# categorical question

e=mc^2 (if descriptive—has existential import, not merely hypothetical category) does not describe AN instance, but every instance - even if only one (only takes one whole instance to be more than merely hypothetical) ….

So if each instance of e=mc^2 does not have the same identity (is not the same instance), but is after same pattern that describes it (each instance of all instances)…

then this is the question:

What kind of non-empty/-hypothetical category (cuz has existential import) is that called?

What if it stops having existential import—does it become hypothetical?

What if there is such a category that can never become a hypothetical?

That category would describe God.

Er, I mean, would that category describe God? hehe snort

also related
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 8#p2922798

If “hypothetical (empty) category lacks existential import” is also found in set theory with the empty set, is there a square (hexagon, whatever) of opposition for set theory also, or can one construct one to show synonymous terms between set theory/logic & category theory/logic? Please.

Last question for now.

From the above, can we construct a taxonomy of ontology?

Spit-balling:

Always (can never not be) true (instantiated) — includes 100% probability = necessity

Sometimes true (can go out of instantiation — like the formula for or instantiation of photosynthesis if all life of that sort ceases)

Logically possible/probable (includes practical impossibility where logical impossibility does not rule it out)

Logically impossible - can never be true (by definition)

…If it’s broken, fix it^

red: hypo/hyperthetical
yellow: existential
blue: instantial

gulp

^edits in quoted portion are in bold^

“indefinite propositions … read generically, such as ‘A dodo is a bird’, … (arguably) can be true now without there being any dodos now, because being a bird is part of the essence of being a dodo.”

essence is formal/final (whole timeline)

Need a tutor…

…teach it to me using language I already understand.

Please. Will pay top whatever, or whatever.

Logical Cube of Opposition

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_cube

Lambda Cube (in type theory, some theories alternatives to set theory)

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_cube

Lambda calc = Turing machine

cs.columbia.edu/~sedwards/cl … lambda.pdf

[That hexagon of opposition (google it) applies to future WE don’t (necessarily) know, but God does… js. May need word other than hypothetical. Perhaps suprathetical…formathetical?]

Can you calculate how much modulability we began with (original position including/excluding both modulability & complexity/modulation) and how much modulability is left — if exhaustible — are we basically talking entropy?

If it began modulated (does low entropy imply modulation?)… does that not imply a modulator? Is the modulation just considered the structure of … yada … if so, why didn’t it keep its structure?

Is the reason we can’t tell if it rests &/or reverbs (“originally”) because of the halting problem?

Just curious

What I hope to end up at is a tool like the square of opposition (I want to call it something like a diamond, prism, or lens… or litmus… or filter) that can test the truth, beauty, and goodness of any position (requiring it embodies the harmonic triads), and reveal hidden implications one might not have considered. It is not an invention, and I am not the first one to discover it.

three senses of import:

3 senses of nihil

meaninglessness [essentially indefinite]
impossibility (0% logical probability)
impracticality (practical impossibility)

subject to revision

i don’t know
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoid