The Limits Of Linear and Recursive Reasoning

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

****Updated:

The following is an example of the limits of linear reasoning by notion of symbols that can be viewed synonymous to emergent variables:

****The following formalism will use only the following symbolic operators that defined the distinction of the sequences. There is not premise or intent of establishing a fully formal traditional system thus the modality of proof will be that of emergent patterns by degree of the sequences themselves.

“L:” will represent a Linear Reasoning Chain.

“R:” will represent a Recursive Reasoning Chain.

“->” will represent “transition towards/change to/direction.”

“( )” will represent context.

1. L: A

1. R: A

2. L: (A → B)

2. R: (A → A) → (A, B, -A)

3. L: (A → B → C) …

3. R: (A → A → A) → (A, B, C, -A, -B) …

4. (L ⊆ R):

(A → …X) → ((A → … A) → (A,B…X, -A, -B…-Y)

((L:) → (R:)) ↔ (((L:) → (L:)) ⊆ (R:))

((L: A → B → C…),

(L: -A → -B → -C…),

(L: A → A1 → A2…),

(L: B → B1 → B2…),

(L: C → C1 → C2…),

(L: -A → -A1 → -A2…)

(L: -B → -B1 → -B2…),

(L: -C → -C1 → -C2…)) ⊆ (R: A → A…)

5. R: (A → A) →

((A, B , -A) →

(-(A) ↔ (-A))

-> (B) → (A → B))

(R:) → (L:)

There is only A

2

be △ do △ end

being △ action △ quality

will represent unity-in-distinction (triadicity)

3

A purely triadic approach requires a fourth element as the divergent distinction of the triad itself requires. I used to be triadic oriented, in conceptualization, and then moved to quadratic concepts.

Examples:

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C as A and B
  4. C as either A or B
4

It’s the triad as a whole … each node mediating the other two as the third … it’s not a fourth node. Mutual production.

5
  1. There is A.
  2. There is B.
  3. There is A and B as C.
  4. There is A or B as D.
6

Aristotle did not include the fourth figure in Prior Analytics because he has the original altertheses, which Kant also has.

IMG_2457
IMG_24571920×1441 289 KB

IMG_1069
IMG_10691920×1440 242 KB

“Just a hunch.”

—Tommy Aquinas HillFigger-it-out, 2005

Pre-script:

It’s not as deterministic as it looks like from the perspective of beings subject to time, unless you mean co-determined.

7

I am not going on authority figures I am going off of emergent pattern:

  1. A
  2. B
  3. A and B as C
  4. Neither A nor B as D
8

you’re speaking gibberish

9

Is that gibberish triadic?

What was presented was the Buddhist tetralemma.

10

It reduces to C.

No it wasn’t.

11

So there is A. There is B.

There is both A and B as C.

But according to you there is no “neither A nor B as D”.

Is that correct?

1 Like
12

sigh

takes a deep breath

  1. A
  2. B
  3. A and B as C
  4. Neither A nor B as D

Can’t say much about D, only that A and B aren’t it, and they aren’t really A and B, either… because they just reduce to C.

…but… if A, B, and C are an irreducibly complex unity, then something is wrong with the form of that argument, because A and B are usurping C, or C is usurping them… don’t ask me.

But…

takes in another deep breath

… let A be “It is false” and B be “It is true” — they cancel out. If A and B are C, which is “It is both true and false” then (taken together) they are antithetical to something else that is C that they can combine with, leaving behind what is false and keeping only what is true (which is not very triadic, which suffers no gain or loss).

If neither A (It is true) nor B (It is false) are D (neither true nor false)…why is A presented as true and B presented as false?

Even if you should have said “‘Neither A nor B’ as D” or… “C as D” …one could still ask “Why is A presented as true and B presented as false?”

But… if you generously allow C to equal D, such that C and D are E, “Neither/both true and false” …then the same can be said about both C and D: They (A and B, taken together as one claim, as before) are antithetical to something else that is E (C and D) that they can combine with, leaving behind what is false and keeping only what is true (which is not very triadic, or “original synthesis”, which suffers no gain or loss, and consists of altertheses …not antitheses).

The gibberish:

A 1. It is true : The statement is correct.

B 2. It is false : The statement is incorrect.

A and B as C 3. It is both true and false : The statement can be true in some contexts and false in others.

Neither A nor B as D 4. It is neither true nor false The statement does not fit into either category.

13

Alternative ending:

A and B do not cancel out because B is not anything, so it cancels itself out, or is just a lesser version of A, which is replaced by progressively fuller versions of A.

You could say that C is becoming A, and D is devolving to B.

…unless you have created versions in or out of participation with an original uncreated version.

…but I’m guessing that this does not originate from that form of Buddhism.

14

True and false are subject to being distinctions that are pattern oriented, reducing reality to truth or falsity results in contextual orientation of applying value.

There is distinction A and B which overlap to form the third element, there the absence of either which diverge to form the fourth.

Basic geometry with symbols can prove this:

A: ———— (individual)

B: ++++++ (individual opposite)

C: –++–++—++ (overlap/both)

D: ×××××× (neither)

Four states are present.

15

Don’t read any replies below that.

@promethean75 this is for a you that I don’t even recognize anymore.