can have multiple definitions as it is defined through multiple frameworks that are connected through eachother.
The line is subject to the fallacy of equivocation outside of any one framework.
[b]No, as I explained earlier, an infinite number of 0d points cannot construct a 1d line. A segment of line is what lies between two points, the medium between points. There is a fundamental incompatibility between 0d and 1d which makes it impossible that a line is composed of points, it is composed of line segments which are marked by points. 0d provides absolutely no spatial extension, while 1d "line" implies spatial extension. Contrary to what you claim above, a line and a point are fundamentally incompatible and one cannot be reduced to the other.
It's not that I don't understand your argument, but that I reject it as invalid. A point marks a place on a line. A line is not made of points. That is your invalid assumption, and why I reject your argument.
[/b]
You are not aware of what you are arguing:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1293086/how-to-prove-that-a-straight-line-is-an-infinite-set-of-points
[b]A thesaurus? Continuous means unbroken, uninterrupted, connected. A unit is an individual thing, bounded and complete. Therefore an interruption is implied between one unit an another. When you say that a "succession of units" is continuous, "continuous" is predicated of "succession". But that such a succession (the activity of one succeeding the other) is continuous is just an assertion. There is nothing inherent within a multitude of units to validate your claim of continuity. Nor is there anything inherent within the concept of succession to validate your claim that a succession is continuous. Therefore you have simply predicated "continuous" of "succession", for absolutely no reason, other than to produce an argument from this axiom. That's begging the question.
[/b]
Infinite interruption is no longer interuption as it is not finite. All continuums, as infinite progressions and regression, are both infinite and one.
All axioms exist through argument, such as those founded in geometric axioms (which you are evidently ignorant of). Proof is structure, structures is the repitition of variables resulting in symmetry as unity.
Reread the argument I presented, you clear do not understand it, nor the axioms of geometry you are arguing.
The cited proof demonstrates that there are infinitely many points on a line. It does not prove that a line is composed of points. My argument is that a line is not composed of points, because a line is what exists between points. And my argument holds, despite the fact that there are infinitely many points on a line. This just means that a line is divisible into an infinite number of segments.
Quoting eodnhoj7
You've already presented your argument over and over, so many times, and I've explained why it is unsound. You make fundamental errors such as assuming that pi is a line, and that "linear" means that the thing referred to as linear is a line. You argue not from mathematical axioms, but from a misrepresentation of mathematical axioms. So your argumenta are completely nonsensical.
We might also look at the gap between conceptualizations and a more ordinary sense of speeding trucks that might crush us, holes we might fall into, ice that we might slip on...I suspect that (to some degree) this is the dominant 'model'(?) by which other models are judged ultimately.
Look at your examples, they are all things which "might" happen. So we look at the world with a view to how we can prevent, or cause, identified future events. This does not jive with Sophisticat's "we all believe that much of the world is indifferent to our thoughts and desires".
It appears to me, like there is a deep inconsistency between how we actually live our lives, as if we can prevent or cause future events, and what you call the "dominant model", which produces a form of determinism. The problem being that we model "the world" as independent, "indifferent to our thoughts and desires", but this leaves us outside of the world, and renders the model incapable of representing how our thoughts and desires are actively changing the world. This is why our conceptualizations require that medium, "matter", as the indeterminate part of reality, bridging the gap of hypocrisy between our true perspective in which we act freely in the world influencing the future, and the dominant determinist model of the world.
Actually I made a continuous progressive argument, you keep repeating the same thing over and over again about it not being in mathematical axioms. In fact not only is it in mathematical axioms (line as infinite points), but these axioms are open to further expansion infinitely while each axiom is determined by the framework of proof which extends from it and not the axiom itself.
The line as "a injunctive of infinite points" observes the line as composed of infinite lines through these infinite points. The point is a continuum of further points through the line. The line and point alternate between eachother.
If the line is nor composed of points, but the line is composed of infinite further lines between points, the line is composed of points. You have no argument, you strictly do not understand what you are saying.
There is no misrepresentation of mathematical axioms, as what you have observed is a misrepresentation. You are pushing a belief system nothing more. All mathematical axioms are given structure by there corresponding proofs. A proof is merely the replication of mathematical axioms into a structure. The axioms only exist is a structure stems form them.
As observed in the link, there are infinite number of not just proofs for any mathematical system but these proofs as infinite must continue. Proof is continuity. Whatever finite defintion you are looking for is strictly multiple infinities.
Now relative to pi as a foundation of measurement. Pi can acts as a length of
Pi = c/d where c is equal to Pi and D is equal to one. The circufermance containing a number of lines equal to Pi observes not the circumferance as a length equal to Pi (and the circumferance is a length...Do you want sources?) But the number of diameters as Pi as 1 line in itself.
I am arguing from these axioms, as the proof is that these axioms must continually progress as there are infinite proofs for them. You are unaware of what you are arguing.
Pi as a length results in 1 as a function as stated above.
A line is not composed of infinite points. There are infinite points on a line. Your premise is a misrepresentation, not a mathematical axiom.
Quoting eodnhoj7
I don't know what you mean by "a injunctive", but the grammar is terrible, so I would be dubious of wherever you got that quote from, as unreliable in educative value.
Quoting eodnhoj7
This is blatant contradiction. "If the line is not composed of points, but... [then] the line is composed of points." That's nothing but nonsense contradiction.
Quoting eodnhoj7
More nonsense. That the numerical value of pi could be given to a length, in no way indicates that pi is a length. That pi is a length is not an accepted axiom. The numerical value of length must be qualified with a unit of measurement. Accepted mathematical axioms clearly indicate that pi is not a unit of measurement
I don't see the problem. The ice isn't going to politely melt before I unthinkingly skate on it and break my arm. If I am fixing a roof and tumble off, the ground will not soften as I descend. Or at least I do not live with such expectations, however merely logically possible such things may be. At other times, it's my understanding that people did try to bribe or flatter something like nature. Nature was a personality, mysterious by ultimately 'like us' or a 'subject with feelings' in some way. The de-personalization of nature into a machine is the the ur-model upon which we project more sophisticated scientific models. And these models largely apply in terms of us deciding which goals are possible and how to obtain them --in the 'lifeworld' or the 'basic' 'model' that grounds other modelling in terms of care. Or so I reason.
1. A line is an infinite number of points, hence is an infinite number of lines.
The line as infinite points is the axiomatic definition of a line:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=the+line+is+an+infinite+number+of+points&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=the+line+is+an+infinite+number+of+points&sc=1-40&sk=&cvid=C8ED297B32114AA2A7406E89721E7552
"The totality of the points comprising the line is in any case infinite."
"[b]This can be proven rigorously, and it's not hard at all. Basically, between any two distinct points on a line there is a third point between these two points (between should not necessarily mean the mid-point on a straight path connecting the points, and this may get a bit tricky, but not too tricky).
[/b]"
You are not just wrong, but lying if you claim that is the common definition. Change my mind and provide a source.
On a side note:
It may be argued the line is a set, however this is not a common mathematical axiom, so don't bother saying it is not a mathematical axiom...I am fully aware of this point as well as all the other "points" you claim.
2. This is blatant contradiction. "If the line is not composed of points, but... [then] the line is composed of points." That's nothing but nonsense contradiction.
Its a contradiction because you misrepresented the argument and took the second portion out. Now you are lying.
If the line is not composed of points, but the line is composed of other lines, then the line must be composed of infinite points.
3. More nonsense. That the numerical value of pi could be given to a length, in no way indicates that pi is a length. That pi is a length is not an accepted axiom. The numerical value of length must be qualified with a unit of measurement. Accepted mathematical axioms clearly indicate that pi is not a unit of measurement
If pi is not a length, then neither is 1 units, 2 units, 3 units, etc. considering quantity is a unit.
The circumferance is a length:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=circumferance+is+a+length&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=circumferance+is+a+length&sc=6-25&sk=&cvid=C1FA1FB6F46743FE9DD86E053CDFFA91
It also provides the foundation for the radian in trigonometry as a length:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radian
I rarely make ad-hominums any more, and I understand you do not have to agree with what I am saying, but between misquoting my argument, misquoting sources, and arguing foundations that are not just fake but are illogical I have one insult.
Now keep in mind, maybe I have been spoiled. Many of the people I have debated, even when they do not understand my argument or I point out deficiencies in theirs are generally kind or at least respectable. So maybe I had it easy as of late.
Not questioning the established authority is a form of deep cowardice not conducive to anyone who is a philosopher. Questioning does not necessitate either doubt or agreement, but rather an understanding a nature of the framework established.
So here is my insult, and you will never understand it:
"I hope you live a long life no different than who you are now."
Your cited reference clearly states a line "contains", and a line "has" an infinite number of points. It does not say a line "is" an infinite number of points, as you claim. Do you not recognize a distinction between container and contents, a difference between what something is and what something has?
Quoting eodnhoj7
Learn how to interpret instead of changing words to suit your purpose, then read your own sources.
Quoting eodnhoj7
Right, now you're catching on. 1 unit, 2 units, 3units, etc., are not lengths. There must be a specified unit of length, like "metre", "foot", etc..
Quoting eodnhoj7
If you like me to continue, attacking your faulty arguments, I will. Are you finally noticing the usefulness of my attacks?
1.) "The totality of the points comprising the line is in any case infinite."
com·prise
[k?m?pr?z]
VERB
consist of; be made up of.
"the country comprises twenty states"
synonyms:
consist of · be made up of · be composed of · contain · take in · embrace · encompass · incorporate · include · involve · cover · comprehend
make up; constitute.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=comprise+definition&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=comprise+definition&sc=8-19&sk=&cvid=8E4BF20B8D3C440A8BF6EAA80CDD05AF[quote="Metaphysician Undercover;227775"]Right, now you're catching on. 1 unit, 2 units, 3units, etc., are not lengths. There must be a specified unit of length, like "metre", "foot", etc..
2. Right, now you're catching on. 1 unit, 2 units, 3units, etc., are not lengths. There must be a specified unit of length, like "metre", "foot", etc..
A 1 foot is contained of 12 inches. It is 1 line composed of 12 lines. The number and line are inseperable.
3. You can keep flailing around all you want, I don't care either way.
Here's Euclid's definitions from: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/Books/Euclid/Elements.pdf
1. A point is that of which there is no part.
??. ?????? ?? ????? ???????. 2. And a line is a length without breadth.
??. ??????? ?? ?????? ??????. 3. And the extremities of a line are points.
??. ?????? ?????? ?????, ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?????? 4. A straight-line is (any) one which lies evenly with
???????? ??????. points on itself.
Notice, #3. The extremities of a line are points. And, #4, a straight line has "points on itself".
Whatever makes you think that there is an axiom which states that a line is comprised of points? You are dreaming!
The point is that you live acting in such a way as to prevent yourself from breaking your arm on the ice, and to prevent yourself from falling off the roof. Why did you want to go skating, or go on the roof in the first place? And how did you get onto that roof? Don't you know that you intentionally put yourself at risk by doing such things?
I don't see how this matters. We take risks in pursuit of our goals. I think the point is whether we think nature is looking out for us our not. Perhaps the existential aspect of the scientific worldview is our faith in the inefficacy of prayer. If we decide to put on a new roof to keep the rain out, we take certain precautions (safety straps) because we don't expect the ground to suddenly become mud and break our fall.
I'd say that it's this concrete worldly context that mostly informs notions of objectivity. If we imagine the table made of particles/waves, we still vaguely imagine a table-shape. If we 'know better' or think about it more, we can abstract away not only this shape but even our mathematics and waves and particles as indeed just another layer of human significance 'projected' on 'something' --albeit problematically as we abstract away everything intelligible.
It occurs to me that the thing-in-itself is a kind of direction. Remove the 'subject' as much as possible, etc., starting with the sensual and proceeding to the intellectual. Trying to go all the way leads to absurdities. Does isolating a pure subject in the same way lead to absurdity?
So if I have infinite lines existing as one line, the line is not composed of infinite points?
Quoting StreetlightX
Illuminating OP. I just quoted some passages that especially spoke to me. I associate the 'traction of time' with the non-instanteity of meaning, the way a sentence/meaning needs time. Meaning itself is not immediate. There is also meaning's entanglement with its 'medium' (the written or spoken word.) We push out the air or scratch with a pencil or gently hammer on the keyboard. A perfect separation of meaning from its medium and its compression into an instant functions as a kind of goal, an impossibility that tempts us, perhaps to our benefit at times.
The 'density recalcitrant to all first principles' recalls something I was exploring in other thread, from a related if not identical angle. An analogy I like is theory trying to capture a set of positive measure in a set of zero measure (a conveniently countable set, say.) Our linguistic know-how is too rich, too flexible, too mostly-automatic to give a finite account of itself. Trapping meaning in an instant or imagining its complete independence from its medium seems like part of that impossible quest.
As for 'God,' I am open to sophisticated uses of this term. Is there an anti-metaphysical vision of God? An anti-theological vision of God? I don't know. Hegel felt the need to criticize vague notions (anti-notions?) of the absolute in his preface. Do you find it possible that one can use this term and be a materialist in your sense? I can imagine someone contemplating what it is that thrusts against traction and recalcitrance, which would seem to depend on some kind of movement against them. The incarnation myth comes to mind. Can incarnation symbolize materialism even? (I like following the mutation of the Christ image through certain German philosophers. A 'total' incarnation would leave nothing out-of-the-mess behind.)
There have been interesting attempts to claim incarnation from a materialist perspective - Zizek and Virno come to mind - but I generally find the whole theological matrix to be compromised beyond repair. Short of constituting some clever thought-exercises for a bit of intellectual athleticism, I don't really see any reason to do so outside of that. We've had literally millenia of theological wrangling, and it would be nice to proceed with a bit of independence from that whole meilieu. Ray Brassier once put it nicely, if only just a little too strongly:
"I view this continuing philosophical fascination with monotheism as deeply pernicious and think a moratorium ought to be declared to prevent any further ‘God talk’ by philosophers. I do not think it mere coincidence that the critique of scientific rationality in much 20th century philosophy goes hand in hand with a revival of theological themes. Religion obviously satisfies deep-seated human needs, but it has been a cognitive catastrophe that has continually impeded epistemic progress — contrary to the pernicious revisionism that claims monotheism was always on the side of science and truth. Human knowledge has progressed in spite of religion, never because of it. Philosophers should simply have no truck with it." (source)
(Too strongly because I think the study of theology and its concepts can be very useful for triangulating one's position; one ought to know the enemy least one becomes them).
Quoting macrosoft
I largely agree with the rest, but I would be careful in characterizing the 'kind' of goal this would be. If the thesis of irreducible mediality is right, any such attempt at 'separation' would be detrimental, and not conducive to, well, anything whatsoever. As Derrida might have put it, the desire for pure presence is the desire for death.
Infinite lines being one line is contradictory, plain and simple. That a line is potentially divisible an infinite number of times, does not mean that the line exists as infinite lines. That would be contradiction, to say that at the same time, one line is many lines.
The points, which would distinguish the infinite number of shorter lines within the longer line, cannot function as a divisor of the longer line without annihilating the longer line through the act of division. It is impossible by way of contradiction, that the same thing is at the same time, one line and a multitude of lines. So either the points are functioning to divide the line, in which case there is no longer line only an infinity of short lines, or else the points are not "in" the line.
As I've explained to you, over and over, when we assume the existence of lines and points, we assume that the points are not "in" the line. You use an interpretation which is clearly contradictory, and produce a nonsense argument from that faulty interpretation.
When working on the roof, one uses safety straps to prevent oneself from falling off the roof. No one considers the possibility that the ground might suddenly become soft. So you are just throwing in a red herring here, an unreal, irrelevant thought. The motivating factor in putting on the safety straps is that we believe we can prevent an unwanted occurrence. Therefore we clearly believe that we can have influence over what happens in the future.
The issue is not whether nature "is looking out for us". The issue is to what extent we have control over nature. So for example, if we had absolute control over nature, nature would be whatever we want it to be. This is similar to the theological position, but the theological way recognizes human deficiency, and places something human-like (God), instead of human beings themselves, as having absolute control over nature. The opposite way, is the determinist way, which would say that nature has complete control over us. The two opposing ways, nature is what we want it to be, and nature forces us to be what we are, are both wrong, so we need a medium, a compromise.
Quoting macrosoft
The problem here, is that the "scientific way", becomes the way of "we have absolute control over nature", because it develops the attitude that we can conceive of the table in anyway that we want. So long as the mathematics is correct, and the behaviour of the table is well predicted, then we can describe the table in any way at all. There is no such object as "the table" anymore, there is just this or that description of what is going on, and we choose the one we want. Therefore we view nature as being whatever we want it to be.
Quoting macrosoft
Clearly, there are two distinct directions, from two distinct starting points. Each one gets enveloped in problems sending one frustrated toward the other way. But the real problem is in those starting points themselves, the subject and the object, they do not produce sound premises, so they must be dismissed altogether for something different.
Quoting StreetlightX
Here you approach the true medium, presence, or the present. This is the only real grounding for the concept "medium", validating it as a true concept, signifying something real, the medium between future and past, the two fundamental aspects of reality. Presentism reduces all to the medium. Then, by making the medium all there is, without the reality of the separated things, future and past, the medium itself becomes meaningless.
Actually 1/1/1...= 1. The line is its own standard of measurement, hence when it divides itself it is through itself.
Show me your source considering this, according to you is a universal axiom, other wise you are pushing your own theory (which is fine) but does not hold according to its own logic.
Provide a source.
One line cannot be a multitude of lines by way of contradiction. I explained this to you. If it is many lines it is not one line. if it is one line it is not many lines.
Quoting eodnhoj7
My reference is the law of non-contradiction. To say that one of some thing is at the same time a multitude of that very same thing, is contradictory. Is one person at the same time a multitude of persons? No, because this would be contradictory. Is one line, at the same time a multitude of lines? No, because this would be contradictory.
Of course. When did I imply otherwise? The point is that nature doesn't care. We have to submit to her blind regularity in order to master 'her.'
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
As I see it, science is science exactly because it is constrained by reliable prediction and control. All the grandiose and complicated theories boil down to satisfaction in the life-world. Arbitrary description is what science filters out. Virtual entities are justified as part of a process that emerges from the life-world and returns to the life-world. Electrons are 'real' to the degree that they are part of a system that gets us what we want. Public utility is the implicit epistemology here, it seems to me.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I agree. Traditional metaphysical approaches result in aporia. Some ignore them and soldier on, stubbornly attached to this or that terminology. My approach is to examine whether it is even possible to make our know-how explicit for ourselves. IMV the faith in atomic meaning is at the root of endless confusion. We impose a false notion on language in pursuit of the fantasy that we can and should do math with words. We don't look at the object with fresh eyes. We take a flawed approach for granted. But this is an old critique now, and hardly 'my' idea. I'm just catching up with the conversation. And this catching up with the conversation is not some discrete process. I'd say that meaning is 'continuous' or 'one,' and that it exists distributed over its own kind of historical time (with memory and project.)
I can understand that reaction, but your mention of 'matrix' alludes to what I had in mind. The mother is the mater is the matrix. While this kind of approach is suspiciously murky, I suspect that some 'Christian' thinkers were already articulating contemporary insights within the concepts and pictures available to them. I'm not sure how you feel about Heidegger, but he called himself 'really' a Christian theologian once in a letter. And then Hegel thought Luther was a leap forward in human consciousness. I'm thinking of the interior that is opened up by putting the Book in the hands of the individual for interpretation. Finally there is Nietzsche's eerie portrait of Christ that sounds quite a bit like Nietzsche himself. I'm coming from a perspective that thoughts are largely organized by emotionally charged pictures. The image of a particular human being (Christ or Socrates) suggests a unity of theory and embodied practice, ultimately grounded in and lit up by passion.
Quoting StreetlightX
I take your point, but I suppose Nietzsche comes to mind along with Hegel. If we proceed by erring, it may be the impossible quest for death (an unrecognized goal) that pushes into a brighter kind of living in the long run. All of this is quite vague, of course.
Here is a mathematical proof that one number is equal to an infinite series of numbers:
3= 3-0,4-1,5-2,6-3,7-4,8-5,9-6...((n+3)-n)...infinity.
Or just
3= ((n+3)-n)
***"n" equals a number approaching infinity
You can replace the number 3 for any value but the statement will be the same.
In regards to the law of concontradiction:
1) A line composed of many lines (hence 0d points) is strictly
2) A person can be composed of a multitude of persons in reference to one person being various persons given a length of time defining that person.
A person may be one person around another person and be a different person in presence of another, with one common person connecting these various identities. Your argument is fail two take into account two distinct phenomena can exist at the same time in different respects.
3. In regards to the law of non contradiction:
A. P is defined by not P.
B. Not P exists if and only of there is P.
C. P is positive and negative where P exists as unified or in a gradient form as deficiency in P hence multiple Ps. Hence not P is an element of P.
***I may have to elaborate on this point.
I don't doubt this at all. I just question the necessity of routing philosophy through the swamp of theology to get at the same insights. Deleuze has a wonderful line somewhere about how every theology, no matter how staunch, always ends up 'secreting' an atheism insofar as it always needs to secure the relavence of the otherworldly to this world at the end of the day; of how the illusions of transcendence all ultimately "recharge the plane of immanence with immanence itself", citing Pascal and Kierkegaard in particular as two examplars of those who explicitly realized this within the bounds of theology itself. Again, I think this may be interesting as far as it goes, but then, I'd be happy to burn the entire theological corpus for a page of good, original a-theological philosophy.
As an aside, with respect to Heidegger, he's the kind of figure I feel took two steps forward and then one back (and is all the more important to study because of it). He remains, for me, too mired within a phenomenological horizon that screams at every point to be broken out of; I'd trade most of what isn't B&T for a couple of chapters of Merleau-Ponty or Levinas without much hesitation.
"Equal" does not mean "is". "Equal" means equivalent to, while "is" means the very same as. I very much agree that one line of any length is "equal" to an infinity of smaller lines, being potentially divided an infinity of times, but this does not mean that one line is an infinity of lines. The former is a mathematical equation, the latter is a logical contradiction.
Do you recognize the difference between "is" and "is equal to"? For instance, "4" is equal to "2+2". But this does not mean that 4 is 2+2, nor does it mean that 4 is composed of 2+2. It means that 4 is equivalent to 2+2. Do you see that "4" is completely different in meaning from "2+2", and therefore we cannot say "4 is 2+2", despite the fact that the two are equal? Do you see that "one line" is completely different in meaning from "an infinity of lines", and therefore we cannot say "one line is an infinity of lines" despite the fact that the two are equal?
Quoting eodnhoj7
As I explained, you can only perform this sophistry through equivocation. One person is only various persons when you use multiple definitions of "person". That's equivocation.
Quoting eodnhoj7
No, P is not defined by not P. That's not a definition, as a definition gives meaning to P, saying what P signifies. If this were a definition, it would leave P completely without meaning, and that's not what a definition does, it gives meaning. Therefore P is not defined by not P.
Mathematics is a science with its own accepted rules of expression. If you are not going to adhere to those rules, DON'T CALL IT MATHEMATICS! OR SCIENCE FOR THAT MATTER!!!
Quoting eodnhoj7
Quoting eodnhoj7
Quoting eodnhoj7
Quoting eodnhoj7
Quoting eodnhoj7
Quoting eodnhoj7
Quoting eodnhoj7
Quoting eodnhoj7
Quoting eodnhoj7
Quoting eodnhoj7
Quoting eodnhoj7
Quoting eodnhoj7
Quoting eodnhoj7
Quoting eodnhoj7
Quoting eodnhoj7
Quoting eodnhoj7
Quoting eodnhoj7
Quoting eodnhoj7
Quoting eodnhoj7 etc, etc
Since the above quoted information has no basis in any existing mathematical or scientific laws and even seems to contradict them, doesn't that mean it is your own (not yet universally recognised) invention or interpretation (call it what you may)?
Well, lets start with the laws of logic. I will start with the law of identity considering it is the foundation for the law of non-contradiction.
The laws of logic are subject to equivocation.
The law of Identity is written as "P is P" or "P equals P" with "is" and "equal" having multiple interpretations.
[b]is- combining form
variants: or iso-
Definition of is- (Entry 4 of 4)
1 : equal : homogeneous : uniform isentropic
2 : isomeric isocyanate
3 : for or from different individuals of the same species isoagglutinin[/b]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/is
Now you can look at another source and get the same or similiar, but different, definition and in these respects we are left with equivocation as a problem in the laws.
So in regards to your statement "Equal" does not mean "is", you are performing sophistry which does not match up with the evidence with the evidence being the common perspectives of the community, which in itself leads to further fallacies. Evidence itself falls under certain fallacies in these respects.
The same occurs for the definition of what a line is as well as other axioms you are unaware of.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
So The law of Non-Contradiction is not defined by the Law of Identity, and the Law of Identity is not defined by the Law of Non-Contradiction? The Law of Non-Contradiction does not exist through the Law of Identity and defines it? Each law does not define the other?
The Laws of Logic where written and developed by Aristotle. As such we used them based off of a fallacy of authority, as well as bandwagon, considering these laws do not work in modern logic due to there inability to deal with time in a proper manner.
Quoting eodnhoj7
Violations of the law of identity result in the informal logical fallacy known as equivocation...
In everyday language, violations of the law of identity introduce ambiguity into the discourse, making it difficult to form an interpretation at the desired level of specificity. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity).
Are you trying to imply that these violations comprise of or are derived from a law of logic? As you can see, they are expressly referred to as violations.
Quoting eodnhoj7
The law was not developed by Aristotle. Though he made them popular through his literature, they were and have been in use prior to him and since. Philosophers do not adhere to them because Aristotle has any authority over them, but because these laws have been determined to represent logic and have the appropriate significance and utility in all their applications. That is, they are valid to philosophy.
Quoting eodnhoj7
The three laws of logic, as are commonly known, are corollaries of each other:
1. The Law of Identity.
2. The Law of Non-contradiction.
3. The Law of Excluded Middle.
By corollary is meant, each law naturally inferences the other.
@Metaphysician Undercover is right - Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Common language can only be acceptable if it renders the right context. For example, "he is not good" implies he is bad/evil (or any other synonym which maintains the intended meaning). However, in no formal sense does 'not good' offer a definition of 'good'. Informally, as in common use, they're still extensively exclusive and explicit.
Regardless, how can you logically argue that I am against these interpretations (perspectives) if I am agreeing with them and say they are correct?
Like in this statement:
Quoting eodnhoj7
You are arguing that I disagree with you, when in fact it is false. The argument is premised on a false premise.
Thank you for listing all these things out, it really saves me the trouble, of having to collect them on my own. Now I can address them in one post. I am so flattered you took time out of your day to do all the work for me, thanks.
4)All straight lines are Pi — eodnhoj7
Pi is equal to C/D where Pi is Equal to C if D is 1. This means the diameter, as a line, fits in the 1 length of the Circumferance "Pi times" as one line. Pi as a length, through the circumferance, is straight line. The straight line can be curved to form a radian, which means the curved line can be straightened out as well.
Pi as a line, varies in length with the circle however is always the same measurement. — eodnhoj7
Yes, Pi as a continuous fractal that is irrational and transcendental relative to the context of the framework which defines it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi
Pi as infinite may be viewed as 3.141, 3.14159, or 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706798214808651328230664709384460955058223172535940812848111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196442881097566593344612847564823378678316527120190914.
So the application of Pi is determined by how precise we choose to interpret it. Applying 3.141 as pi is not the same as 3.14159, however both definitions are constant. They change relative to where we round them off, hence Pi has a subjective element of interpretation. However one measurement of Pi is relatively more accurate than the other. Pi is subject to equivocation in these respects causing alot of fault in the mathematical community, but considering it is a community which determines these truths we are left with a fallacy of authority and bandwagon.
5) The circle, through infinite Pi's observes the circle composed of infinite angles with these angles equivalent to degrees as a number much less than one approaching 0. — eodnhoj7
Yes, but you will have to quote in context where you got this portion of the argument.
If Pi is a length, observed in Point 4 above, where Pi is a circumferance leading to 3.141 and the Diameter is 1, we are left with Pi Diameter's as one diameter where Pi is a straight line through the Pi Diameter's acting as 1 diameter.
Now if the diameter is Pi, and Pi equals C/D as C/Pi then C = 9.869...
This continually expands when we throw in the Diameter as 9.869... .
Now The circumferance as (n??)Pi, and the diameter as Pi observes the Diameter existing inside the circumference equal to (n??) times. Pi, as a length through the diameter, and the circumferance composed of (n??)D as straight lines observes the circumferance as a number of angles approaching infinity.
Because these angles are continually approaching infinity, the angles are always approaching point zero. This is considering each curve on the line is conducive to a fraction of a radian where the radian as 57.296 becomes a fraction of itself as a fractal degree (as a fractal radian) of 1/(10^(n??)).
Now the fractal radian as a degree of 1/(10^(n??)) observes a fraction of a curve, but is nonetheless a curve. Now the circumference as composed of radians, is composed of curves with the circumference as continual radians approaching point 0 observing the circumference as infinite fractal curves.
Considering these fractal curves occur through fractal degrees as angles, "the the circle composed of infinite angles with these angles equivalent to degrees as a number much less than one approaching 0".
In these respects the curve is inseperable from an angle, while each curve itself is composed of further angles in itself. The curve as infinite angles, which is composed of further angles, observes a continuum where the angle is always approach a point zero, even though it may be more than one.
6) The line as a quantum angle — eodnhoj7
Yes an angle of 1/(10^(n??)) degrees is equivalent to a line as the angle can only be observed as a line. The angle and line are inseperable with the projective nature of the angle in one direction being synonymous to the line as going in one direction.
So a line between two points observes the alternation between being and nonbeing (void) — eodnhoj7
The line as composed of infinite lines is composed of infinite 0d points, which can be observed in the premised definition (commonly accepted in mathematics) as infinite 0d points necessitating infinite 1d lines.
The line as infinite lines and infinite 0d points as the inversion of one line into another, observes the line as a form of alternation being the existing (being) lines and void (points) considering the point is merely inversion of one line into another. The line exists through infinite alternation between line and further lines. Infinite 0d points, with 0d points being the inversion of one line into many lines, observes the line as infinite change conducive to no change.
However if the line connects the points, it necessitates that through the line the points are directed towards eachother simultaneously and the line becomes non directional considering the points are directed towards eachother through eachother as eachother. — eodnhoj7
Yes if Point A is directed to Point B, where Point A and Point B are both 0 both points are the same. So Point B equal to Point A as 0 = 0 observes that the line is simultaneously directed in the opposite direction connecting the points. The line as non-directional, as a connector between points, necessitates the points as directed towards eachother as points. This makes no sense, if it is occurring simultaneously, as the 0d point effectively is nothing. It only makes sense if the point existing through the point observes the point as directed through itself as itself thus necessitating a 1 dimensional nature as well where the line is deficient in direction, except through the 1d points which compose it. Hence the line is negative direction and composed of infinite 1d points:
The negative dimensional line in turn is composed of infinite 1d points. — eodnhoj7
Hence the line a absent of direction as negative dimensional, as a connector and not a thing in itself, observes it as approximator between multiple 1d points in the respect any connection observes multiple points. Multiple points necessitates a deficiency in unity in one respect, while this connection necessitates unity. So the 0d point directed to the 0d point observes:
Void must be void of itself, so the 1d line observes the void of void or the 0d point dividing itself as infinity through the line. This 1d line is an inversion of the of both the 0d point through 0d point (or an inversion of inversion) and the -1 dimensional line. — eodnhoj7
Where the canceling of the 0d point into 1d points, through there self-direction of the line which effectively ceases in direction itself as negative dimensional (described above),
The 0d point cancels itself out to units as multiplicity, but also Unity as pure directed movement. Nothing cancels itself out into pure being. — eodnhoj7
but this nothingness canceling itself out into pure being observes being in a state of multiplicity due to Being exist through void with this void inverting one being into many.
3) The line as composed of infinite points is composed of infinite lines, hence the line is composed of infinite circles as all lines exist as Pi. — eodnhoj7
All lines as diameters considering all lines can be measured in Pi, necessitate these infinite lines as diameters resulting in infinite circumferances where a diameter of x length and a diameter of y length may differ in length, but when observed as 1 diameter in themselves are effectively connected to pi through the equation ? = (?=C)/(1=D) ? (?=D) ? (?=C)*(1=D), where each length as different from another length, as one length in itself is equivalent to Pi where Pi as a length is composed of infinite lengths as observed in Point 4 ("all straight lines are equivalent to Pi" however Pi is constant state of changing numbers.).
Because the line as Pi necessitates the circumference as Pi(Pi), at minimum, the line as different from another line as one Pi different from another Pi (considering Pi is determined by its rounding off), observes each line as a diameter conducive to x(Pi) (with x representing different calculation of Pi observing different degree of accuracy) resulting in x((Pi)Pi). This leads to:
4) The line is composed as infinite circles projecting, hence the line is equivalent not just to infinite points but infinite quantum circles as well. — eodnhoj7
where "quantum" observes a circle much "smaller" than another circle necessitated by the accuracy of Pi in determining the above measurements.
3.141 << 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456485669234603486104543266482133936072602491412737245870066063155881748815209209628292540917153643678925903600113305305488204665213841469519415116094330572703657595919530921861173819326117931051185480744623799627495673518857527248912279381830119491298336733624406566430860213949463952247371907021798609437027705392
in terms of accuracy with this accuracy determining the size of the circle relative to another size of the circle. This is reflected further in:
5) Each line, as composed of infinite further lines, is composed of infinite "pi's" where the line as Pi is composed of further Pi's. Hence Pi is divided by an infinite number of Pi being divided by Pi. — eodnhoj7
Hence Pi dividing itself observes Pi as its own function of self-division conducive to 1 through the line where 1 is Pi as a function of perpetual self division.
f(x)= 3.14159?(x??)
............f(x)= (3.14159?(x??) =1
................f(x)= (3.14159?(x??)
.........................f(x)=... — eodnhoj7
****where "x" is equal to any number approaching infinity with the fraction of Pi observing all number approaching infinity. Because Pi is statistically random observing x is observing any number which proceeds from Pi and approaches infinity.
4. The radius is half of the diameter.
5. Each radius in itself is a diameter, of another circle. — eodnhoj7
So the Line existing as divided/multiplied by itself results in Pi multiplying/dividing itself considering the line as 1 length is Pi as a length. A line folded in half, results in two lines of equal length, with these lines existing as "1/2" the original line in respect to the original line but relative to themselves strictly exist as 2. The line as a length is the line simultaneously multiplying and dividing when folded through itself.
As the mutiplication/division of a length requires another length, Pi is a constant length of a line — eodnhoj7
Because the line exists as continuous, in the respect it is one infinity (composed of infinite lines), but as one infinity is it composed of further lines considering infinite exists if and only if there are finite phenomenon. The line as one infinity, equates it as well to not just an irrational/transcendental number such as Pi but also Euler's number and any number for that matter. However all lines as one length can be interpreted as any number considering this 1 line as a length is defined by the lengths which composed it (1 inch as 16 parts, 1 foot as 12 parts through 16 parts, etc.).
Pi is a unit of length as one is a unit of length, with both being continuous. All lines as 1 unit of length observes Pi as a unit of length. — eodnhoj7
hence a line equivalent to Pi where Pi becomes a length. — eodnhoj7
So while pi = c/d or c/2r we are left with the circumferance being pi if the diameter is one infinity and the radius is 2 infinities as one infinite. — eodnhoj7
Pi is a length, not just a ratio and alternates with 1 as the foundation of length. — eodnhoj7
All lines are equivalent to Pi just as all lines are equivalent to one in themselves. — eodnhoj7
etc, etc
Since the above quoted information has no basis in any existing mathematical or scientific laws and even seems to contradict them, doesn't that mean it is your own (not yet universally recognised) invention or interpretation (call it what you may)?
What are laws but group agreement? With group agreement determined by proof? And Proof determined by not just the symmetry of the framework but the symmetry between the framework and the observers?
Contradict where exactly if the laws are used as premises? And what laws are you talking about exactly since you no so much. Quote sources. I have for the line as well as fallacies, etc. Where are your sources? Could it not be said your argument is subjective?
2=1+1 is a subjective interpretation as 2 = 1+1, 2+1-1, 2+2-2, 2+3-3, to infinity.
To argue any number is equal to a specific function, is not irrational as all numbers are composed of infinite functions.
Pi is a relationship. It is not a line. The value 3.14159265359 may be applied to a dimension of length but the length or the line does not become pi. If pi is a line, wouldn't a line be pi? Does that compute logically for you?
Pi is not a line.
Pi is not a length.
Pi is not a circle.
What is a quantum angle?
Being and non-being do not comprise a continuum when they are exclusive. You say you adhere to the laws of logic, well, newsflash, they contradict that.
Lines are just lines and points are just points. Directionality is an additional condition, not a quality inherent in the definition or value of a line or its constituent points.
Quoting eodnhoj7
Then, if you differ from the prevailing application of the laws of logic, you must be determined to be illogical. If you agree, then your statements should reflect that. As it turns out, you do not. Hence, you are illogical.
Instead of future explanations, please direct me to the source of your information. Perhaps that would more readily resolve this conflict.
Violations of the law of identity result in the informal logical fallacy known as equivocation...
In everyday language, violations of the law of identity introduce ambiguity into the discourse, making it difficult to form an interpretation at the desired level of specificity. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity).
Ambiguity is subjective to the framework of interpreters and suffers from an inherent ad-hominum nature where equivocation is subject to the ad-hominum fallacy as it is subject to the framework of the observer. To argue that an equivocation is an informal fallacy, when other's observe it as a formal fallacy in itself equivocation.
Are you trying to imply that these violations comprise or are derived from a law of logic? As you can see, they are expressly referred to as violations.
By an authority figure, thus necessitating them as not just fallacies under there own nature, but subject to the bandwagon and therefore the ad-hominum fallacy, considering all authorities and "groups" are subjective in nature. To attack an argument from an authority or group is to attack the authority or group themselves.
The law was not developed by Aristotle. Though he made them popular through his literature, they were and have been in use prior to him and since. Philosophers do not adhere to them because Aristotle has any authority over them, but because these laws have been determined to represent logic and have the appropriate significance and utility in all their applications. That is, they are valid to philosophy.
Aristotle did help develop the law, as all development is a progression within the law. New facets of the law did originate with him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity
http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Aristotle/aristotle_laws_of_thought.html
This origination can be argued by developing the law of non-contradiction which helps define and give extension to the principle of identity:
https://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/topic/8486-aristotle-and-the-law-of-identity/
However this results in a historical argument as "equivocating" this "discovery" to "x" person and falls under equivocation as well considering while the law may originate with x person, the law as developed through "y" person observes a new origin of the law through a new definition.
The laws are defined in accords to progressive definition and exist through continuums.
The laws are adhered to because of majority opinion of specific groups of philosophers and logicians you are saying? This is bandwagon fallacy.
[b]The three laws of logic, as are commonly known, are corollaries of each other:
1. The Law of Identity.
2. The Law of Non-contradiction.
3. The Law of Excluded Middle.
By corollary is meant, each law naturally inferences the other.
@Metaphysician Undercover is right -
P is not defined by not P. — Metaphysician Undercover[/b]
Actually the statement proves he is simultaneously wrong at the same time in a difference respect considering The law of identity is defined in accords with the law of non-contradiction as "collaries" of eachother and cannot be seperated. Because one law inferences another the law of identity, and hence "P", is defined by the law of Non-contradiction, hence -P. What you state is illogical and metaphysician undercover is wrong according to your own argument. You and him contradict eachother.
Common language can only be acceptable if it renders the right context. For example, "he is not good" implies he is bad/evil (or any other synonym which maintains the intended meaning). However, in no formal sense does 'not good' offer a definition of 'good'. Informally, as in common use, they're still extensively exclusive and explicit.
The "common" nature of a language is in itself a context and we are left with one context progressing to another context where one context may determine the next, but the next context (if viewed as progressive only) does not determine the prior. In these respects, language as context, is strictly directed movement.
The nature of context, is relative to a subjective group agreement, and what we understand of measurement is psychological (in these respects) where context is an means through which people measure reality and ihherently direct it and form it in such respects. The question occurs dually if "context" forms consciousness, as directed movement considering one context to another is a progressive continuum, and in these respects they are the same.
Context through Context is definition and is inseperable from consciousness as it is consciousness. The fundamental nature of context as directed movement, in accords to time, observes all consciousness existing from, through and as the basic "line" as directed movement.
I already defined in above what "quantum" means in the above. If you did not see it, then that means you are arguing against an argument you have not read and are forming your own subjective intepretation and cannot quote any mathematical authorities in this case.
Being and non-being, when alternating between eachother produce a continuum no different quantitatively to 1010011100001...
Actually a line is not just a line and a point is not just a point if one must reference the other in defining them. Can a line exist without being between points? This goes against your axioms. Can a point be observed without a line? This also goes against your mathematical axioms.
Your laws of logic are subject to the other laws of fallacies which extend from them and resort to a munchauseen trillema. Your laws are strictly a dogma of religious beliefs which contradict themselves, like most religious beliefs.
If I "differ" from the prevailing laws of logic, and these laws are determined by agreeing authority figures, then simply defining me as "illogical" based upon the opinions of other is not just bias and elitist, but effectively illogical as well considering it necessitates logic as a system of belief no different than other religions with religion being the foundations of many group conflicts and wars.
Are you an elitist? Do you believe you are better than the majority of people, or me, who do not see the world the same way you do?
Instead of future explanations, please direct me to the source of your information. Perhaps that would more readily resolve this conflict.
Okay: BrianW, Metaphysician Undercover
I am trying to find the root of the disagreement between you too.
Considering the prior claim:
[b]
The three laws of logic, as are commonly known, are corollaries of each other:
1. The Law of Identity.
2. The Law of Non-contradiction.
3. The Law of Excluded Middle.
By corollary is meant, each law naturally inferences the other.
@Metaphysician Undercover is right -
P is not defined by not P. — Metaphysician Undercover
Actually the statement proves he is simultaneously wrong at the same time in a difference respect considering The law of identity is defined in accords with the law of non-contradiction as "collaries" of eachother and cannot be seperated. Because one law inferences another the law of identity, and hence "P", is defined by the law of Non-contradiction, hence -P. What you state is illogical and metaphysician undercover is wrong according to your own argument. You and him contradict eachother.
[/b]
You are both sticking up for a system that contradicts itself, as you contradict eachother.
If it is all subjective, then what are you trying to explain when you know your explanations to be subject to fallacies just like all laws, as you put it. Unlike your faulty explanations, the laws of logic are evident in their application to philosophy, mathematics, science and natural discourse. Their symmetry, harmony, reason is readily apparent in all the field of studies thus far. What validates yours?
To think by just exclaiming, "Subjective!" "Subjective!" that, it would make any of your arguments acceptable is very mistaken. The logic you call subjective is very authoritative because of the validity imposed on them by men of knowledge. You say it's a matter of agreement. Well, you should know that agreement means it is accepted as logical. Where is agreement of your premises? How logical does that make them?
Quoting eodnhoj7
Stop with this nonsense, already! If a black-skinned person is a human and a white-skinned person is a human, do you observe the black-skinned person as a white-skinned person because they're both humans? Neither is pi and the line.
@Metaphysician Undercover and I do not contradict each other. Your faulty interpretation is what misguides you.
Your logic is flawed. It is evident to anyone who reads your statements. It is one thing to hope to revolutionize logic by discovering some as yet unknown aspect but, you should be intelligent enough to know that the journey to the unknown begins with the known. Even Einstein did not disagree with Newtonian mechanics though he found them limited. My advice to you is:
Adhere to the prevailing laws of logic. Greater minds than yours have found them valid. However, our human perspectives are limited and there will always be the probability of furthering them. Already there are those who've discovered limitations to those laws of logic but they still understand their validity in the field of knowledge and they still depend on them. Don't be blinded by ambition or obsession. There is a saying (chinese or japanese), "fixation/obsession is furthest from understanding."
The law of identity states that a thing is the same as itself. It gives each thing its own identity, so P, as a particular thing, is the same as P, itself, that particular thing. This is quite clear, unambiguous, and not open to equivocation. Your examples of multiple interpretations, ambiguity, and equivocation simply reflects your misunderstanding of the law of identity.
Quoting eodnhoj7
The evidence indicates that you either completely misunderstand the law of identity, or that you state it in an ambiguous way in order to deceive. I am beginning to think that perhaps your intent is deception.
Quoting eodnhoj7
That's right, each of these fundamental laws has its own definition, what it means. One does not define the other. if that were the case, then it would be only one law. But there are three.
Quoting BrianW
Here we go again, good luck convincing eodnhoj7 of that.
"If it is all subjective, then what are you trying to explain when you know your explanations to be subject to fallacies just like all laws, as you put it."
The reflection of a subjective state, as void of any definition, is the canceling of a subjective state as undefined, into a objective state as defined.
The 0d point cancels itself out into a line when progressing to another 0d point. Void cancels itself out into being considering void cannot be observed on its own terms.
Subjectivity cancels itself out when given objective form, with the subjective state being multiple objective forms.
Unlike your faulty explanations, the laws of logic are evident in their application to philosophy, mathematics, science and natural discourse.
These laws, as the foundation for reasoning end in paradox as observed in wittgenstien (philosophy), mathematics (Godel), science (m-theory) and natural discourse (you and metaphysician undercover are not on the same page).
You say it's a matter of agreement. Well, you should know that agreement means it is accepted as logical.
Actually it is not just me, but Neitzche as well and other philsophers such as protagoras. If agreement is the foundation of logic, then logic contradicts itself in accords to the bandwagon fallacy and your religion makes no sense. But considering you and Metaphysician undercover do not agree, then by default you are not right relative to eachother.
The logic you call subjective is very authoritative because of the validity imposed on them by men of knowledge. Fallacy of authority. The authorities, by there own logic, want to be overridden. I am just reflecting there logic.
Where is agreement of your premises?
All logic is a continuum existing as directed movement through linear progression as definition conducive to relative seperation/connection, circularity conducive to maintainance of the axiom or relative dissolution of axioms into further axioms which are maintained, and the axiom as a point of origin for all further axioms while simultaneously existing as nothing in itself as means of inversion where one axiom changes to many axioms and these many axioms change to one axiom in themselves.
All arguments exist as is as structures and are there own proofs.
My premises sustain themselves while being open to self-maintianed expansion where any contradiction is merely a deficiency in structure solved by progression which is necessitated by the argument itself and maintained by a circularity. They are logical and are a higher order logic.
Where is the agreement in your premises? Do you have any premises? I don't know what they are yet.
Stop with this nonsense, already! If a black-skinned person is a human and a white-skinned person is a human, does the black-skinned person become a white-skinned person because they're both humans?
Are you arguing white and black people are not equal? Considering the black skinned person and white skinned person exist if and only if they continue through further propogation, as a person does not exist in and of themselves without other people, they the white and dark eventually mix over time.
However if you are arguing for the individual, and considering they come from a common lineage then they already have elements of the other in them. The color is determined by the ratio of pigments but the pigments of both are present in one degree or another. So in many respects yes, a person of one color can be a person of another color due to the inherent pigments within them. The ratios are mere directions used to seperate them, however the ratio cannot exist without the other part.
@Metaphysician Undercover and I do not contradict each other. Your faulty interpretation is what misguides you.
Actually Metaphysician said:
No, P is not defined by not P.
And you said:
[b]The three laws of logic, as are commonly known, are corollaries of each other:
1. The Law of Identity.
2. The Law of Non-contradiction.
3. The Law of Excluded Middle.
By corollary is meant, each law naturally inferences the other.[/b]
And inference means
1. to conclude (a state of affairs, supposition, etc) by reasoning from evidence; deduce
2. (tr) to have or lead to as a necessary or logical consequence; indicate
3. (tr) to hint or imply
with all definition:
3. The state of being clearly outlined:
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/definition
or I can use another source. However an inference is an act of definition considering all conclusions act as outlines. What is concluded is outlined, what is outlined is concluded, with both existing as "definition".
Even Einstein did not disagree with Netwonian mechanics though he found them limited. My advice to you is
Yes and I am saying the same thing about the laws of logic as being contradictory. All contradictions are premised in truth statements which are deficient in nature, but are truth statements none the less. The are contradictory because of there inherent lack of structure. Which modern logic entails due to its continual atomism and deductivity.
All logic exists as a continuum with this continuum being defined by its directive nature. All logic must progress.
Greater minds than yours have found them valid. Fallacy of authority, and ad-hominum, and an insult to yourself for feeling less than anyone intellectually. You are not objective about your subjectivity, hence the contradiction. Subjectivity cancels itself out eventually.
However, our human perspectives are limited and there will always be the probability of furthering them. I am following this logic? Are you? If greater mind are limited, and other's must progress past them...does that mean they are always wrong as what they say is never complete?
I get it that you are afraid of thinking outside your comfort zone, and like to stay in a flimsy box, leave exploring the unknown elements of logic to greater men who are willing to risk losing sanity. You don't have the strength or fortitude for it.
I will make my premise clear, relative to the fallacies.
All fallacies are invertedly true, as there self negation leads to a necessity of authority, equivocation, hominum, circularity, etc. as continuums.
All fallacies as false observe a dual negative progression where they are used as a means of seperation.
Where I am arguing with you, is that your system cannot maintain this, hence that is why you are deficient in reasoning.
Don't be blinded by ambition or obsession. There is a saying (chinese or japanese), "fixation/obsession is furthest from understanding." What ambition or obsession if I am strictly observing my premises maintain themselves in the face of "great thinkers" whose continual progression necessitates ambition and obsession.
Your axioms cannot maintain themselves. I am arguing all axioms can maintain themselves but this cannot be limited to the premises of prior thinkers as there laws lead to a munchasseen trillema at minimum and are subject to there own contradictions.
Is this new information? How did you come by this premise?
Quoting eodnhoj7
No. Agreement is not the foundation of logic. Agreement is the sign of validity or acceptance. Logic stands by its own right. Like I said, your problem is misinterpretation.
Quoting eodnhoj7
What same thing? Limitation is not contradiction. Boy, you need a dictionary!
Quoting eodnhoj7
You need to take time and develop perspective. I may be smart but not so arrogant not to acknowledge greater application of intelligence when I see it.
There is a difference between beyond comfort zone and being out right wrong. YOU ARE WRONG!
Quoting eodnhoj7
Anything past that would already be contradictory.
This is what I'm talking about. There is a difference between having information and having knowledge. At the very least knowledge is information given context. You need to take time to develop that context (perspective). It is greatly wanting.
I would welcome any definitive statement from any of the philosophers you've mentioned which contradicts the laws of logic or which finds them contradictory. Be sure to include the exact reference point for me to confirm.
I mean the whole argument is about why I am wrong, according to you, without quoting any source other than laws of logic which have multiple interpretations with the various sources hence are subject to a multitude of fallacies.
What argument have you produced claiming you right without falling to your own fallacies?
If I present an argument building off of the axioms, for example Pi can exist both as a ratio and a line (length) you claim I am wrong because I am ignoring your axioms. However I am saying the axioms are right, but they are wrong in the respect they are deficient in any self-maintain self-referentiality that does not lead to a Munchausheen trillema of continual "regress" rather than "progress".
I should thank you for organizing all those quotes for me, it saved me a lot of time :).
Provide me one source that is not circular and subject to equivocation, and I will provide you any source you wish for the above on any point you wish. You can pick anyone of them, but first provide me one source that is not subject to circularity and equivocation...just one.
The laws of logic do not have multiple and varied connotations. Otherwise they would not be laws or principles. What they have is multiple applications. Don't confound the two. (This is an explanation. I've given such in all my rebuffs. Please check again.)
Here we go again, try to convince Brian of that.
No. To keep you from attempting to pull wool over my eyes.
You want proof?
Everything we perceive is an identity, form, influence, condition, activity, character, etc. There is no formless, causeless, nothing, etc recorded in history. Where do yours come from?
Not multiple logics or laws of logic. I'm asking for multiple and distinctly varied interpretations of those logics or laws of logics. If you have these, show them.
What sources? Have you perceived formless, causeless, nothing?
"Everything we perceive is an identity, form, influence, condition, activity, character, etc. There is no formless, causeless, nothing, etc recorded in history."
First, every book that deals with perception.
Secondly, every description given falls under those limits.
Thirdly, the laws of logic - all of them which are currently known and acceptable within the fields of knowledge.
All description, as a limit occurs through no limit: Anaximander on the apeiron and much of oriential thought.
The law of logic, if they must progress as you have stated, are not currently fully understood hence known. Eastern philosophers have different laws of logic.
All western logic is contradictory in terms of eastern logic. Which is correct?
That's a concept. It is not something he proved, rather, hypothesized. Are you implying that's what you were doing?
Quoting eodnhoj7
What laws?
Quoting eodnhoj7
Not true. Else, prove it.
All proof must be infinite, it it is to continue as an absolute truth statement, hence must exist as unlimited through this continuum.
Eastern philosophy allows for circularity, western logic does not.
Eastern and Western philosophies describe different circumstances. On the few points of intersection they have, they agree unequivocally.
Not true. Again, you're confounding phenomena with the laws which govern them. I can present a rabbit as proof of its existence but it won't exist forever and it hasn't been in existence since the beginning of time. However, the laws which govern manifestation of phenomena are eternal, infinite, etc.
Logic is the realisation of the laws which govern phenomena. Because they are derived from perception of phenomena, they leave little to faults. The few fallacies attributed to them are present within human perspectives not the laws in themselves. This is the point which you fail to see. There is nothing wrong with logic. What is wrong is the interpretation of it.
Quoting eodnhoj7
Isn't it based on a law which governs phenomena? Then you already have my answer.
Also those phenomena, as logical, require logic to circle back on itself, leading to its own problems under its fallacy of circularity along with ad-hominum, authority, bandwagon relative to its self-referential nature through the observer as a phenomena.
You still have not given me what I ask for, I am getting the impression you are just make all of this up and pretending to be an authority.
This is my interpretation. However merriam-webster says, the formal principles of a branch of knowledge. I've given that explanation because I've deduced that we perceive phenomena, hence, our knowledge is that of phenomena and its relations.
Quoting eodnhoj7
You seem to not understand what logic is. Logic is the realisation (or expression) of the laws which govern phenomena. The laws are intrinsic to phenomena and are not phenomena themselves.
Quoting eodnhoj7
What haven't I answered?
Logic (from the Ancient Greek: ??????, translit. logik?[1]), originally meaning "the word" or "what is spoken", but coming to mean "thought" or "reason" is a subject concerned with the most general laws of truth,[2] and is now generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of valid inference. A valid inference is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the inference and its conclusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
Logic is dependent upon axioms as:
Point of Origin as unification of all axioms and all axioms as inversive, as an axiom.
Linear Definition as connection and seperation of axioms, as an axiom.
Circularity as maintenance and dissolution of axioms, as an axiom.
What haven't I answered? To give me a source for all your arguments which is not subject to circularity or equivocation.
The law of identity states that a thing is the same as itself. It gives each thing its own identity, so P, as a particular thing, is the same as P, itself, that particular thing. This is quite clear, unambiguous, and not open to equivocation. Your examples of multiple interpretations, ambiguity, and equivocation simply reflects your misunderstanding of the law of identity.
Actually no, the law can be expressed in multiple ways.
How can something be equal to itself unless it is seperate from itself? If "I" am equal to "I" it necessitates some form of seperation of "I" which may be observed relative to localizations in time where "I" existing in space/time locality x is equivolent to "I" existing in space/time locality "y".
Unless "P=" where "P=" is a function of equivocation, which is possible "P=P" observes a seperation between P and P.
The evidence indicates that you either completely misunderstand the law of identity, or that you state it in an ambiguous way in order to deceive. I am beginning to think that perhaps your intent is deception.
And what evidence is that? What is evidence but a framework of interpretation? A framework has been presented and it maintains itself while being open to further progression without contradiction.
[b]That's right, each of these fundamental laws has its own definition, what it means. One does not define the other. if that were the case, then it would be only one law. But there are three.
Pi is a relationship. It is not a line. — BrianW[/b]
A line is a relation between points, and all axioms are relations of other axioms. A length is a relationship between points as well, under these terms Pi as a relation is Pi as a length.
Each law defines the other through collaboration according to Brian.
Gee eodnnoj7, can't you read? The law of identity doesn't say that a thing is equal to itself, it says that a thing is the same as itself. So it's not expressing the equality of two distinct things, it is expressing the identity of one thing. That's why it's called the law of "identity". It implies that a thing has an identity, to itself, and that the thing cannot be other than its identity. Leibniz carries this further with the "identity of indiscernibles", stating the converse, if it has the same identity, it is necessarily the same thing, meaning that two distinct things cannot have the same identity.
There is no issue here of two things being equal, the issue is identity. I went through this already, "2+2" is not the same as "4". They are distinct, having a different identity, despite the fact that they are equal. One line is equal to an infinity of lines, but these two are distinct, having different identities, ergo not the same thing.
Quoting eodnhoj7
Try the above for example.
If a length is a relationship, this does not imply that all relationships are lengths. Give it up eodnhoj7, it's a lost cause.
P = P... it means that P is equal to itself...facepalm...
That is the point...equality observes a form of seperation, hence the law of identity observes (P,P) as 2 P's with the P being determined by it position in space/time or the argument itself.
The argument observes a form of repitition, where P is repeated and "=" acts as not just a connector between P and P but as a connector observes a seperation in the respect what is connected necessites a prior or future seperation.
Actually it does considering a length observes a connection between specific localized points, I may walk 30 feet from Point A to Point B, where that 30 feet is the connection in space and time with Point A and Point B.
Metaphysician, I would tell you to give it up...but you have no argument to give up.
If, and when, "P=P" is used to signify the law of identity, it signifies that P is the same as itself, because that's what the law of identity states. It does not signify that p is equal to P.
Sorry to be the one to inform you of this (though I know others such as brianw have already told you this): you appear to be incredibly, terribly, inept at interpretation. But I know your game, it's intentional, as deception.
Quoting eodnhoj7
How does this indicate that if length is a relation, then all relations are lengths?
Then "=" is not the same as anything and effectively is nothing but a point of inversion between one P and many P's. "=" is not identified except through P but under the law of identity it must have an identity hence the statement can be inverted to (=)P(=) causing P to have no identity unless referencing P=P. In these respects the law of identity necessitates a circularity.
But this circularity is a fallacy, hence the law of identity is strictly contradictory and a law of dualism.
However "P=P" and "(=)P(=)" are contradictory in the respect they are opposed to eachother as a dualism hence a third element must be synthesized where (P=) as both "P" and "=" where P as a form and "=" as a function of equivocation (connector) exist as one.
The law of idenity if it is to be logical must be:
1. P=P
2. (=)P(=)
3. (P=)
However because of equivocation "equals" "=" "is" etc. must be replaced by a universal variable as well that acts as a connective variable where the variable is not just a form but also a function.
Hence:
1. P(p)P
2. (p)P(p)
3. (Pp)
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Actually you are confusing your ability for interpretation as memorization. I am simply following the fallacies of logic, unlike you...who is more logical?
Where and how have you arrived at this?
Quoting eodnhoj7
Where and how have you arrived at this?
Quoting eodnhoj7
Where and how have you arrived at this?
Quoting eodnhoj7
This only applied to those three laws of logic, not every law in existence. Dude, context, please!
archimedes constant (pi), euler's number, pythagoras constant, the golden ratio, etc; are a few common mathematical constants which represent certain mathematical relationships
Is it your testimony that they are all the same? If you think so, then b**s***. If not, then that's the point we've been trying to make. The word relationship does not equate unrelated circumstances.
Now, on to your fallacies:
1. What is an axiom (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Axiom.html)
Axiom
An axiom is an irreducible primary. It doesn't rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any "more basic" premises. A true axiom can not be refuted because the act of trying to refute it requires that very axiom as a premise. An attempt to contradict an axiom can only end in a contradiction.
The term "axiom" has been abused in many different ways, so it is important to distinguish the proper definition from the others. The other definitions amount to calling any arbitrary postulate an 'axiom'. The famous example of this is Euclidean geometry. Euclid was a Greek mathematician who applied deductive logic to a few postulates, which he called axioms. In this sense, "axiom" was used to mean a postulate which one was sure was true. Later, though, it was shown that his postulates were sometimes false, and so the conclusions he made were equally false. The "axiom" he used was basing his geometry on a two dimensional plane. When his work was applied to the surface of a sphere, though, it broke down. A triangle's three angles add up to 180 degrees on a plane; they do not add up to 180 degrees on the surface of a sphere. The point is that Euclid's "axioms" were actually postulates.
True axioms are more solid than that. They are not statements we merely believe to be true; they are statements that we cannot deny without using them in our denial. Axioms are the foundation of all knowledge.
There are only a few axioms that have been identified. These are: Existence Exists, The Law of Identity, and Consciousness.
2. The Law of Identity (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html)
A is A: Aristotle's Law of Identity
Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is. "This leaf is red, solid, dry, rough, and flammable." "This book is white, and has 312 pages." "This coin is round, dense, smooth, and has a picture on it." In all three of these cases we are referring to an entity with a specific identity; the particular type of identity, or the trait discussed, is not important. Their identities include all of their features, not just those mentioned.
Identity is the concept that refers to this aspect of existence; the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity.
To have an identity means to have a single identity; an object cannot have two identities. A tree cannot be a telephone, and a dog cannot be a cat. Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is particular, and it cannot exist as something else. An entity can have more than one characteristic, but any characteristic it has is a part of its identity. A car can be both blue and red, but not at the same time or not in the same respect. Whatever portion is blue cannot be red at the same time, in the same way. Half the car can be red, and the other half blue. But the whole car can't be both red and blue. These two traits, blue and red, each have single, particular identities.
The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions.
=> Therefore, any 'thing' (e.g. a line) can only be that 'thing' (e.g. a line) due to its own unique/distinct IDENTITY.
Before I proceed to the law of non-contradiction, something you might want to understand:
3. Irrational Epistemology (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_Main.html)
Irrational Epistemology
Epistemology is the study of knowledge, and how we come to achieve it. A proper epistemology allows us to gain valid understanding of the world, and identify incorrect ideas. An epistemology based on reason is our means of successfully acquiring knowledge. An irrational epistemology, though, impairs the functioning of the mind. The more irrational it is, the less valid the knowledge one has is.
Since philosophy is a kind of knowledge, an irrational epistemology is the destroyer of a rational philosophy. It is makes it difficult or impossible to get other parts of the philosophy right, since it is prevents the proper functioning of the mind.
Like all misbegotten notions, most irrational epistemological theories or assumptions are not practiced consistently. The result would be an inability to deal with the world. Instead, an irrational epistemology is practiced inconsistently. It impairs the mind when it is used, but it is often ignored allowing limited real use of one's mind.
The following is a list of common epistemological mistakes or flawed systems. It is not an exhaustive list, since there are an infinite number of ways one can be wrong (and only one way to be right).
Faith
A Priori Knowledge
Philosopher's Deduction Fallacy
Subjectivism
Polylogism
Determinism
Fallacy of the Second Standard
Skepticism
=> In bold are your mistakes too.
[b]Point of Origin as unification of all axioms and all axioms as inversive, as an axiom. — eodnhoj7
1. Where and how have you arrived at this?
Linear Definition as connection and seperation of axioms, as an axiom. — eodnhoj7
2. Where and how have you arrived at this?
Circularity as maintenance and dissolution of axioms, as an axiom. — eodnhoj7
3. Where and how have you arrived at this?
Each law defines the other through collaboration according to Brian. — eodnhoj7
4. This only applied to those three laws of logic, not every law in existence. Dude, context, please!
archimedes constant (pi), euler's number, pythagoras constant, the golden ratio, etc; are a few common mathematical constants which represent certain mathematical relationships
Is it your testimony that they are all the same? If you think so, then b**s***. If not, then that's the point we've been trying to make. The word relationship does not equate unrelated circumstances.
4 minutes ago[/b]
1. All axioms are defined through further axioms, and as defined through further axioms they are connected to them where all axioms effectively exist as extensions of each other as one axiom. All axioms are a point of origin forth further axioms with all axioms in themselves being a center point of origin.
2. If one axiom, through definition progresses to another axiom (lets say one definition in a dictionary leads to another), this new axiom is relativistically seperate from the prior axiom in the respect it progresses past its point of origin as a point of origin in itself. In a seperate respect (and you can look at a dictionary again for this example) From a macroscopic view all axioms are defined by what they are connected too where one axiom is directed to another with this secondary axiom being directed back to its origins. They are directed towards eachother through eachother as eachother as 1 axiom observed through multiple connected parts.
Definition exists through seperation and connection.
3. All axioms circular back to their origins with this circularity being a constant. While this is deemed as a contradiction in western logic due to a lack of progressive defintion, the axiom is maintained through an oscillation where they are connected as one. This connection of the axioms through a circulation cause them to dissolve into a further axiom as one axiom in itself. For example 1+2 and 2+1 observe a circulation between the two where one is directed towards two and two directed towards 1 (through "+" as an active function) resulting in one defined the other and connected as "3" with 3 being the dissolution of +1 and +2 into a new axiom.
4. But the laws of logic must describe every law in existence other wise the laws are not logical.
4. On Contradictions (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Contradiction.html)
Contradiction
A contradiction arises when two ideas each make the other impossible. Contradictions don't exist in reality because reality simply is as it is and does not contradict itself. Only our evaluations of reality can contradict each other. If you think you have found a contradiction, then check your premises. Either you're mistaken about it being a contradiction or one of the contradicting concepts has been improperly formed.
If the content of your knowledge contains contradictions, then some of your knowledge is in error. Because in order to be successful in reality one must know reality, success requires correct knowledge. It is therefore important to continually search for and root out contradictions in your knowledge in order to make sure that your knowledge corresponds to reality. The two primary methods for doing this are logic, the art of non-contradictory identification, and integration.
4. On Contradictions (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Contradiction.html)
[b]Contradiction
A contradiction arises when two ideas each make the other impossible. Contradictions don't exist in reality because reality simply is as it is and does not contradict itself. Only our evaluations of reality can contradict each other. If you think you have found a contradiction, then check your premises. Either you're mistaken about it being a contradiction or one of the contradicting concepts has been improperly formed.
If the content of your knowledge contains contradictions, then some of your knowledge is in error. Because in order to be successful in reality one must know reality, success requires correct knowledge. It is therefore important to continually search for and root out contradictions in your knowledge in order to make sure that your knowledge corresponds to reality. The two primary methods for doing this are logic, the art of non-contradictory identification, and integration.[/b]
[b]con·tra·dic·tion
[?käntr??dikSH(?)n]
NOUN
a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that areopposed to one another.
"the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions"
a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
"the paradox of using force to overcome force is a real contradiction"
the statement of a position opposite to one already made.
"the second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first" · [more]
synonyms:
denial · refutation · rebuttal · countering · counterstatement · opposite · negation · gainsaying · confutation[/b]
http://www.bing.com/search?q=contradiction+definition&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=contradiction+definition&sc=8-24&sk=&cvid=C2C1F9EB4C8540CDB6CFC492CF5E2A6B
The multiplicity of sources leads to the definition of contradiction as subject to equivocation as each source must be defined by another source, etc.
All contradiction arises through a dualism leading to opposition between variables. The law of identity, because "=" is not defined, is subject to this dualism.
If you think that the law of identity, is a logical fallacy then it's quite clear that you are being illogical.
Then, it is as I said before, you are using unfounded premises which are deemed fallacious by every law of logic. Hence, illogical.
Do you see any "=" in the explanation given for law of identity? Stop dreaming, pinch yourself and wake up. There is no hiding behind misunderstood equations with me. Read, understand and know you are mistaken!
3. Irrational Epistemology (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_Main.html)
Irrational Epistemology
Epistemology is the study of knowledge, and how we come to achieve it. A proper epistemology allows us to gain valid understanding of the world, and identify incorrect ideas. An epistemology based on reason is our means of successfully acquiring knowledge. An irrational epistemology, though, impairs the functioning of the mind. The more irrational it is, the less valid the knowledge one has is.
Since philosophy is a kind of knowledge, an irrational epistemology is the destroyer of a rational philosophy. It is makes it difficult or impossible to get other parts of the philosophy right, since it is prevents the proper functioning of the mind.
Like all misbegotten notions, most irrational epistemological theories or assumptions are not practiced consistently. The result would be an inability to deal with the world. Instead, an irrational epistemology is practiced inconsistently. It impairs the mind when it is used, but it is often ignored allowing limited real use of one's mind.
The following is a list of common epistemological mistakes or flawed systems. It is not an exhaustive list, since there are an infinite number of ways one can be wrong (and only one way to be right).
Faith
A Priori Knowledge
Philosopher's Deduction Fallacy
Subjectivism
Polylogism
Determinism
Fallacy of the Second Standard
Skepticism
=> In bold are your mistakes too.
[/b]
The premised does not give a self-maintained definition of reason, hence is built on contradictory foundations as this "perspective"
is a statement of:
Faith
A Priori Knowledge
Philosopher's Deduction Fallacy
Subjectivism
Polylogism
Determinism
Fallacy of the Second Standard
Skepticism
Arguing contradiction is a logical conclusion is the fallacy which is being highlighted. That you can't realise that shows I should not waste any more time on you.
YOU WIN.
The Prime Triadic Nature of the Axiom:
Actually the premises I argue are original, progress to eachother and further axioms, while maintaining themselves as logical and structured through self-referencing.
1. All axioms are points of origin; hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. The point of origin progresses to another point of origin through point 2 and cycles back to itself through point 3 with this linear progression and circularity originating from themselves, through eachother and point 1.
Point 1 is original and exists through points 2 and 3 as points 2 and 3.
As original Points 1,2,3 are extension of eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously being nothing in themselves as points of origin that invert to further axioms respectively; hence originate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws
2. All axioms are progressive linear definition; point 1 and 3 progress to point 2 as respective points of origin observed in point 1 while this linear progression from one to another through alternation and exists as circulation between points 1 and 3 to point 2 and point 2 progressing to points 1 and 3.
Point 2 is definitive and defines points 1 and 3 with points 1 and 3 defining point 2.
As definitive Points 1,2,3 progress from one to another and are inherently seperate. As seperating one from another they are connected under a common function of "seperation"; hence are defined as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws.
3. All axioms are maintain through a circularity, as linear alternation through point 2, and points of origin as point 1, with point 1 and 2 circulating through each other as point three while circulating through themselves as each other. Point 3 maintains itself as circular and maintains points 1 and 2 as circular while points 1,2 and 3 circulating through eachother maintain eachother.
Point 3 is circular and exists through 1 and 2 as 1 and 2.
As circular Points 1,2,3 are maintained through eachother as eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously dissolving into further axioms as eachother; hence they circulate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws.
Win what exactly? your position contradicts itself as well as the "irrational epistemology" you argue. The nature of the axiom is defined above.
Contradiction does not occurs in a triadic logic.
What happened to having sources? I seem to have given you quite a few. So, when do I get yours?
Well then, consider me amazed. Either all philosophers who adhere to those laws of logic are blind making you the only sighted philosopher or...
Adieu
UNDOUBTEDLY!!!
All philosophers adhere to the Prime Triadic Axioms whether they know it or not. They contradict themselves in not admitting to these axioms and further philosophical arguments occurs from these original arguments to further define them while resulting in a circularity between the schools of thoughts.
Where one argument fails another argument maintains it and defines it while seamingly antithetical, they synthesis new schools in the process.
Why are we still arguing? I may not know every philosopher but I know with certitude that every field of knowledge is based upon premises which do not contradict those laws.
Now, unless you're going to provide proof and prove me wrong, I suggest we end this right here. You can have the last word if you wish.
Proof?
So following the laws of logic is a fallacy according to the laws of logic, and logic is illogical?
You said, taking a law of logic (the law of identity) as an authoritative statement is a fallacy according to the laws of logic. So I assume that taking any laws of logic as authoritative is fallacious, and logic is illogical. Isn't that what you are arguing?
Of course, if you do not accept the laws of logic then for you, everything is illogical.
OK, that makes sense, your intent is to replace the existing logical framework with a new one. That explains why everything you say appears to be so illogical, it really is.
To reject the principles of logic is to be illogical. If your framework rejects logic as a failure, then naturally your framework is illogical.
It does not reject them, it rather observes these laws on there own terms contradict themselves outside this framework. The framework is self maintained and these laws exist as extensions of these 3 laws but the three laws are not limited to these laws of logic.
The two sides of the argument use different meanings for the terms logic, axioms, subjective, among others.
From what 'eodnhoj7' states, he is right, in that, all statements must be fallacious because the logic he follows claims all logic (including his) is subjective and therefore subject to fallacy. In that way he proves his own fallacy.
On the other side, 'BrianW' and 'Metaphysician Undercover', must be right by their own logic because they follow from the laws of logic which they use.
In conclusion, there should be no argument once you discover there is no agreement in the terminology used because there is no consensus in understanding. Otherwise there is no end to this type of argument.
Thanks guys.
Actually Cleopatra you are really close.
All logic is subjective, but what determines logic as objective is the replication of subjectivity into both form and function. This is considering the subjective state is without form or function, it is inherently void.
Any thought or feeling I may have becomes objective when replicated. This replication is form and function. I may have x feeling. It becomes objective when that feeling replicates itself. It becomes further objective when a thought is connected through it where the thought replicates with it.
This in turn becomes more objective when a word or action is attached. Which becomes more objective when other people replicate this word or action...etc. Objectivity is the repitition of anything into a structure, where this structure is determined by symmetry as the replication of common limits.
This repitition of common limits observes a form of unity considering the limit as replicated is funda,mentally the same thing existing through itself. Objectivity as structure is unity.
Now all objective reality as in turn processed through a formless subjective nature that is essentially void. An example of the void nature of subjectivity can be observed in a self centered person referenced as "empty", "soulless", "hungry for more" etc, which in turn results in a selfish person generally causing chaos relative to the natural order.
This subjective nature, inherent within all of us, interprets an objective statement in a different manner from others. This causes a distortion in not just unity but objectivity. Hence the structure exists through a subjective interpretation with this subjective interpretation inverting it into a new one and causing a new objective phenomenon to take hold and exist.
So all logic has a dual subjective and objective nature under "self-evidence" with the word "axiom" being a singular word for these plural definitions. "Self" in turn cycles to an axiom as well as "evidence", and we see a progression of axioms from here.
All observable phenomenon are axioms, with non observable phenomena observed by there absence of observbility as axioms as well. Everything is an axiom.
Now, to shorten the overly long post, the nature of standard logic is dependent upon a strict linear form of reasoning. One thing is directed towards another then the next, etc.
If one fallacy is directed towards another fallacy then the fallacy cancels itself out. If the fallacy is applied to a law of logic, then the law of logic is canceled out.
The problem occurs that in canceling out the fallacies through fallacies we are left with truth statements. If I cancel out the fallacy of authority because of bandwagon, then "authority" is left as a truth statement and foundation for logic. So the fallacies negate themselves into truth statements and we are left with truths.
Now this changes when we apply these fallacies to the standard laws (Principle of Identity, etc.). They fall apart under these fallacies. However the question is do they fall apart on there own?
What I am arguing is that the standard laws, as directed through eachother lead to contradiction. P=P requires -P=-P to exist if P cannot equal -P. So -P exists through P=P and inherently defines it. The problem occurs is that while P and -P are defined, "=" is not and is subject to belief. Hence the argument above about the triadic nature of the law of identity. "=" is defined and not limited to strict belief.
If however they are to be taken on belief, then they are not really logical and set the premise for complete subjectivity. These laws failing to take in the subjective nature in turn lack objectivity considering these "objective" statements as observed above are interpreted subjectively.
"All statements are subjective" is both a subjective and objective statement where this dualism is unified under the word "axiom".
Now the question occurs as to the nature of these axioms, and the prime triadic laws of the axiom covers that.
In short terms I am arguing there logic is contradictory because it must progress, but if it progresses than the laws as foundations become void. They must be self-referential if they are to maintain themselves and they are not. The 3 Laws I argue are self referential and allow for the base laws of logic to exist. But the base laws contradict themselves on their own terms and can only exist if contained in a greater system.
"This statement is false" is a paradox. If the statement is false it must be continually argued as such, hence the argument exists as a continuum. The same is applied if it is true.
All standard logic leads to paradox, hence all logic as axiomatic is a continuum. It progresses or regresses with this progress/regress observing the axiom as directed movement through a linear form and function.
This progression of one axiom to another, past is origins, observes a state of seperation. The statement italicized above separates into a further statement and so on and so forth.
However considering the new statement, if premised as the beginning point of the argument is directed to the italicized one we can observe a different nature of progression.
If both statements are viewed as starting points we can observe them as circular.
Hence all axioms are linear and circular directed movement with the axiom as both a linear and circular directed movement existing as a point of origin.
What I am arguing is that all axioms exist as a point of origin, linear progression and circularity and the foundation of logic are founded in directed movement which exists in axioms of geometry. Axioms are premised in geometry, as all axioms are C ontinuums.
Logic, math, science, religion, psychology are all interconnected under key universal principles.
There is nothing about P=P which requires -P, or implies the existence of -P whatsoever. This is your false assumption.
Sure, -P=-P is consistent with P=P, and it may be argued that -P=-P follows logically from P=P if P=P represents the law of identity, because -P=-P could also represent the law of identity. But in no way does P=P require the existence of -P, or imply the existence of -P.
You have things reversed, -P=-P may follow from P=P (as the law of identity), but P=P does not require -P at all. P=P means simply P=P, it says nothing about -P and does not require -P.
-P requires the existence of P=P.
P=P requires P cannot equal -P considering "equal" and "not equal" are not defined except through there relations.
Considering "=" is defined in accords to (P,P) equality effectively is defined as "(=)P(=)" where it exists if and only of there is P.
"Equality" is not defined in the above axioms hence "non equality" through the principle of non contradiction is needed to prove the principle of identity.
No, this is incorrect. P=P leads to the conclusion of P cannot equal -P, it does not require it. Do you see the difference? We can say whatever we want about P, and this says nothing about -P, nor does it in any way require a -P. It only says stuff about P. However, by saying things about P we can draw conclusions about -P through the law of non-contradiction.
Quoting eodnhoj7
As I told you already "=" in the law of identity signifies "is the same as". So what "=" indicates is that P is defined by P, P is the same as P. To understand "is the same as" does not require turning to "is not the same as", though understanding "is the same as" is prior to, and prepares one for an understanding of "is not the same as". One is the negation of the other, and negation can only follow after affirmation.
..
They collaborate, and Brian agrees to this fact of "collaboration" if you look at the above posts.
Equality is not defined in the law of identity except as a middle term. The middle term of "not equal to" is needed to defined the law of identity considering both "equality" and "not equal" require definition.
P and -P are defined by there realtions in the respective laws, but equality and not equality are not unless the laws defined eachother.
Negation can result in affirmation. To argue the law of non contradiction first is to lead to the nature of identity. Noncontraction leads to identity for an absence of contradiction is structure.
You cannot apply "is the same as" and "equal" without leading to the fallacy of equivocation.
Sorry eodnhoj7 but I believe in the laws of logic in the way they are understood in philosophy. Because you seem to contradict them I cannot agree with you. I don't have better arguments than those already given so I will stick to what I know and understand, if yours works for you then it's also ok. Perhaps there is meant to be many paths to the same end.
Please don't misquote me. I said the three laws inference each other. This means that each of the three laws reach the same conclusion and therefore point to each other as correspondences.
If there are many paths to the same end, then by default I do not not contradict them considering all paths are correct by your logic.
I am not contradicting them, as the principle of Identity I argue contains these laws as foundations.
P(p)P observes (p) as "equal", "is", "same as" and eliminates any problem of equivocation the standard laws are subject too.
The fallacies can be applied to eachother, and the laws of logic are incomplete.
The law of identity leads to the law of non-contradiction, and not vise versa. It's a one way street, like the law of non-contradiction leads to the law of exclude middle and not vise versa. As proof, consider starting with the law of excluded middle, and you'll see that it's nonsense without the law of non-contradiction. It doesn't make any sense because it requires the law of non-contradiction to establish a relation between is and is not. However, we can establish the relation between is and is not, without the law of non-contradiction, because one follows the other and not vise versa. Likewise, the law of non-contradiction makes no sense without the law of identity, but the law of identity makes sense without the law of non-contradiction. One follows from the other, but not vise versa,
Quoting eodnhoj7
No. Brian said:
Quoting BrianW
Notice how the inference goes one way. Law #3 requires #2 which requires #1. But the inverse is not true, while #3 clarifies or expounds on #2 which clarifies and expounds on #1.
If each of the same laws reach the same conclusion are they connected by the conclusion?
As I have said, their connection or relation is that of correspondence, not whatever meaning you want to attach to it.
On iPad, but looking it up on Google (will post defintion site), it observes "a proposition following from one already proved."
So one law leads to another.
If he wants to use infer, then we are left with " to deduce or conclude" which means one is deduced to another.
One progresses to another.
My point is made.
You mean my point is made. And yours is disproven.
I will make it simple
1. Equality is not defined in the laws without the laws being connected.
2. The fallacies can be applied on eachother.
3. The laws are incomplete and the fallacies lead to truth statements.
How about we each show the validity of of our logic by how it presents in practical life? This means using points of reference which are proofs and that means physical phenomena only. It is the simplest and most clarifying way to prove our points. Are you willing to bet your understanding on that?
My point is that your ramblings are illogical. And there appears to be group consensus on that.
You tell me how your logic is practical.
Reproduction.
Male (thesis) and female (antithesis), synthesize into a further male or female. The genetic composition progresses past its point of origin (parent, parents) while certain elements are maintained (cycled) through the offspring.
Let us have one final argument in support of our points and let them stand on their own merit. We should not have any further statements after them whether we agree or not. Are you in? It's a standoff and only those who read them will know who is logical and who is illogical. The weight of our principles and understanding will reveal themselves in those final statements.
Do you agree with this?
Okay...How can the fallacies exist if the fallacies can be applied to eachother.
Second. What is Logic? I provide sources stemming from the Greek as "reason" and "word"...you make up your own.
If the group consensus is spinning there logic around my arguments, and I point out that you do not agree with eachother, then you suffer from a cult disorder where you believe without questioning because an authority told you too.
I am saying P=P but the statement is incomplete.
Proof. How is it practical? What is practical though considering you are spending the most practical of resources "time" in trying to justify a point I will just absorb for a paper.
If we show how our logic applies to practical life then there can be no contradictions when experience itself is proof of its reliability.
It doesn't matter who goes first or last, the point is after those final statements, there should be no more.
So, do you agree?
You laws do not.
But you claim no contradiction can exist, yet your logic says it does.
Excuse me for a second.....
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have been arguing it is subjective all along.
Do you agree with my proposition or not?
If you believe you're right then it should not be a problem.
So, what is your reply?
You saying logic is subject to personal experience is what I have been arguing all along "logic has a subjective and objective nature" . You have no proposition because the premises are void...admit defeat. I already admitted to yes with the example of reproduction as a practical example, and you did not give an example and said logic is subjective.
You lost because the contest was already concluded. The answer "was" yes.
Sorry, I did not know the 'reproduction' example was your reply. I will give mine shortly. Please be patient.
Now you're changing your tune. Before you said that P=P requires -P in order to have any meaning. Starting to see things my way now? Now that you're starting to see the deficiencies of your principles, should we go back and reassess all the deficiencies of your various arguments?
Let's consider pi and the line. A line is a relation. Pi is a relation. Does this mean that pi is a line? Or can there be different types of relations, pi being of one type and a line being of another type?
You can type all the thoughts you want for your proof, because that proof is subject to you. The most you can do is turn my words around on me, but that is inherent within my laws, so you would just be acknowledging them.
But if your logic is deemed as true by others then a bandwagon fallacy occurs, hence it is false.
I win simply because without you being born through synthesis you would have no argument to begin with. Without life, which occurs through the linear direction of organisms and the circulation of genetic material through cells existing through other cells as cells there is no "practicality".
Life is practical with reproduction being the most practical aspect of life stemming from sythesis, with this synthesis further existing through eating, etc.
Wow.....
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I owe both of you thanks for the laughs.
Right, you've now changed your tune. Before you said "P=P requires -P=-P to exist". Now, P=P is simply incomplete without -P.
Some sources relate it with reason others with principles inherent in the function or expression of reality and its many aspects.
For example:
1. reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
2. a formal scientific method of examining or thinking about ideas.
3. the formal principles of a branch of knowledge.
4. a method of reasoning that involves a series of statements, each of which must be true if the statement before it is true.
5. any particular formal system in which are defined axioms and rules of inference.
6. the system and principles of reasoning used in a specific field of study.
There are many other definitions given but the fundamental meaning remains the same.
Thus logic refers to a system or method which governs our understanding. This means that the premise must lead automatically or naturally to the conclusion.
For me, logic is realised from the laws or principles governing phenomena, which means that, the conclusions drawn must be explicit in the way we understand and relate to phenomena and consequently how we interact with reality. I believe that is how the three laws of logic came to be.
They are:
1. The Law of Identity.
Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is.
Identity is the concept that refers to all aspects of existence, that is, the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity.
The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable.
The proof of this is the experience of phenomena. That is, we only experience what is affirmed as an identity through its specific characteristics.
2. The Law of Non-Contradiction
First, a contradiction arises when two ideas each make the other impossible. Contradictions don't exist in reality because reality simply is as it is and does not contradict itself.
Only our ideas and interpretations can be contradictory.
It states that contradictory identities, circumstances or statements cannot both be true when having similar values. It is complementary to the law of identity.
3. The Law of Excluded Middle
It states that a proposition is either true or false. There is no middle ground between the two which is neither true nor false or both true and false. It is also complementary to the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction.
IS LOGIC SUBJECTIVE?
The claim that logic is subjective can take the form of:
1. a mere assertion, in which case, there are no grounds for believing it
2. an argument, in which case, it becomes the very thing it attempts to disprove and hence fails.
Logic is established or realised from the laws which govern the domain of knowledge (of phemomena or the reality they exist in) and in which both the subjective and the objective are aspects.
Therefore, as is readily apparent from the above argument, there is no excuse or escape from adhering to logic. There is no hiding behind the idea of subjectivity, circularity, paradoxes, etc. There are no assumed or unfounded premises or conclusions in the representation of logic. Everything is stated as it is related to in our experiences of reality. And that is the absolute validity of logic.
The premise was that you show how it applies to practical life, not a series of definitions and assertions.
Lol, you actually made up the rules and cannot follow them.
The Prime Triadic Laws observe all this is more:
1. All logic is a continuum as:
A. a point of origin in which all axioms are extensions of all axioms and as individual axioms they are void.
B. Linear defintion where axioms are separated or connected relative to begining axiom observed.
C. Circular maintainance where all axioms are maintained or dissolved in accords to there circular movement.
The continual nature of finiteness, as a point of inversion from one thing into many as change, sets the foundation for a continuum and the irrational nature of finite truth.
2. All contradiction is a deficiency in structure due to a lack of self referencing existing through opposition. All progression as opposition through seperation is foundation of contradiction.
All axioms as points of origin are beyond contradiction or paradox as they are extensions of all axioms and void in themselves.
All axioms as self referencing are truth statements as logical structure and hence proof statements.
Hence all axioms exist as self maintained as truth statements, contradictory in the respect to being progressive, and both true and false with all false being a gradation of truth while being none of the above as Continuuims. All axioms are true, false, and both/neither.
3. All axioms occur through synthesis as joining, where the axiom is defined by its joining to another axiom as an axiom.
And I can go further.
Because it must progress to further axioms, considering it is only a part, it does not exist on its own terms.
Who loses there own game?
ROFL!!!!!!!!!
Then comes up with there own assertions and calls the other guy a narcissist?
ROFL
You lost fair and square.
This is a philosophy forum, there are plenty of philosophers such as Wittgenstein and Neitzche who pointed to the absurdities in logic. I am not setting a precedent here.
You lost according to your own rules, you said "Practical" experience, hence "reproduction" as a continuum. You gave a list of definitions.
It is not my fault.
My response was even short.
You do know Godels incompleteness theorem renders the foundation of logic incomplete right? It means they are in a perpetual state of contradiction as a further system is needed to justify them.
Logic as a continuum, justified by infinity, is the only answer to giving logic any foundation.
Circularity proves this as the form of the answer you provided does not reference the form of the game.
P=P, does not itself need to progress to further axioms. It has meaning on its own, as the law of identity, indicating that P exists and is identifiable as an entity. What "must" progress, and what is represented by "logical necessity" is the human mind carrying out the logical process. Logical necessity, ("must progress") is within the mind. The freedom of choice is self-restricted as the mind is compelled to proceed toward the logical conclusion. The mind desires to know, and therefore restricts its own capacity to choose by enforcing :logical necessity, as the means to that end, knowing. The compulsion to proceed further, toward a related axiom, is produced by the existence of, and the understanding of, the primary axiom P=P. So it is not the case that P=P requires the further progress for its existence. The further progress is enabled by its existence.
The completion sought is within the mind and follows from the identification of the object (P). The desire is for a completion to the understanding of the identified entity. It is first identified, and therefore designated as existing through the act of identification, but the understanding of it is recognized as incomplete. So the mind is compelled, by the desire to know, to proceed toward further understanding.
There is a separation between the object (signified as P) and the understanding of the object, a separation which is necessitated logically, by the incompletion of the understanding. The object is identified as one whole, P, not a part, and therefore complete in and of itself, but the understanding of it is incomplete. Therefore there is a separation between the object itself, identified as P, and the understanding of the object. The understanding is what progresses. P=P signifies the first step of understanding. Recognizing the existence of the object, as an entity, a whole, and giving it identity is the first step of understanding. P=P is not void without further axioms, it just does not provide a complete understanding.
If you deny that what is identified as P is a real object, a whole, claiming that it is instead a part of a whole, then you invalidate that entire logical structure. You cannot therefore, proceed from P=P to further axioms, if your claim is that P represents a part rather than a whole, because you now need to validate the existence of P. P=P has been invalidated, P does not represent a thing with its own existence, as itself,, but it represents a part of a thing. This would require proceeding backward to a prior, more fundamental axiom, which would necessitate the identify of P as part of a whole, rather than as an individual thing, itself.
After the first sentence, I did not even bother reading it.
My explanations of logic are grounded in "phenomena", "reality" and "existence". Isn't that practical enough?
If you want you can insert any example.
Quoting BrianW => e.g. cow, ball, etc.
I thought you would understand.
On the other hand,
NONE OF YOUR PREMISES IS GROUNDED IN ANY OBSERVABLE PROOF.
=> So what? How does this manifest in reality or phenomena?
Quoting eodnhoj7
=> Again, so what? How does this manifest in reality or phenomena?
Quoting eodnhoj7
And again, you get the drift don't you? How does this manifest in reality or phenomena?
Your logic seems to exist in your imagination only. I guess that's why you keep hiding behind subjectivity. Clearly, yours is.
I am arguing that logic is in a perpetual state of change, and this is the universal law of logic.
It is "life" and from "life" stems practicality.
The laws of logic do not take into account change.
P can be substituted for rule 2 and rule 3.
There's nothing equivocal about practical experience because it refers to something you've clearly and distinctly participated in. Sorry, no hiding behind confusion anymore. The logic I've explained holds for each and every experience.
That argument you gave about reproduction is neither scientific nor philosophic. It is just another one of your word salad tactics. Nothing in it means anything.
The Law of Identity states that:
Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is.
It is expressed mathematically as p=p.
From it, let's substitute p with any phenomenon or existence. I'll use cow, ball, form, cause and you (eodnhoj7) as examples to prove that it holds.
So, P=P
substituting the above with P, we get:
cow=cow
ball=ball
form=form
cause=cause
eodnhoj7=eodnhoj7
That is how you prove it holds. As you can see, there is consistency between what is on one side of the equation and what is on the other. THE PREMISE AUTOMATICALLY LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION.
NOW, HOW ABOUT YOU PROVE YOUR PREMISES?
If P = "All definitions" then the law necessitates the fallacy of equivocation and the law contradicts itself.
Stop playing the fool!
Because P=P represents any and all phenomena and experience in reality, therefore the logic holds for everything. That is what to be valid means.
Equivocal means to be ambiguous. As I've explained to you, no experience or phenomena is ambiguous. Otherwise, prove it.
Is a cow ambiguous?
Is a ball ambiguous?
Are you ambiguous? etc, etc
You have no case.
There is no explanation the law, except outside the law. The law does not self-reference.
The law is ambiguous.
ONLY PEOPLE'S INTERPRETATIONS ARE CONTRADICTORY. For example, the interpretation you have of logic. And that is what makes you WRONG.
This is just stupid word salad to confuse yourself. The definition of a cow cannot be equal to the definition of a ball. Your interpretation only confuses you.
P=P
Cow=Cow
Ball=Ball. (THIS IS THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION.)
You are WRONG again. This law is the basis of self-reference, that is P=P.
I argue this in the above laws. Equivocation is not a fallacy, unless it is argued as one.
The standard laws of Logic apply to these fallacies as well:
1) The Law of Identity: P=P
P can be observed as "all definitions" leading to the fallacy of equivocation, as well as P as a variable being subject to equivocation.
2) The law of non-contradiction:
P?-P
However standard math observes 1=0
https://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffile ... .1-8.shtml
3) The law of Excluded Middle:
P ? - P
Contradicts law 2 and 1 if P = 1 and -P = 0
NO! P is not a variable. It is a place holder.
Quoting eodnhoj7
GOTCHYA!
You argued that your logic (your grand prime triadic nonsense) holds because of self-referencing. Good to see it fall apart in your own hands.
Quoting eodnhoj7
I've opened that page and it does not say that. Copy-paste that statement here if it exists.
Like I said, no more of your nonsense will pass muster with me.
P=P is self-referencing because the premise automatically leads to the conclusion.
So far, I haven't seen you prove any of your prime triadic nonsense. Why don't you give it a try?
Not really, the law holds that "P" is a variable that can mean "anything", they just do not apply "anything" as the variable. — eodnhoj7
NO! P is not a variable. It is a place holder.
[b]
Variable:
NOUN
"an element, feature, or factor that is liable to vary or change."
http://www.bing.com/search?q=variable+definition&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=variable+definition&sc=8-19&sk=&cvid=A58D95C1C7C04379B803611D3701E7AE
Place holder:
"a symbol in a mathematical or logical expression that may be replaced by the name of any element of a set"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/placeholder
P can change or it can meaning anything. Either way the difference between "variable" and "placeholder" hold to both interpretations as argued above.
[/b]
Then self-reference is subject to the fallacy of equivocation, in which case it cannot be a fallacy. — eodnhoj7
GOTCHYA!
You argued that your logic (your grand prime triadic nonsense) holds because of self-referencing. Good to see it fall apart in your own hands.
[b]Not really, because the fallacies are viewed as truth statements and exist as contradictory if an only if the knowledge is viewed as progressive in nature. All knowledge must have a simultaneous circularity,
hence the fallacy is both a fallacy and truth statement at the same time in different respects.
[/b]
However standard math observes 1=0
https://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffile ... .1-8.shtml — eodnhoj7
My bad, that is a website for showing the proof is wrong not that 1=0, here are others which address it:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_anyone_provide_the_mathematical_proof_of_0_1_zero_factorial_is_equal_to_one
or:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/proof-that-0-1.195945/
I've opened that page and it does not say that. Copy-paste that statement here if it exists.
Like I said, no more of your nonsense will pass muster with me.
[b]Well that is a really subjective statement, are you an authority on logic?
[/b]
Logic is movement and an act of synthesis, the whole conversation proves this.
Axioms stem to further axioms and the axioms cycle back on themselves.
P does not change, it is replaced (on both sides of the equation).
There is a difference between a place holder and a variable in mathematics.
A placeholder is a symbol.
A variable is a condition or element which depends on others in the equation.
AGAIN. ONLY A PERSON'S INTERPRETATION CAN BE CONTRADICTORY. IN THIS CASE, YOURS!
Not yet proven!
Quoting eodnhoj7
NO.
Quoting eodnhoj7
Not yet proven!
It seems you are trying to argue that semantics contradicts logic. That won't work either.
A variable may change from 1 to 2 relative to the equation:
1 = x
With x being anything from 1 to 1+1-1, 1+2-2, etc.
The equation P=P has no variable.
AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WRONG!
Modern greek for word is 'lexi'.
Logic is derived from logos, which is ancient greek (perhaps ionian) for 'word', 'reason' or 'plan'.
AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WRONG!
The equation we're discussing is P=P. It has no variable. Don't try to change the subject.
By the way, I'm still waiting for you to prove your prime triadic nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
even sourced in the wiki version.
You can make up stuff all you want, I am just showing how the laws contradict eachother necessitating further laws.
And as you can see, reason is part of that meaning.
AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WRONG.
Covered in Prime Triad.
The very definition of WORD SALAD in this context.
You have not shown any progression.
This can be viewed as a loose reference to zeno's paradox.
Not word salad at all.
Actually I have. The premises are maintained and progressively observed from seperate angles such as the laws of idenity, 1 = 0, the nature of definition, equivocation and a whole list of further fallacies.
You are writing it in words but you are not proving it as it is observed in reality (in phenomena). So, there's no proof.
What you've written has nothing to do with Zeno's paradox.
AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WRONG.
This is nonsense. It is not the law of identity.
This conversation is a phenomena as well as all the axioms stemming from which is and is not the Prime Triad.
What you've written has nothing to do with Zeno's paradox.
Actually it does the continual progression observes a stability where the axioms never really change due to there continuous empirical and abstract nature as existing through further axioms.
This is not Zeno's paradox.
The law of identity deals with reality as it is. No matter the condition of that reality, whether real or illusion, it is distinctly itself.
P=P
Reality=Reality
Illusion=Illusion
AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WRONG.
Actually it is, the law of identity for P must equal P; hence P determines what equality is. 1 = 0 shows P can having multiple meanings in one respect while P=X in a seperate where X as a different variable is not actually P.
Example 1 = 3-2 but 3-2 is "3" "-" and "2" hence is not the same as P=1.
P can mean multiple things simultaneously.
1=0 is a mathematical fallacy which you have conjured up and have not proved.
1=0 has nothing to do with P=P
AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WRONG.
The law of idenitity, as a you say is a placeholder, it stays within abstract logic and mathematics.
Unless you are saying logic and mathematics are subject to reality, in which case the nature of variable applies considering reality is in a constant state of change.
P=P
If P is substituted, it has to be done on both sides of the equation.
Therefore,
P=P
1=1
0=0
[i]We also define 0! = 1 to provide consistency in the equations for nPr and nCr : when r = 0 or r = n, the formula should give values of 1. This will only be possible if (n-n)! equals 1. There are a number of such situations in mathematics where an operation originally defined only for positive integers ("counting numbers"), as evolved from ordinary human uses, is extended to larger sets of numbers. A widely-used example is x^n .
Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/proof-that-0-1.195945/
[/i]
No. That's not what it says. This is your own faulty interpretation.
Quoting eodnhoj7
The elements governed by reality change. But reality remains itself. Just like we grow up from children to adults but our identity doesn't change. The identity of reality remains the same.
Hence, P=P
Reality=Reality.
YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WRONG
Don't change the subject. We're talking about the Law if Identity, P=P.
Quoting eodnhoj7
This is not mathematics. It is your own nonsense.
AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WRONG.
No. That's not what it says. This is your own faulty interpretation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes
It is all about infinite movement, not my own interpretation.
[b]The elements governed by reality change. But reality remains itself. Just like we grow up from children to adults but our identity doesn't change. The identity of reality remains the same.
Hence, P=P
Reality=Reality.
[/b]
The elements governed by reality, are real hence change is governance.
Actually a child's identity is not the same as an adult's identity. Interests change, relationships change, health changes.
Don't change the subject. We're talking about the Law if Identity, P=P.
Yes and 0=1 or more specifically 0! = 1. This is not my rule in math, I am just quoting them. Someone else wrote this.
P cannot be substituted, other wise it changes and is a variable. As a Place holder if is effectively nothing but void. — eodnhoj7
This is not mathematics. It is your own nonsense.
[b]You gave no definition to mathematics, as mathematics has many definitions.
Mathematics (from Greek ?????? máth?ma, "knowledge, study, learning") includes the study of such topics as quantity,[1] structure,[2] space,[1] and change.[3][4][5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics
[/b]
You can view it as a master argument, which is an axiom, if you wish, based of the "Monad" as the line point and circle.
This should be basic common sense. Were you someone else as a child? Or is it that you don't know what identity means.
Zeno's paradox is based on hypothesis, not facts. Also, it has nothing to do with what we're discussing.
Quoting eodnhoj7
Still trying to evade the crux of the argument.
Quoting eodnhoj7
Which means all the nonsense you're saying is in that triadic whatever.
That's my point. Everything you call 'your logic' is nonsense.
This should be basic common sense. Were you someone else as a child? Or is it that you don't know what identity means.
So Identity does change? That means P can mean multiple things at once.
Zeno's paradox is based on hypothesis, not facts. Also, it has nothing to do with what we're discussing.
You gave no definition to mathematics, as mathematics has many definitions. — eodnhoj7
[b]Actually it is science:
https://www.livescience.com/45253-zenos-paradox.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect
[/b]
Still trying to evade the crux of the argument.
All of this is in the Prime Triad for all these things are axioms. — eodnhoj7
Which means all the nonsense you're saying is in that triadic whatever.
[b]Not really, I am arguing everything is premised in the point line and circle as axioms, and this definition of the point line and circle occurs through the nature of the point, line and circle with the nature of the point, line and circle being further defined by the relations of the point line and circle.
It is a circular expansion while being an axiom in itself. It allows for belief while defining it through linear and circular reasoning, where this linear and circular reasoning and all axioms as "points of origin" in turn not just justify the laws, but observes all logic is subject to both "form" and "function" in regarde to its nature as axiomatic.
It is using the "Monad" as constant standard for logic, while still allowing for variation. The laws you argue are metaphorically built from a cardboard box.
[/b]
That's my point. Everything you call 'your logic' is nonsense.
They all exist as extensions of eachother, according to both their reasoning, and the laws themselves.
My point is the identity of a person remains the same.
Quoting eodnhoj7
Which definition is that which occurs through the line, point and circle. State that definition.
Quoting eodnhoj7
What is circular expansion. Define and explain it.
Quoting eodnhoj7
Define and explain them.
Quoting eodnhoj7
How are they points of origin. Origin of what? How do they observe logic as subject to form and function?
Quoting eodnhoj7
Where are they in your explanations? How are they associated with your explanations and phenomena in reality?
Quoting eodnhoj7
Show this.
Quoting eodnhoj7
Show those laws.
[b]Actually you said it changes, hence identity is merely a boundary of change.
[/b]
this definition of the point line and circle occurs through the nature of the point, line and circle with the nature of the point, line and circle being further defined by the relations of the point line and circle. — eodnhoj7
Which definition is that which occurs through the line, point and circle. State that definition.
[b]
1. All axioms are points of origin; hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. The point of origin progresses to another point of origin through point 2 and cycles back to itself through point 3 with this linear progression and circularity originating from themselves, through eachother and point 1.
Point 1 is original and exists through points 2 and 3 as points 2 and 3.
As original Points 1,2,3 are extension of eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously being nothing in themselves as points of origin that invert to further axioms respectively; hence originate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws
2. All axioms are progressive linear definition; point 1 and 3 progress to point 2 as respective points of origin observed in point 1 while this linear progression from one to another through alternation and exists as circulation between points 1 and 3 to point 2 and point 2 progressing to points 1 and 3.
Point 2 is definitive and defines points 1 and 3 with points 1 and 3 defining point 2.
As definitive Points 1,2,3 progress from one to another and are inherently seperate. As seperating one from another they are connected under a common function of "seperation"; hence are defined as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws.
3. All axioms are maintain through a circularity, as linear alternation through point 2, and points of origin as point 1, with point 1 and 2 circulating through each other as point three while circulating through themselves as each other. Point 3 maintains itself as circular and maintains points 1 and 2 as circular while points 1,2 and 3 circulating through eachother maintain eachother.
Point 3 is circular and exists through 1 and 2 as 1 and 2.
As circular Points 1,2,3 are maintained through eachother as eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously dissolving into further axioms as eachother; hence they circulate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws.
[/b]
It is a circular expansion — eodnhoj7
What is circular expansion. Define and explain it.
[b]Define and Explain Definition without going into a continuum.
1) A ? (A,A)B
2) (A ? (A,A)B)C ? B ? A
3) ((A,A)B ? (A,A)B)D ? B ? A
1(1,2,3)) ((A,A)B ? (A,A,A)C ? (A,A,A,A)D)I ? (B,C,D) ? A
4) A ? ((A ? A)= (A ? A) = (A?) = (A = ?))
5) ((A ? A)= (A ? A) = (A?) = (A = ?)) = ?A?|(A ? A)? ? A ? ?"?"|"?")?
6) A = 1 and 0 where A,1,0 are point space as the foundations of quantity and quality.
1 = 0
where this equation observes point space as both 0 dimensional and 1 dimensional in theory.
Flux and form are inseperable, hence flux and form replicate further flux and form, where the repitition of flux and form is flux and form. All statements exist as truth statements if they are self referentiality, with this self referentiality being open to progress.
If a cause is directed to effect, an effect is a cause, the cause is directed through itself as an effect.
"A" cannot exist without "->" and "->" cannot exist without "A". Hence while A directed to A always results in A as maintained as a self referential axiom it results in B as the observation of this self referentiality.
B in turn is open to further progress of self referentiality, B directed to B, because it it exists through A with A being self referential. This results in D where D is a form and function of B self refencing through A as self referencing.
A directed to B observes A directed to itself where the repitition of A results in B. B is the form and function of A.
Simultaneously, as A self referencing, B as A is directed back to A as C. C is A self referencing through B with B being an obersation of A self referencing.
Self referencing, intradimensionally, or "reflection" (all synonyms) is form and function.
So the foundation axiom is form/function resulting in further form/function with form/function being the proof and answer as a symmetrical structure.
All proof as form/functions are approximations of a form function. In short terms all answers as approximations are random because the premise is a random. However while the form/function is random, it's corresponding form/function is not. So while all proofs are effectively random, they are ordered, structured, and rational through a self referentiality.
The progressive nature that this form/function resulting in form function takes into account the randomness as this approximation, inherent within all answers
For example 1+2=3 is an approximation of 3 considering 3 = (infinite form/functions).
Example:
3 = 4-1,5-2,6-3...
3= 3-1+1-1, 5-2+2-2, 6-3+3-3...
With these progressing ad infinitum and not including further arithmetic functions.
So 1+2, while true because as a form function (+1 and +2 directed to eachother) its exists through the form function of +3, but is random considering 1+2 is an approximation of the infinite form functions that exist through the form function of 3.
So all form/functions are simultaneously random as approximations of a great form function, while inherently true as extensions of the form function through their nature.
The mirror theory two thread, in the math logic section, observes this from a quantitiatve angle. The number line is actually a function as well.
Because of this premise of form/function as true, and for everything I understand of logic separates form and function, a new but very simple language had to be created. The language is justified through itself as strictly directed movement where the line/circular directions of the numbers are axioms. Number is movement and direction as a form/function.
Top
[/b]
linear and circular reasoning — eodnhoj7
Define and explain them.
Shown above
where this linear and circular reasoning and all axioms as "points of origin" in turn not just justify the laws, but observes all logic is subject to both "form" and "function" in regarde to its nature as axiomatic. — eodnhoj7
How are they points of origin. Origin of what? How do they observe logic as subject to form and function?
You argument as an axiom progresses to further of your arguments as axioms. One argument is a point of origin for another.
I am using the Pythagorean Monad, Hindu Bindhu, Lieniz's Monads, Plotinus's Monad/One — eodnhoj7
Where are they in your explanations? How are they associated with your explanations and phenomena in reality?
They are the explanation. They exist through there definition of the monad, hence the monad defines there work.
They all exist as extensions of eachother, according to both there reasoning, and the laws themselves. — eodnhoj7
Show this.
[b]And tell me what that means?
Regardless, your argument progresses to further arguments, with each argument as a point of origin for further arguments, while cycling back to original arguments (law of identity as one example).
Mine are doing the same thing, but I am arguing for this. You are not, yet you are still stuck in the Laws.
[/b]
Just face it, these laws are above your laws and whatever law you use exists through them. You can fight against these laws, but you will just be using them. — eodnhoj7
This is your quote. You are the one who said it changes. Again, you are trying to mislead with your petty confusions.
Quoting eodnhoj7
Prove this first before you give explanations based on unfounded premises.
Quoting eodnhoj7
Hence nothing. You have not explained it. You have only made an assertion. The next step should be to prove that it is true. After that, you can give a conclusion.
This whole argument becomes irrelevant because it is unfounded. They're all assumptions unless you show how you arrived at them.
Quoting eodnhoj7
That is my point so far, they're all theories you are trying to advance. Unfortunately they're not based on any real foundation nor are they coherent.
Quoting eodnhoj7
How and why? Or show this process in phenomena. How did you come to such a conclusion?
Quoting eodnhoj7
Show how all statements exist as truth statements through self-reference.
Show how self-referentiality progresses. How does it apply to phenomena?
Quoting eodnhoj7
This makes no sense. This is neither scientific nor philosophical. Check Newtons laws of motion and how cause and effect relate to each other with respect to forces. So, how did you arrive at your premise?
Quoting eodnhoj7
What does this mean?
Quoting eodnhoj7
How does the foundation result in further...? Through what mechanism or process?
Quoting eodnhoj7
These equations are not functions. Consult your mathematics on what a function is.
Quoting eodnhoj7
What you have given are not arithmetic functions.
Quoting eodnhoj7
This is not mathematical. It is your own cooking. What part of mathematics are they?
Quoting eodnhoj7
You have not proved it. The incoherent series of unrelated, unscientific, unmathematical and unphilosophical statements you've given are not proof of anything other than your sophistry.
Quoting eodnhoj7
You have not given the definition of monad nor have you explained it.
Is this what you call your logic, making unfounded assertions? Is that what you think science or mathematics is?
I'm just wondering, assuming you have read other people's books, is there anyone whose explanations are as muddled as yours.
You want to prove something you can't explain and which you don't even recognize through the simplest of phenomena. You've read big books and now you want to use those big words without even understanding them.
I'm glad your statements are here for everyone to read. I don't get how you think you make sense unless it's your own personal opinion only. My advice: consult others. It's not for them to determine whether you're right or wrong but for you to evaluate you skills at expressing yourself. My opinion is what you are writing makes you sound like a maniac.
Anyway, keep on if you want. I'm sure to keep up and point out all your inconsistencies.
I argue it as progressive seperation...in which you are following.
And progressive connection...in which you are doing.
Your argument exists through the laws, and you argument is void on its own terms according to these laws as all axioms are void on their own terms.
You reasoning is subject to these laws.
You cannot argue against the law without proving the law by making it progress further.
An assumption is not a definition.
Quoting eodnhoj7
I'm saying those are not laws. They are your own imaginations. If they were laws they would be evident in the phenomena they govern. You have yet to show that.
Law 2.
If you can't substantiate your statements, what is their point? If your laws are just words without applications, how are they laws? Principles must be manifest in the phenomena or domain they govern. Unless they're imaginary, they should be evident.
Show that these laws of yours apply in life. Not just with assumptions but back them up. So far, it seems like you've read esoteric books. However, those who give esoteric teachings show how the laws are evident in phenomena and how we interact with them. They understood between the various paradigms of knowledge and consequently their teachings are coherent and logical. Even Aristotle was raised on that mixture of esoteric traditions and the methods of critique that came to be a staple in western philosophy. And yet, he managed to harmonise them efficiently.
Unfortunately you have not understood them well enough but you want to pretend like you do.
Real simple, first of all the laws govern all things and can be observed any where and always.
First, and I will repeat this point again, the structure of the argument originates from one axiom, which on its own is formless, this progresses to another axiom and set of axioms which in turn cycles back to he premise axioms.
You talk about the laws of identity, you progressively define it, and in turn cycle back to the law of identity and address it from a separate angle.
In regards to practicality the list below, with the list itself following these laws as a a continuum.
Cycles as maintaining phenomena.
Examples:
All natural cycles: reproduction, solar events, seasons, etc.
Mechanics (alternator, osiclators, gears)
Circulatory system, nervous system, eating, sleeping.
Sports (balls, pucks, rotary movements in swing martial arts, etc.)
Thoughts, feelings, emotions.
Etc. Because the list goes on.
All phenomena as existing through time as a continual form of progressing past origins and changing:
Examples:
An orange progressing through time progresses past previous states (green) to others (orange) to others (decay) to others (atoms) to others (dirt) to others (plant absorbing nutrient in dirt) to others...etc.
Each state of defintion, is in it itself a progression and acts as definition:
Orange as Ripe is composed of cells replicating to further cells with prior cells dying.
A person progressing to another person by the act of reproduction with each person progressive from one state of being youth (and all the physical, mental and emotional aspects of it) to middle age to old age, with the reproduction of people's as generation progressing to further generation being composed of further progressions of art, culture, technology, science, philosophy, etc.
The progression is composed of further progressions.
All axioms as point of origin.
All of the above examples observe each phenomena as not just a point of origin in itself for further phenomena, hence effectively nothing in itself, but each phenomena as a cause in the respect it exists as a perpetual structure existing through further structures as an ever present origin.
Logic exists through and as these rules and cannot be separated from them, for the seperative and connective nature of these laws is these rules.
Do you want me to continue? Because if so I am strictly just going to extend this post so you will have to check back on it.
Now the question, cycling back to the origin of the thread, is how does matter exist in accords with the classical laws of logic.
I've already given you examples of what the law of identity means to our understanding of phenomena. I even used you as an example. The statements are there for you to re-read if you can't remember.
Like I keep telling you, you've misunderstood everything. When the cyclic nature of some events is realised, it may seem very captivating but it does not mean that laws become changeable or cyclic in themselves. If laws were changeable or cyclic then where would their constancy come from? The law of gravity is ever the law of gravity. The same applies to all natural laws and the laws of logic which are deduced from them.
The solar system has cyclic phenomena but they arise from interaction of laws. It does not mean that the laws change but that, they associate such that the phenomena expresses the conditions we refer to as cyclic.
For example, for a planet to revolve around the sun, there is a combination of centripetal and centrifugal forces which adhere to the laws which govern them. But the laws and the forces don't change even though the planet keeps changing its position.
The same applies to the laws of logic. They inference a wide range of application but they are in themselves constant and unchangeable. That is the point you should first recognise. There is a difference between laws and the phenomena which they govern. Do not mistake the nature of laws with the nature of phenomena. Do not attribute the characteristics of phenomena to those of laws.
Phenomena are always changing but the laws are ever constant. That is part of the esoteric teachings which you seem to confuse.
You are wrong because you cannot distinguish between the nature of law and that of phenomena.
P=P
Then,
Particle wave=Particle Wave
Whatever conditions there are, they are part of the identity in question. That's why the law is valid.
It means that a particle wave (with whatever characteristics and conditions) can only be identified as a particle wave.
This is nonsense. Just because it proves you wrong doesn't mean it is wrong. It's been applied that for as long as the law exists. That you do not realise it should show you that you don't understand.
According to the principle of identity of I ask you what a particle wave is, then you are left with saying particle wave and the argument is subject to the fallacy of circularity according to classical logic.
I honestly think you have no clue about what you are talking about. You are just pushing your subjective thoughts, which is fine under the logic system I am arguing, but not for the classical laws.
You are just frustrated because you are not just confused, but feel threatened...for whatever reason I don't know or care.
That is not what I said.
A particle is a particle. It cannot be anything else.
Quoting eodnhoj7
Wave-particle duality is the concept in quantum mechanics that every particle or quantic entity may be partly described in terms not only of particles, but also of waves. The law of identity does not contradict definitions, it accepts them as explanations of what the identity is.
Quoting eodnhoj7
No. You tried to bring confusion by thinking the definition of 'particle-wave' will affect the outcome of my argument. It doesn't.
If wave-particle duality is true, then the particle which exhibits it would be just that. That is:
particle (which exhibits wave-particle duality)=particle (which exhibits wave-particle duality)
AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATIONS ARE WRONG.
So P can mean multiple things?
If a particle can only equal a particle, but the particle can also equal a wave, then we are stuck with a continuum of defintion.
Here let me defined the particle wave conundrum for you under the law of identity:
Particle (which is a particle wave(which is a particle(which is a particle wave(...) = The other side.
So you are left with a continuum or circularity where a particle is a particle wave and a particle wave is a particle.
See how with the law of Identity you are still left with a continuum?
And you are still stuck with the prime traid?
Even the argument itself is continuing.....
[b][u]ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Have some self-respect dude. This argument is sub par for anyone in this forum. You are the only one with this misguided notion. The duality of a particle is part of its conditioning, it does not alter its identity.
Quoting eodnhoj7
This is unscientific. Good for you because you are not even trying. I like your imagination but, it seems you don't understand what a continuum is. (Please don't make that the next part of your argument, by now it's boring.)
Quoting eodnhoj7
This is your own assumption.
Quoting eodnhoj7
= means is.
Google recursion theory, or type theory...this is extensions of that, but not the same.
And what is a continuum? What are you going to do but refer from one definition to the next to the next until you "feel" satisfied when objectively the definitions just continue. And while they are continuing they just circle back to eachother as progressive loops as one giant loop.
If you don't believe me, look up any defintion in a dictionary and you will find a progressive circularity and Linearism simultaneously.
I gave proof that not only zenos paradoxes are applied in science through the quantum zero effect, but even math and logic deals with recursion theory, type theory, and the directional nature of logic is observed in intuitionist logic.
So "equals" = "is"? Really?
ROFL!!!!!!
So, have your laws become theories?
Quoting eodnhoj7
= shows equivalence.
I mean that is fine and all, but not under classical logic.
You just used the law to ask that question as not only the question void on its own nature unless it progresses to another answer or question but even the axioms which compose it progress from one to another.
So "=" shows equivalence but it is not equal to it? The principle of identity is about = or "is" not
P shows P.
Please, you think your petty attempts at semantics will confuse me.
P=P means that the premise P (on the left side of the equation) is equal (=) to the conclusion P (on the right side of the equation).
Now, might I ask you to be as concise in your explanations as that?
Why all the petty attempts? It is clear your are wrong the moment you divert to all those other unrelated stuff.
So a particle wave = particle wave (as you describe above) is the premise having the same answer as the conclusion? According to classical logic, this is circular reasoning.
ROFL!!!!!
ROFL...this forum is hilarious.
This is philosophy. So, the premise does not have an answer, it has a conclusion. And yes, the premise and conclusion are ALIKE. That is why it makes sense.
What happened to your laws, they seem very irrelevant now. You seem to be focused on linguistics, I wonder why?
Quoting eodnhoj7
Who said that?
2+2 = P
And
4 = p
Shows that not only does P have multiple values but is dependent upon functions as well.
P can equal many things and these many definitions means the principle of identity is a law of equivocation which runs counter to the fallacy of equiovcation.
This is not a value. It is an equation.
Quoting eodnhoj7
P=4, therefore 4 is the value of P
2+2=P,
2+2=4
therefore, from the above given equations, P=4.
That has nothing to do with P=P (The law of identity).
I will explain it again:
The law of identity may be expressed as P=P.
substitute the P with any identity and the equation preserves its balance.
For example, substitute P with Ball,
that is, P=Ball.
Therefore the expression, according to the law of identity, becomes:
Ball=Ball (because P is on both sides of the original equation.)
It means the identity of a Ball is distinct and cannot be any other identity than a Ball
As you can see, what I've explained has nothing to do with your interpretations. That is how the law of identity works, not in whatever misguided notion you intend to imply.
Right, you just proved the point I was making. There is no necessity to proceed.
You can define "=" if you want, but all it will lead to is further frameworks outside the law of identity defining it, as well as multiple meanings to "=".
I think I will proceed with examples on the geometric nature of language through the Laws (considering this argument exists through language and much of what we understand of phenomena have a symbolic nature in the respect they mediate other phenomena):
The nature of language is determined not just by its self-evident under axioms, but how these axioms exist in accords to language as an "axiom" in itself. While these laws are not limited strictly to language, they exist through them, and hence are laws of language and logic as well.
1. All axioms are points of origin; hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. The point of origin progresses to another point of origin through point 2 and cycles back to itself through point 3 with this linear progression and circularity originating from themselves, through eachother and point 1.
Point 1 is original and exists through points 2 and 3 as points 2 and 3.
As original Points 1,2,3 are extension of eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously being nothing in themselves as points of origin that invert to further axioms respectively; hence originate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws
If I look at the sentence:
"The dog ate the cat." These words are inhernent axioms as points of origin in themselves and effectively exist as point space.
Using "(x)?" as a symbol for point space, which as an axiom is in itself a point of reference to the observer denoting that these laws are not just limited to language but language as symbolism is not just limited to the written word but thoughts within the observer, the sentence can be observed geometrically as:
(The)? (dog)? (ate)? (the)? (cat)?
This sentence in itself is an axiom as a point of origin and can be observed as:
((The)? (dog)? (ate)? (the)? (cat)?)?
While the same applies to the letters which form the sentence:
(((T)?(h)?(e)?)? ((d)?(o)?(g)?)? ((a)?(t)?(e)?)? ((t)?(h)?(e)?)? ((c)?(a)?(t)?)?)?
And The paragraphs, pages, etc. as well (this will not be observed for brevity).
2. All axioms are progressive linear definition; point 1 and 3 progress to point 2 as respective points of origin observed in point 1 while this linear progression from one to another through alternation and exists as circulation between points 1 and 3 to point 2 and point 2 progressing to points 1 and 3.
Point 2 is definitive and defines points 1 and 3 with points 1 and 3 defining point 2.
As definitive Points 1,2,3 progress from one to another and are inherently seperate. As seperating one from another they are connected under a common function of "seperation"; hence are defined as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws.
If I look at the sentence:
"The dog ate the cat." These words are inhernent axioms as lines of definition in themselves and effectively exist as linear space.
Using "(x)??" as a symbol for projective linear space and "(x)??" as a symbol for connective linear space,
which as an axiom is directed to and from the observer, while connected with the observe from a difference reference point, denoting that these laws are not just limited to language but language as symbolism is not just limited to the written word but thoughts within the observer, the sentence can be observed geometrically as:
(The)?? (dog)?? (ate)?? (the)?? (cat)?
(The)?? (dog)?? (ate)?? (the)?? (cat)?
This sentence in itself is an axiom as a projective/connection and can be observed as:
((The)?? (dog)?? (ate)?? (the)?? (cat)??)?? (Z)?
((The)?? (dog)?? (ate)?? (the)?? (cat)??)?? (Z)?
(Z)? = next sentence.
While the same applies to the letters which form the sentence:
(((T)??(h)??(e)?)?? ((d)??(o)??(g)?)?? ((a)??(t)??(e)?)?? ((t)??(h)??(e)?)?? ((c)??(a)??(t)??)?)?? (Z)?
(((T)??(h)??(e)?)?? ((d)??(o)??(g)?)?? ((a)??(t)??(e)?)?? ((t)??(h)??(e)?)?? ((c)??(a)??(t)??)?)?? (Z)?
And The paragraphs, pages, etc. as well (this will not be observed for brevity).
3. All axioms are maintain through a circularity, as linear alternation through point 2, and points of origin as point 1, with point 1 and 2 circulating through each other as point three while circulating through themselves as each other. Point 3 maintains itself as circular and maintains points 1 and 2 as circular while points 1,2 and 3 circulating through eachother maintain eachother.
Point 3 is circular and exists through 1 and 2 as 1 and 2.
As circular Points 1,2,3 are maintained through eachother as eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously dissolving into further axioms as eachother; hence they circulate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws.
Considering the sentence, is dependent upon the projective nature in which it is written and read, the nature of the circularity in sentences observes certain inherent characteristics:
It observes the maintenance, or inseparability of certain axioms, where descriptors cycle with the quality being described:
Example:
The brown dog ate the yellow cat.
((The)?? ((brown)? ? (dog)?)?? (ate)?? (the)?? ((yellow)? ?(cat)?)?)?? (Z)?
These order of these descriptors changes relative to language as the descriptor may be equally involved in form the quality, and the quality may be equally observed as forming the descriptor. For example in English "Good Man" may be observed in Hebrew as "Man Good".
It also observes that the sentence does not necessarily have to be observed in the same order to have the same meaning.
Observing each progression of one axiom to another, other this circularity in a different manner where a sentence can be arranged in many different ways and yet mean the same thing.
The brown dog ate the yellow cat.
(((The)??((Brown)??(Dog)?)?)??(Ate)?? (The)??((Yellow)??(Cat)?)?)??)?? (Z)?
I never said that. An equation is a premise with a defined path to the conclusion. It is not an identity.
P=P is an equation (a simplistic one compared to the ordinary mathematical equations we usually use) which expresses how the law of identity works.
The law of identity governs the expression of an identity's distinction. It is not itself an identity.
I've already told you this in a previous post, (from page 10)
Quoting BrianW
Quoting BrianW
Quoting BrianW
I don't know what you hope to gain by misinterpreting what I have said. Why assume what I'm saying? It is easier to just ask.
I can't agree with this, as I see a fundamental error. If you are talking about circularity then you cannot refer to a "point of origin". This is fundamental to circularity, no point may be a point of origin. That is why Aristotle designated a perfect circular motion as an eternal activity, it cannot have a beginning or ending.
Quoting eodnhoj7
So, what you are doing here, is assuming that an axiom is a "point of origin", as a premise, then building upon this an argument which premises that a point of origin as impossible (circularity). Really, all you have is two contradicting premises, the premise of a point of origin and the premise of circularity.
And on page 11, you've written,
Quoting eodnhoj7
What makes you think your mistaken assumptions will become right just because you repeat them?
They were wrong on page 9 and still wrong on this page.
[b]The cycling of axioms, whether abstract, empirical or both, is addressed in the above laws.
[/b]
Do not mistake the nature of laws with the nature of phenomena. Do not attribute the characteristics of phenomena to those of laws. — BrianW
[b]If the laws are not connected to the phenomena then are they really laws? If the definition is not connected are the laws really true?
[/b]
Phenomena are always changing but the laws are ever constant. — BrianW
[b]The laws progress to further laws with these laws cycling back to other laws (example can be the definition of mass, volume and density as laws in physics).
This is addressed in the above laws. These laws are constants, and extend through all further laws with these laws as extensions of these one laws merely being approximates of it.
[/b]
. All axioms are points of origin; hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. The point of origin progresses to another point of origin through point 2 and cycles back to itself through point 3 with this linear progression and circularity originating from themselves, through eachother and point 1.
Point 1 is original and exists through points 2 and 3 as points 2 and 3.
As original Points 1,2,3 are extension of eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously being nothing in themselves as points of origin that invert to further axioms respectively; hence originate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws — eodnhoj7
I can't agree with this, as I see a fundamental error. If you are talking about circularity then you cannot refer to a "point of origin". This is fundamental to circularity, no point may be a point of origin. That is why Aristotle designated a perfect circular motion as an eternal activity, it cannot have a beginning or ending.
[b]Fallacy of Authority if referencing the nature of the circle as pointless. Pythagoras and the Hindus with the Monad and Bindu (respectively) observed the point as the origin of the circle.
1. The circle is a point relative to another larger or smaller circle.
2. The circle as perpetual movement is still relative to other circles as the circle but move clock wise, counterclockwise, expand, contract, etc. in order to move considering all direction and movement occurs relative to other direction and movement. I cannot have a line projecting in one direction without some line projecting in a different direction as there is nowhere to progress to.
Hence the circle moving in all directions at one, through itself as itself, results in the point as an origin where the point is conducive to pure movement in all directions. The circle cannot do this would stemming from the point, with the point as origin simultaneously being beyond movement in one respect and void in another.
3. The standard intepretation of the circle as pure movement, observes the circle originating from nothing (the center point). The circle cannot exist without an origin and this origin is the point through Pi.
Secondarily these laws are progressive. The point of origin progresses to definition and definition to circularity as maintainance with these laws as point of origins allowing progression to further laws.
[/b]
If I look at the sentence:
"The dog ate the cat." These words are inhernent axioms as points of origin in themselves and effectively exist as point space.
Using "(x)?" as a symbol for point space, which as an axiom is in itself a point of reference to the observer denoting that these laws are not just limited to language but language as symbolism is not just limited to the written word but thoughts within the observer, the sentence can be observed geometrically as:
(The)? (dog)? (ate)? (the)? (cat)?
This sentence in itself is an axiom as a point of origin and can be observed as:
((The)? (dog)? (ate)? (the)? (cat)?)?
While the same applies to the letters which form the sentence:
(((T)?(h)?(e)?)? ((d)?(o)?(g)?)? ((a)?(t)?(e)?)? ((t)?(h)?(e)?)? ((c)?(a)?(t)?)?)?
And The paragraphs, pages, etc. as well (this will not be observed for brevity). — eodnhoj7
So, what you are doing here, is assuming that an axiom is a "point of origin", as a premise, then building upon this an argument which premises that a point of origin as impossible (circularity). Really, all you have is two contradicting premises, the premise of a point of origin and the premise of circularity.
[b] Not really. All points of origin are nothing in themselves, hence observed through the other laws progressively and circularly with laws 2 and 3 being points of origin in themselves with law 2 progressing to 1 and 3 and law three cycling through 1 and 2.
The laws exist through progression into further axioms, with these axioms following the same form and function.
It is like saying that the axioms of math cannot be proven except through the structure which exists from them (arithmetic), but these results in a circularity and is subject to contradiction under standard laws. However these laws observe that progression to circularity are in themselves the foundation of laws, hence the law is self-referencing while open to expansion.
Ignoring the fact that your logic is subject to the fallacies it depends upon to survive only shows how your logic (and that of the classical foundation) is strictly a belief system. These laws allow for belief as a structure, with this belief existing if and only if there is structure with this structure existing through continuuity. The laws progressively cycle through themselves while observe all other laws unable to cycle through there foundations as contradictory on there own terms, hence approximates of these three laws in the respect they cannot be observed except through these three laws.
And all axioms are not "points of origin"? Euclidian axioms are not points of origin for euclidian geometry? Or standard arithmetic axioms are not points of origin for algebra? The constitution is not a point of origin for the U.S. body of law? Attraction is not a point of origin for a man and woman choosing to date eachother?
Contradiction is a deficiency in structure. While these laws are not contradictory, as they maintain themselves and exist through themselves and exist through all further axioms, these laws due to their progressive nature allow for contradiction within the premise as they must continually expand.
This point must be explained as allowing for contradiction is not contradiction.
The self-referencing as contradiction through contradiction, or that contradiction is allowed, maintains the laws as non contradictory in these respects. They are contradictory only in the respect they continually progressing through further laws, but because these 3 laws are always maintaining themselves through a progressive circularity the laws do not contradict themselves.
Rather the laws stemming from these laws contradict themselves as they deficient on their own terms but exist as extensions of these laws.
It allows contradiction by allowing further laws to exist on there own accords even though these laws cannot maintain themselves without being extensions of this laws.
[/b]
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I mean let's face the obvious truth, you criticize me by saying I am wrong and barely provide an argument except quoting some source (barely, but sometimes) then when I say this is subject to a fallacy of authority or bandwagon you ignore it.
These laws are everywhere, hence all people observe them whether they see the laws directly or not.
The copy and paste is strictly a reference that while you believe you are observing a problem from a seperate angle, the angle has already been addressed.
Misquoting the laws does not make you correct.
These laws are not limited to assumption as these laws are the origins for all movement and observe all fallacies as simultaneous truth statements: hence the laws are authoritative (fallacy of authority), subjective (ad-hominum), progressive (slippery slope), equivocative (fallacy of equivocation)...etc.
In simpler terms all assumptions are points of origin and progress to further axioms while cycling back to the assumption to prove whether the assumption is correct or not.Quoting eodnhoj7
These laws are observed in all logic but not limited to logic. These laws are observed, from the premise axiom of "logic", in Godel's incompleteness theorems, in "Science" in the zeno quantum effect, religion with "sphere worship/all is one/monadology, psychology with the cycling of emotional states or the projection of one emotional state on to another, the laws of nature, etc.
These laws are universal while existing through particulates as universals. They are synthetic, or joining, in these respects.
That's not a true circularity. To be a true circle, there can be no difference between point 1,2, and 3, in relation to "point of origin". To be truly circular, any of the points must be equal as potentially the point of origin, such that there cannot be an actual point of origin. So to refer to any point of a circle as a point of origin is to utter a falsity.
Quoting eodnhoj7
You seem to misunderstand. My argument is not that the circle is pointless, but that there cannot be a point of origin.
Quoting eodnhoj7
Even this can be understood to be incorrect. There is no reason why the centre point would be the point of origin of the circle. In fact, the irrational nature of pi indicates that there cannot be an actual centre point to the circle. Therefore the centre point cannot be the origin of the circle. This argument is unsound, based in the false premise that a circle actually has a centre point. The irrational nature of pi indicates otherwise.
Quoting eodnhoj7
The irrational nature of pi indicates that we'd have to do an infinite reduction to determine the actual centre point of the circle. This is impossible therefore there is no actual centre point. Since there is no actual centre point, it is impossible that the centre point is the origin of the circle.
Quoting eodnhoj7
Again, I'll reassert what I already told you. If the axioms of logic are related as circular, it is impossible that any one of them could be understood as a point of origin. This is your contradictory argument.
If we can take the law of identity, or any one of the other laws, as a point of origin, then the laws of logic are not circular. If the laws of logic are circular then we cannot take any one of them as a point of origin. Therefore your argument employs contradictory premises, that the axioms may be taken as points of origin, and that they are circular.
A medal is the reward you get for your excellence in misunderstanding logic.
Axioms only cycle in your imaginary universe.
Quoting eodnhoj7
Laws are connected to the phenomena they govern. But, that connection does not give them the attributes of those phenomena. There is a difference between laws and phenomena.
Quoting eodnhoj7
Again, this is your misinterpretation. A definition is not a law (in physics or other).
You are trying to cook up too much stuff. What you're explaining is neither science nor logical.
Point 1 is original and exists through points 2 and 3 as points 2 and 3. — eodnhoj7
That's not a true circularity. To be a true circle, there can be no difference between point 1,2, and 3, in relation to "point of origin". To be truly circular, any of the points must be equal as potentially the point of origin, such that there cannot be an actual point of origin. So to refer to any point of a circle as a point of origin is to utter a falsity.
[b]Actually 2+2=4 and 4 =2+2 is a circular statement.
And the axioms existing through eachother is circular "Point 1 exists through Points 2 and 3 as points 2 an 3" while maintaining a progressive expansion as point 1 progresses to point 2 and point 2 to point 3.
Circularity results when the premises contain the conclusion.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=fallacy+of+circularity&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=fallacy+of+circularity&sc=1-22&sk=&cvid=7C6F8626588F400D9EB2A3376972F6D1
Hence even by this standard the principle of Identity as P=P is circular and the origin of all identity is premised on a circularity through equivocation in which equivocation acts as a connective median defining all things. But you say it is not...
ROFL!!!!!!!
Wow no wonder the modern world is dying.
[/b]
Fallacy of Authority if referencing the nature of the circle as pointless. Pythagoras and the Hindus with the Monad and Bindu (respectively) observed the point as the origin of the circle. — eodnhoj7
You seem to misunderstand. My argument is not that the circle is pointless, but that there cannot be a point of origin.
The circle cannot do this would stemming from the point, with the point as origin simultaneously being beyond movement in one respect and void in another. — eodnhoj7
Even this can be understood to be incorrect. There is no reason why the centre point would be the point of origin of the circle. In fact, the irrational nature of pi indicates that there cannot be an actual centre point to the circle. Therefore the centre point cannot be the origin of the circle. This argument is unsound, based in the false premise that a circle actually has a centre point. The irrational nature of pi indicates otherwise.
[b]Wow...you are actually a liar...the "Point has no Center point?"
https://www.bing.com/search?q=center+point+of+circle&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=center+point+of+circle&sc=4-22&sk=&cvid=80EB8E77468B4CF487A3349EDBE05BBC
Pi is dependent upon a diameter and the diameter is dependent upon the radius.
I am half tempted to report this as spam, but considering you are actually providing an explanation (however faulty and contradictory) it is still an argument and all arguments have to be respected regardless of there depth...this is philosophy.
[/b]
3. The standard intepretation of the circle as pure movement, observes the circle originating from nothing (the center point). The circle cannot exist without an origin and this origin is the point through Pi. — eodnhoj7
The irrational nature of pi indicates that we'd have to do an infinite reduction to determine the actual centre point of the circle. This is impossible therefore there is no actual centre point. Since there is no actual centre point, it is impossible that the centre point is the origin of the circle.
[b]Address in premise, all points of origin require a progression and all progressions exist as points of origins.
The point of origin, linear progression and circular maintainance are three symmetrical phenomena that exist as eachother through eachother.
[/b]
All points of origin are nothing in themselves, hence observed through the other laws progressively and circularly with laws 2 and 3 being points of origin in themselves with law 2 progressing to 1 and 3 and law three cycling through 1 and 2. — eodnhoj7
Again, I'll reassert what I already told you. If the axioms of logic are related as circular, it is impossible that any one of them could be understood as a point of origin. This is your contradictory argument.
[b]See above with principle of identity.
[/b]
If we can take the law of identity, or any one of the other laws, as a point of origin, then the laws of logic are not circular. If the laws of logic are circular then we cannot take any one of them as a point of origin. Therefore your argument employs contradictory premises, that the axioms may be taken as points of origin, and that they are circular.
Your axioms originate from assumptions. Well, no wonder they make no sense.
And, by the way, there's a difference between a postulate and and an unfounded assumption. Your incoherent statement proves the latter.
I agree that if they exist through each other, then they may be circular. But what you do not seem to understand is that if this is the case, that they exist through each other, then none of them may be considered as a "point of origin". Do you know what "point of origin" means? It means first, as in existing prior to the ones which follow. So do you see the contradiction in saying that they only exist in relation to each other, and also that one might considered as a point of origin?
Quoting eodnhoj7
Why misquote me just to support a false accusation of "liar". I said the circle has no centre point, and this is clearly demonstrated by the irrational nature of pi.
Quoting eodnhoj7
Right, and pi is indeterminate because the centre point of a circle is indeterminate. There is no centre point.
Right, now do you agree that "where something comes form" implies a temporal priority of one thing in relation to the other? And if one is temporally prior, its existence cannot be dependent on the other. Though the existence of the posterior may be dependent on the prior, it isimpossible that the existence of the prior is dependent on the posterior.. The second may rely on the first, but the first cannot not rely on the second. Therefore if one is the point of origin, the two cannot be "phenomena that exist as each other through each other.
Quoting eodnhoj7
You cannot get the exact diameter, or radius of a circle, from the circumference, you only get an approximation due to the irrational nature of pi. So you can only get an approximation of the centre, because there is no actual centre.