Distinctions as Self-Contained Self-Contrast; Meta-Formalism

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

----++++****Updated

Distinctions as Self-Contained Self-Contrast; Meta-Formalism

“A” identity, distinction
“=” is or equals
“( )” context, container, set
“○” Scale invariant self referencing context
“<->” biconditional
“-” absence, negation
“+” presence, emergence

  1. A

  2. A=A

  3. ((A=A) ↔ (-A=-A)) ↔
    ((A=/=-A) ↔ (A = - -A))

  4. (A ↔ -A) ↔ ((A=A) ↔ (-A=-A))

  5. (A ↔ -A) = B

  6. B = B

  7. (B = B) ↔ (-B=-B) ↔
    ((B =/= -B) ↔ (B = - -B))

  8. (B ↔ -B) ↔ ((B=B) ↔ (-B=-B))

  9. (B ↔ -B) = C

  10. …D…

  11. (A ↔ A) = (B ↔ -B) = (C ↔ -C) =…

  12. ● ↔ - ●

13 (● ↔ - ●) ↔ ((● =/= - ●)
↔ (● = - -●))

  1. ● = (+,-)

  2. (+, -)

  3. ( )

  4. ( ) = ( )

  5. (( ) ↔ -( )) ↔
    ((( ) =/=( )) ↔ (( )=–( )))

  6. (( ) ↔ -( )) ↔ (( ))

  7. (( )) = (( ))

  8. …(..(( ))..)…

  9. ○

  10. A = ( )
    A = ○
    ● = ( )
    ● = ○
    ( ) = ○

  11. (A ↔ ● ↔ ( ) ↔ ○) = X
    X1 = A
    X2 = ●
    X3 = ( )
    X4 = ○

  12. (X = (X1, X2, X3, X4)) ↔
    (((X = X1) ↔ Y1),
    ((X = X2) ↔ Y2),
    ((X = X3) ↔ Y3),
    ((X = X4) ↔ Y4))
    Y(1,2,3,4) = ( )

  1. X ↔ Y

  2. (A) ↔ (●) ↔ (( )) ↔ (○)

  3. …(..(( ))..)…

  4. (( )<->( )) = ((( )=( )),(-( )=-( )))

  5. (<->)=(+=+, -=-) ↔ (( )<->( ))

  6. ((+=+) ↔ (-=-)) = ((–=–)<->(++=++))

  7. ((=) ↔ (=)) = ((=) ↔ (=))

  8. (<->,=)

  9. (<->)<->(<->),
    (=)<->(=)
    (<->)=(<->)
    (=)=(=)

  10. ( )=( ), ( )<->( )

  11. ( )

  12. ( )( ) = (+1,A)

  13. ( )( )( ) = (+1,+2,-1, +A,+B,-A)

  14. ( )( )( )( ) =
    (1,2,3,-1,-2,+A,+B,+C,-A,-B)

  15. ( )( ) ( )( )( ) = (3,-1, +C, -A)

  16. ( )( ) ( )( )( )( ) = (×4, -2, +D, -B)

  17. ( )( ) ( )( )( )( )( ) =
    (+5, -3, +E, -C)

  18. (( )( )) = (+1,+A)

  19. ((( )( ))) = (+2, +1/2, +B, +A/B)

  20. (((( )( )))) = (+3, +1/3, +C, +A/C)

  21. ( )…( ) = (+n, -n+1, +N, -N+A)

  22. (..(..( )..)..) = (+n, +A/n, +N, +A/N)

  23. (..( )..)(..( )..) = (1 inf., A continuum)

  24. (..( )..)(..( )..)(..( )..) = 2 inf., -1 inf., B cont., -A cont.)

  25. …

  26. (..( )..)(..( )..) (..( )..)(..( )..)(..( )..) =
    (+3inf, -1inf, +C[continuum], -A[Cont.]

  27. (..( )..)(..( )..) (..( )..)(..( )..)(..( )..)(..( )..) = (+4inf. , -2inf., +D cont., -B cont.)

  28. ((..( )..)(..( )..)) = (+1 inf., +A cont.)

  29. (((..( )..)(..( )..))) = (+2 inf., +1/2 inf., +B cont., +A/B cont.)

  30. (..( )..)…(..( )..) = (+n inf. -n inf.+1 inf., +N cont., -N cont.+A cont.)

  31. (..(..( )..)..)inf. = (+n inf., +A/n inf., +N cont, +A/N cont.)

  32. (..(..( )..)..) ↔ (..(..( )..)..)inf.

3 Likes
2

I really dont like formal logic.
It is wonderful to behold as just pure logic and play around with it like math, but… when you try to transfer it into standard reality it becomes a glass sculpture that requires you to want to and will to see what it means to convey.

Otherwise you will instantly run into gaps like -A where the absence of something needs to have an opposite but identical shape and value to A. Despite in reality this being simply relegated to 0 because its nothing. An absence.
Its way too strict in its interpretation for my taste.

Aside from that, its a fascinating idea what you expressed here. Collapsing everything into void.
I appreciate the beauty of it in a way.

1 Like
3

Formal logic has its limits. It works for its context…but the context is limited. In regards to practical logic I think dialectical and paraconsistent logic has better grounds than traditional aristotelian logic. That is just an opinion though.

As to the text (assuming you read the updated version).

The text can be observed as a meta-logical haiku to reorient the mind.

Is it practical? Maybe, maybe not in the context of the traditional empircal manner…work needs to be done in that regard.

Is it practical under the context of a logical meditative exercise? Yes because we operate through distinctions and the reorientation of the act of distinction determine how we interact with existence.

1 Like
4

I can see how that would work.

1 Like
5

Updated with basic math and logical implications.

6

@eodnhoj7

You have very interesting threads but unfortunately I am not well versed in mathematical equations like this.

Something I lack in myself.

I find logical models and quantum physics interesting but I lack the ability to decipher them in full appreciation.

:clown_face:

7

Don’t over or under think it. These are meta-formalisms. Meta-math/logic has no strict standards other than form.

I ran this text through 4 different AIs, all using stress tests. They all passed the text for coherency and meta-level rigor but claimed humans would need effort to understand them due to unconventionality and the meta-levels while standard academia would reject them due to ingrained formalism biases.

So its not strictly you alone.

Because the arguments are not derivative based (they do not derive conclusions), they are recursive patterns layered (like a logical mandella or haiku you could say where patterns emerge), standard linear A → B thinking is a limiting factor.

Best not to think and just intuitively observe at first.

Anyhow…

Thanks for the compliment, its appreciated.

1 Like
8

@eodnhoj7

I wish that I was better with mathematics but unfortunately it is an intellectual weakness of mine. They say mathematics is the language of the universe or cosmos where I wish that I was better at quantifying such things myself. I am very good with all things linguistics whether spoken or written down, that’s what I excel at the most.

Nonetheless things like mathematical physics or quantum physics fascinates me. They always have.

For me studying mathematical theory it is a very slow process. I sometimes wonder if I am mathematically dyslexic or something with numbers.

I envy your mental skillset.

:clown_face:

1 Like
9

Do not put me on a pedestal. I am flattered, I am, but to be level headed these formulas are unorthodox and are pushing the ‘unknown’. The unknown is the unknown and precisely because it is the unknown…anything positive or negative can happen…often both…as the formulas argue.

Testing shows coherency and rigor, but there are other contexts that need further evaluation relative to the work…but testing is optomistic in these regards.

So, given the text has no english, and your primary focus is natural language, here is a basic summary…a very short one:

There is only distinction, this distinction is an event that has pattern by degree of recursion, cycles/loops, all foundational distinctions of positive and negative, finite and infinite, number and quality, math and logic, operator and operand, emerge from the recursion of distinction.

Distinction embedds itself within distinction as a self scaling event, where the scales differ thus resulting in various expressions of distinction…yet distinction remains as the underlying irreducible primitive. Math, logic, physics, religion, ethics, sensory phenomenon, etc. are all different scales of distinction but if they require distinction, and they do otherwise they are indistinct, then there foundations are subject to the meta-formalism.

It is not standard math or logic. It is a meta-ontological formalism that gives grounding to such things. It is pre-math, pre-logic.

The correspondences to various fields of the intellect, can be developed further, but the text is seed level and is intended to be seed level.

1 Like