Circular Reasoning is Multidimensional Linear Reasoning
X = Distinction
XX… = Recursion of Distinction as Sequence
(XX…)Y = Sequence as Distinction
A
(AA)B
(AAA)C
B
(BB)D
(BBB)F
C
(CC)F
(CCC)I
…
ABCDEF…
BDFHJL…
CFILOR…
(A->A) = A,B,C…
(B->B) = D,F,H…
(C->C) = F,I,L
(A->A) ∋ (A ->…A)
(B->B) ∋ (A->…A)
(C->C) ∋ (A->…A), (B → B)
(A ∋ A) → (A ∋ (B,C,D…))
(X ∋ X) → (X ∋ (A,B,C…))
Could you give a concrete example, perhaps from nature? It seems like you simply asserted that we can move from the tautology. It looks like deduction on the surface, but there is an unstated assertion or assumption that allows the sequence to step from A to B, C, etc. But perhaps I’m missing something—a concrete example would help.
Could you give a concrete example, perhaps from nature? It seems like you simply asserted that we can move from the tautology. It looks like deduction on the surface, but there is an unstated assertion or assumption that allows the sequence to step from A to B, C, etc. But perhaps I’m missing something—a concrete example would help.
Sure.
A simple rock.
It is both composed of and composes further rocks, and yet it is constant as a rock.
It is contained by a larger rock, it contains smaller rocks…and yet it is a rock.
A rock is both container and contained and as such a rock contains itself as a rock.
The rock is purely a distinction. Regardless of the degree of change of the distinction the distinction remains.
Do you want more?
Yes. It seems like the OP is saying that we can get information about B from the law of identity about A. How can the Law of Identity (A=A) alone generate a new, non-tautological linear argument without quietly smuggling in external premises? In every day life, how do we reason our way to new (practical) knowledge about B (and C and D…) from A=A? That rock is that rock leads to…?
Circular arguments are not a matter of containment and makeup though.
The conclusion of an argument is it’s own premise and proof. This is what a circular argument would be:
A rock must always exist as a rock because it is a constant, unchanging distinction. We know it is a constant distinction because it acts as both a container and a thing contained.
Formal logic is nice for playing with ideas but often fails tremendously to describe reality and nature.
What do you mean or are referring to by ‘further rocks’ exactly?
A brick is a brick and I am not sure how A brick is both composed of other or further bricks and composes other or further bricks exactly. Just like I am not sure A human being could be composed of other or further human beings or composes of other or further human beings also.
A rock is NOT contained by a larger rock, and A rock does NOT contain smaller rocks. Of course, and naturally, if A rock is broken up, then some might say here ‘now’ we have smaller rocks. But, even then if those smaller rocks are broken up and people want to say ‘look, ‘now’ we have smaller rocks’, at some stage A rock, when broken up, further rocks do not come from it. As what comes from ‘that rock’ is what some people refer to as pebbles, dust, or some other thing.
From ‘what’, things like a galaxy, a sub-atomic particle, a puddle of water, and/or a human being?
If yes, then OBVIOUSLY.
What are you even on about here, exactly?
Not if ‘it’ is like the above.
Yes. It seems like the OP is saying that we can get information about B from the law of identity about A. How can the Law of Identity (A=A) alone generate a new, non-tautological linear argument without quietly smuggling in external premises? In every day life, how do we reason our way to new (practical) knowledge about B (and C and D…) from A=A? That rock is that rock leads to…?
You answered the question yourself.
The law of identity has many expressions:
A=A
B=B
C=C
…
Infinity=Infinity
But the law of identity is also subject to the law of identity, if it is to have identity:
(A=A)=(A=A)
(B=B)=(B=B)
(C=C)=(C=C)
…
So what remains is a distinction that contains itself by scales.
That is not a circular argument presented.
It is a self-scaling distinction.
A distinction of a rock exists in many states simultaneously, is composed of and composes many distinctions of rocks simultaneously.
You want a static rule when in reality what exists is recursion.
You strawman as usual as a mereological argument was presented, not a logical one…
Yeah, I just don’t see any new knowledge being generated, nor a concrete example. If we take A to be a tree, A=A leads to a tree is a tree. A=A=A=A is a tree is a tree is the same as the statement a tree is a tree. It’s not a fractal, a multi-dimensional sequence, or a physical scale. It’s just a repetition. Again, what would be some new knowledge we would get about the world?
Yeah, I just don’t see any new knowledge being generated, nor a concrete example. If we take A to be a tree, A=A leads to a tree is a tree. A=A=A=A is a tree is a tree is the same as the statement a tree is a tree. It’s not a fractal, a multi-dimensional sequence, or a physical scale. It’s just a repetition. Again, what would be some new knowledge we would get about the world?
+++
+++
+++
+++
There was no claim about new knowledge. There is an implication that circular reasoning has more layers of expression by containing multiple linear sequences.
The concrete example was the stone. The logical example was the basic law of identity.
The distinction of stone has layers.
The basic law of identity has layers.
If you need another example, a natural one, it is the recycling and variation of genes across a spectrum of an organism within a given environment.
You are looking for a concrete example and yet that definition of concrete is a conceptualization as the distinction of “concrete” is an abstraction. Concrete is given and yet that concrete, via the distinction of stone, is not grounded in anything but an event of limits.
Relative to the logical one of the law identity, identity is not purely propositional, you are applying a mismatched context. The law of identity effectively is a fractal by degree of expression.
A=A
Where A = tree, car, thought…etc
Reveals the law as scaling.
The law of identity also self scales by degree of self-application as
A can equal (A=A), (A=A)=(A=A), so on and so forther this the basic law of identity, because it has to be subject to itself for it to have an identity, via the law, has multiple expressions.
What remains is the scaling of distinctions, limits, which occur in variations.
The text presented a recursive distinction that layers as a new distinction given each recursive sequence is new distinction that is contained by and contains others.
The reason why distinction is the sole primitive is that all things can be reduced to a primitive of distinction. It is a trans empirical/abstract event.
Oh, ok. I saw Circular Reasoing is Multidimensional Linear Reason
and mistakenly thought you meant one would be able to come to more knowledge from the Tautology.
Earlier I said:
In every day life, how do we reason our way to new (practical) knowledge about B (and C and D…) from A=A? That rock is that rock leads to…?
It seemed like you confirmed in the next post, though I couldn’t see on what grounds.
But if it can’t generate new knowledge, I can bow out because I can’t see the use.
You seem to elevate yourself if you think the text was written with your personal standards of use in mind.
If you want the frank truth, your opinion is irrelevant, the text was written to be written…not to persuade or impress you.
History is written in the struggles of people telling themselves they are important…such people are a ‘dime a dozen’.
You talk about there being nothing new as negative and fail to see that reduction of everything to a “use”, something to be exploited, is nothing new but a perpetual cycle.
What you condemn you are guilty of foundationally.
What you call “useful” is the same mechanism which resulted in the world as it is today.
People only use things so to become aware via experience and thus awareness becomes pivotal, not use as awareness can be developed without exploiting every little facet of reality.
The world stands as evidence of your philosophy of use.
The text just reveals the nature of such a thing and the things said things preys upon.