# A complete deductive metaphysical system

**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-complete-deductive-metaphysical-system/36858
**Category:** Philosophy
**Created:** [September 4, 2013, 7:18am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-complete-deductive-metaphysical-system/36858 "2013-09-04T07:18:56Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![117938Aa](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/user_avatar/www.ilovephilosophy.com/117938aa/32/1106_2.png) [@117938Aa](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/117938Aa)
#### Post date: [September 4, 2013, 7:18am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-complete-deductive-metaphysical-system/36858/1 "2013-09-04T07:18:56Z")

</div>

About 20 days ago, I challenged Smears to a $50 bet that I would have a complete deductive system within 10 days. He didn’t take me up on the offer and wrote instead:

> [@](#):
>
> Dude, agreeing on rules and then putting the pieces together can give you some kind of system that adheres to those rules. If you define perfect as adhering to those rules without exception, then I got a whole can of worms for ya. If you say that there are minor exceptions but that the relevant factors are all properly in place and that the ones that aren’t are an accident, then I got an even bigger can of worms. Both those scenarios entail me accepting from the jump that a perfect system is one that’s simply internally consistent and consistent with the analytically necessary axioms upon which it rests. Even if you get one of those kinds of systems, I’m still going to point out that a system that’s only virtues are internal consistency and adherence to it’s own axioms is one that can literally say nothing about anything other than itself. Has anyone ever used the term “vacuous” in a discussion about logic while you were present?

I now post my system anyway. It is a complete system in the sense that all 165 words in the system are defined with a symbolic notation which a computer can check for contradiction with the exception of 15 words which I leave undefined and 20 words which are defined circularly. It is not a justified system, that would take about 500,000 words and about 10 to 20 years of research.

Since the system is about 7000 words long I have posted it in the Academy which you can read here.

[viewtopic.php?f=46&t=183952](http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=183952)