Philosophy Now Forum

Choice is acknowledged as an axiom, thus axioms are chosen. Choice is not necessarily acknowledged as an axiom, as not all beings are conscious of their own ability to choose. Axioms are not chosen - they exist irrespective of choice (ie. the capacity of). False you can choose one axiom by ignoring...

Any time you are using inversive symmetry you are pointing to the similarities between extremes as stemming from a center point with this center point as the knowledge between such degrees of ignorance (as all extremes are ignorant by their very nature as they imply a seperation from the dual pole....

Your chart is grounded between the inverse symmetry between variables where belief appears as unnecessary by observing the inverse state of any stance. It is grounded in something deeper than this, though this is a natural emergent. One natural unit, of the universal natural reference system, is on...

In light of quantum foam... Not real. all phenomena occur spontaneously from void ... Not real. thus all reocurrence of variables necessitate an element of randomness from them. The randomness is apparent: there is a scalar natural progression which expands indefinitely at the speed of light, and a...

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:31 pm

Choice is acknowledged as an axiom, thus axioms are chosen.

Choice is not necessarily acknowledged as an axiom, as
not all beings are conscious of their own ability to choose.

Axioms are not chosen - they exist irrespective of choice
(ie. the capacity of).

Chosen axioms are axioms as the axiom of choice acknowledges this. The universal "primordial axiom" is form itself as it is taken "as is". The most universal axiom is space by default as it is both a priori and a posteriori, as such it is both assumed as is and subject to choice. One can acknowledg...

This is not the Law of Identity. The equals sign is a mathematical one not used in Propositional nor Predicate Logic(at least not until later in First Order Predicate Logic with Equality, where it is carefully defined) The equals sign is irrelevant: A is not endowed with the universality of being a...

Most people understand "universality" to mean "context-free application". A rule that applies always (anywhere, anywhen ) and without exceptions. If it's context-dependent - it's not universal. Ironically, the contextual limits of rules are the contextual limits of language. Context-dependent is a ...

All you've said is that my mood-swings are represented by √-1 What does that mean? It means all motions associated with your not drinking coffee are captured in e^πi(s/t) being a conjugate of normal coffeeful s/t. Suppose you have have two objects which have the same velocity and the same orientati...

The root of human life is breathing in-and-out... it is a valid root . If you need proof, stop breathing . ... (skipped the rest) Ookay let's see. Without breathing we die, and you think that this makes breathing the "root" of human life. That's nonsense #1. And then you use this root as a mathemat...

Let √1 be the root of any breathing body whose breathing in/out (+/-) is captured *variably by √1: √1 = +1, -1 √A = +A, -A +A (in) -A (out) Ah yes, taking the root of a breathing body. And assigning numbers to breathing in and out. I think in such cases it would be better if people would just start...

Fine. Capture this motion in language. My coffee machine broke today. Capture the motion of my decaffeinated mood-swings in logic. It would require Euler's e^π i = -1 Let *A be Skepdick. *A = s/1, 1/t √*A = s/√1, √1/t √*A = (s/+1, s/-1), (1/+1, 1/-1) A = √(s/+1, s/-1), √(t/+1, t/-1) A = √(s/+1, s/ ...

Fine. Capture this motion in language. My coffee machine broke today. Capture the motion of my decaffeinated mood-swings in logic. It would require Euler's e^π i = -1 Let *A be Skepdick. *A = s/1, 1/t √*A = s/√1, √1/t √*A = (s/+1, s/-1), (1/+1, 1/-1) A = √(s/+1, s/-1), √(t/+1, t/-1) A = √(s/+1, s/e...

That's an oxymoron. If there was a "how it universally operates" there would be no need for "local" adjustments. Of course there would, because of how it universally operates. "local" adjustments to a "universal" rule are called exceptions. And in programming the act of dealing with "local adjustme...

If it's static then you aren't talking about space or time. An object that's static in space is always moving through time. There is no such thing as a static object - if it exists, it has a motion(s) associated with it. Relative to the concerned motioning object, time is moving as a 'static' circl...