Eodnhoj7 wrote:It may not have intended being premised in space and time, however it observes all localized phenemenon as finite and hence is dependent upon time. …

The tautologies and contradictions are timeless.

Considering these laws were premised upon Aristotle, a physicist, there finite nature should have been observed a long time ago. ...

He wasn't a physicist and these laws are timeless.

The problem of logic, premised in empirical truth, is that it does not follow the laws of empirical reality but attempts to transcend certain empirical premises (specifically time) by providing constants (the three laws) which do not necessarily mirror empirical reality in its true form. …

There is no problem in Logic, that it has been found the contingent propositions are best proved true or false through empirical methods is just because it was found that logical ones were wrong with respect to the world.

… The symbols "→" observe "tending towards" as direction. Under the law of identity "[→] = [→]" should provide "→" as axiomatic, but according to its own laws it does not provide the necessary prerequisite for a universal axiom in the respect it is not understood by everyone.

No they really don't, you could just as well use "£" if you like, I think you find the arrow confusing.

All axioms exist through time as directive qualities, while as constants they observe this direction towards eachother as a boundary of connection where the multiple axioms exist as extensions of eachother. …

No idea what you are saying here.

Some examples:

1) "A therefore B" observes A being directed toward B with A as cause and B being effect.

A → B …

No, you can if you like infer causality but it's not necessary and you'd have to prove it empirically but all "P->Q" says is that if you have a P you will also have a Q and this can be true or false.

2) "A because of B" observes point 1 reversed.

B → A or A ← B

3) "A and B" observes A, as one localized phenomen which exists through linear direction, and B, following the same format as A, both being directed towards eachother as "A and B" which is further directed to C as "A and B therefore C". "And" observe A and B being directed toward eachother with this direction acting as a connection.

(A ⇄ B) → C

4) "A or B" observes A, as one localized phenomen which exists through linear direction, and B, following the same format as A, both being directed away from eachother as "A or B" exists. "Or" exists as a seperator which extends from a neutral median.

(A ← → B) → ((ФA, ФB) = C)

(ФA, ФB) = (Potential A or Potential B)

In these respects symbols such as, ˄ ˅ ∴ ∵, can be observed as:

(∴) = (→)

(∵) = (←)

(˄) = (⇄)

(˅) = (← →)

With "=" observing a negative non-directional limit of connection or seperation.

In these respects directionality acts as neutral variable so the statements of A,B,C can be observed as:

(A(x)B)(y)C

Just meaningless to me. The best I get is that you are trying to create some sort of semiotics for Logic and I have no idea why? As Logic already has its own syntax and sematics that work just fine.