The Failure of Linear Logic?
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:31 pm
The failure of linear logic (my brief argument)
The issue with logic is it's dependence on self-evidence which requires a certain level of subjectivity. This level of subjectivity manifests as all axioms being possibilistic relative to the nature of the observer(s). Because of the possibility nature of all axioms, that manifests through the relativity of the observer, one axiom can have multiple logic chains composed of seperate axioms who in themselves are self evident and simultaneously are subjective in their reflectivity with other axioms.
All logical arguments are composed of interrelated axioms that:
A) exist on their own as primitives that cannot be reduced further.
B) manifest reflections between other axioms and the observer(s) which in turn manifests further definition.
C) unify with other axioms, through a synthesis, cancelling out the prior axioms and creating a new one.
Regardless of the order, these three aspects of "relativity", "reflectivity", and "unity/synthesis" exist in one degree or another through a treatise because these three components enable and manifest definition.
Also because of the inherent subjective nature of axioms a certain level of probabilism is involved as the observer through observation steers the course of how the axioms relate, reflect, unify with other axioms.
It is this subjective nature of axioms, that axioms take on the form of actual "curvature" (α) of logic. It is this actual curvature which exists relative to potential curvature (ω).
It is this relativity between actual and potential axioms that manifests the strict linear-ism required in most logic. The nature of relativity between actual and potential, as far as I understand, requires a linearism when it comes to logic.
ex: α∫ω = α <------> ω
ex: α ------> ω
However all axioms are propogative in proportional to the observer/observation that is inter-joined to them.
ex: α ------- α1 -------- α2 -------- α3 --------> ω
The issue occurs as the axioms are all beginning axioms (logic curvature) for further beginning axioms and relative to multiple observers the logic chain begins to spider web as each beginning angle
has multiple possibilities of extension when a separate observer is involved for the nature of the beginning axiom multiplies in degrees reflective of the number of observers (Φ).
ex: (α→αx)≜Φx
(ω→ωx)≜Φx
ex: α --- ψ(ω,ω1,ω2...∞)
ex: α ------- α1 -------- α2 -------- α3 --------> ω
α1 ------- b ------- b1 ------- b2 --------> ω
α3 ------- c ------- c1 ------- c2 --------> ω
So now where it was just the original beginning axiom, now there are several beginning axioms all with separate linear chains each ending with a number of possible potential axioms.
The failure of linear logic is it's ability to manifest to much definition. The increase in definition reflects a paradoxical decrease in understand the nature of the individual axioms as an increase in further axioms shifts the proportionality in observation to all the other axioms.
+(∂>Aα) ≡ -(Φ∝α)
∂(definition)= ψ*α
A (original)
The issue with logic is it's dependence on self-evidence which requires a certain level of subjectivity. This level of subjectivity manifests as all axioms being possibilistic relative to the nature of the observer(s). Because of the possibility nature of all axioms, that manifests through the relativity of the observer, one axiom can have multiple logic chains composed of seperate axioms who in themselves are self evident and simultaneously are subjective in their reflectivity with other axioms.
All logical arguments are composed of interrelated axioms that:
A) exist on their own as primitives that cannot be reduced further.
B) manifest reflections between other axioms and the observer(s) which in turn manifests further definition.
C) unify with other axioms, through a synthesis, cancelling out the prior axioms and creating a new one.
Regardless of the order, these three aspects of "relativity", "reflectivity", and "unity/synthesis" exist in one degree or another through a treatise because these three components enable and manifest definition.
Also because of the inherent subjective nature of axioms a certain level of probabilism is involved as the observer through observation steers the course of how the axioms relate, reflect, unify with other axioms.
It is this subjective nature of axioms, that axioms take on the form of actual "curvature" (α) of logic. It is this actual curvature which exists relative to potential curvature (ω).
It is this relativity between actual and potential axioms that manifests the strict linear-ism required in most logic. The nature of relativity between actual and potential, as far as I understand, requires a linearism when it comes to logic.
ex: α∫ω = α <------> ω
ex: α ------> ω
However all axioms are propogative in proportional to the observer/observation that is inter-joined to them.
ex: α ------- α1 -------- α2 -------- α3 --------> ω
The issue occurs as the axioms are all beginning axioms (logic curvature) for further beginning axioms and relative to multiple observers the logic chain begins to spider web as each beginning angle
has multiple possibilities of extension when a separate observer is involved for the nature of the beginning axiom multiplies in degrees reflective of the number of observers (Φ).
ex: (α→αx)≜Φx
(ω→ωx)≜Φx
ex: α --- ψ(ω,ω1,ω2...∞)
ex: α ------- α1 -------- α2 -------- α3 --------> ω
α1 ------- b ------- b1 ------- b2 --------> ω
α3 ------- c ------- c1 ------- c2 --------> ω
So now where it was just the original beginning axiom, now there are several beginning axioms all with separate linear chains each ending with a number of possible potential axioms.
The failure of linear logic is it's ability to manifest to much definition. The increase in definition reflects a paradoxical decrease in understand the nature of the individual axioms as an increase in further axioms shifts the proportionality in observation to all the other axioms.
+(∂>Aα) ≡ -(Φ∝α)
∂(definition)= ψ*α
A (original)