Logic as Multi-Dimensional Tautological Assertions
-
All logical systems require axioms.
-
These axioms are unproven except through the proofs in which they are used.
-
The proof justifies the axiom and the axiom justifies the proof.
-
Proof and axiom, as a tautological change, become interchangeable: a proof is an axiom and an axiom is a proof by degree of interpentrating boundaries.
-
This interchangeability, as equivocation, results in relative obscurity as it is self-referencing where the axiom is no longer the axiom and the proof is no longer the proof as both become indefinite as a synthetic assertion of distinction.
-
Axioms/proofs are only that which are accepted to deal with this indefiniteness, thus logic requires intuition as a means to contain attention on the dynamic as justifying
-
Intuition thus expands the circle of axiom=proof to axiom=proof=intuition.
-
However intuition is not universal as the axiom=proof would not have to be taught if it where such as the intuition is the meta-structure which justifies the axiom/proof through the repetition of axiom/proof dynamics in a means where they are embedded in the observer. This embedding is through attentive focus to reorient perception thus is not universal but localized.
-
In the equivocation of “axiom=proof=intuition” the intuition not being universal necessitates the axiom/proof as not universal for universality does not require directed an contained attention for justification and embedding in perspective.
-
This absence of universality necessitates a multiplicity of logics, all of which may not agree.
-
This absence of agreement in logics results in the axiom of “Logic” being obscure yet logic was used to deduce this thus logic interrelated with relative non-logics of the given logic.
-
Logic=no logic as the identity of the logic is the axiom=proof=intuition structural emergence as pure pattern. The axiom/proof dynamics is scaled onto intuition, by repetition, where the intuition scales back to align the axiom/proof it observes. In these respect logic is a multidimensional tautological dynamic that in itself is not logical.
-
The multiplicity of logics is the multiplicity of axiom=proof=intuition dynamics which is inseperable from basic assertion thus the multiplicity of logics is a subset to distinction emergence and dissolution, as the variety of logics are subject to this and are a variety because of this.
-
Multiplicity of logical structure is fragmentation of logical structure thus what remains is illogical space by which logic is derived thus equating such space to the foundations of logic itself.
-
By default logic is paradoxical and contradictory on its own terms. Any logic used to argue foundations beyond such paradox and contradiction is subject to the very same paradox and contradiction of logic itself.
-
What remains is multidimensional asserted tautological distinctions.
1 Like
Axioms are not proved because their truth is necessary for proof to have any meaning. They are pre-proof. They are self-evidently true and inescapable. Example: You must accept and use the axioms of knowledge to attempt to disagree about them.
“I don’t agree with your statements about the axiom existence, consciousness, and identity.”
Me: You don’t disagree. There’s no such thing as disagreement. Everybody agrees about everything. How could they disagree? There’s nothing to disagree about. Nothing exists. That’s one.
And people aren’t capable of having ideas, they aren’t conscious. That’s two,
And why should it matter if two people disagree about an idea. Why can’t two people hold opposite ideas and still both be objectively right? That’s three.
1 Like
Then proofs require what is unproven, the unproven compounds on the unproven, and proof becomes a compounded tautology of unproven axioms.
1 Like
No. We can know some things for certain without proof because we perceive them directly. When it rains, things get wet. I don’t need a syllogism to prove this. The concept of proof presupposes a world with identity and consciousness. We don’t need to prove that existence exists. We don’t need to prove that consciousness is consciousness of something. We don’t need to prove that a thing is itself. We don’t need to prove that causality is the identity of action. We don’t need to prove the validity of the senses. These things are all presupposed by the concept of proof. All knowledge begins with perception. And proof is a process of reducing an idea to perceptual inputs.
1 Like
Actually you need to prove what proof is otherwise you are asserting a tautology of “proof is because of proof”…and that is not logical. You are assuming proof is self-evident when in reality self-evidence is a tautology by your dynamic as “self-evidence is because of self-evidence”.
1 Like
We don’t prove proof. We define it. And proof is just one narrow species of validation.
1 Like
Apparently you cannot prove you understand definitions as point 16:
“What remains is multidimensional asserted tautological distinctions.”
What exactly is your point in all of this as you make no sense by your own standards, this can be seen clearly.
1 Like
I was correcting an error in your presentation. You said axioms are proved by using them in proofs, but they don’t need to be proved. You’re committing the fallacy of the stolen concept. You should just say that all logical systems reduce to axioms.
1 Like
“I was correcting an error in your presentation. You said axioms are proved by using them in proofs, but they don’t need to be proved. You’re committing the fallacy of the stolen concept. You should just say that all logical systems reduce to axioms.”
There was no error. The proof gives the axiom grounds, the axiom gives the proof grounds, it is a self-grounding as a tautological dynamic equivalent to the identity law of A=A in the respect A=A is identity by degree of a tautology.
I never argued tautology is good or bad, it simply is.
1 Like
@eodnhoj7
I am genuinely curious, what is the philosophical name, label, or designation of this mental perspective you’re presenting here?
“Occurence”…you can call it that.
1 Like
@eodnhoj7
What’s the description or label of the philosophical approach that is bringing you your conclusions here in this thread?
I am curious to add on my list of reading material.
Seems more advanced than say something on the lines of epistemological solipsism.
I spent years reading and researching a variety of eastern and western philosophy, inside and outside of academia…and in between.
There is no one school. To elaborate on this with a story: I had multiple AIs analyse several of my texts for what schools where present. Some analysis claimed 30-60+ eastern and western schools for a few page paper.
But because there is no one school does not necessitate no method. Research “recursion” as a methological starting point. The texts use recursion, but are not limited to it.
Study recursion. And when I mean study it, do not just read about it but practice it as a logical form of analysis.
1 Like
@eodnhoj7
I will have to look into it and then give you a response in what I think of it. Sounds very interesting though.
I have never heard of it until now. It sounds like in logic what others call mental perspectivism or even mental projected idealism. That is to say reality is merely random phenomena that arises out of limited consciousness and idealism where much of what we think is a trick of limited mental perceptions. We do our best in trying to rationalize with those limited mental perceptions but ultimately reality is a construct of the human mind itself overtime which is why we have an imperfect incomplete mental grasp in abstraction concerning overall articulations of reality.
1 Like
Recursion is not that. I will give you a basic visual.
A
A=A
(A=A)=B
B
B=B
(B=B)=C ((A=A)=(A=A))=C
C
…
…Self-referential cycles…
1 Like