The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

[Arising_uk]

...
"P" exists if and only if there is a law of identity. The law of identity is a set of relations observed as "P=P" where this in itself is set of relations.

No it doesn't, P exists because there is a thing or state of affairs, "The cat sat on the mat."

… The law of Identity observes “P is P” is triadic, not the intended dualistic terms of the Law of excluded middle, …

No they don't, monadic, dyadic and triadic do not apply to Propositional Logic.

Pierce may differ: http://paulburgess.org/triadic.html

Pierce was not talking about Propositional Logic.

The law of identity is based upon a positive form (ie, "is". The Law of contradiction observes a negative form (ie "is not"). The law of Exclude middle, as either/or being a neutral foundation from which P and -P extend is the third medial law which reflects back to "is" and "is not" existing as a set of relations in themselves. …

The Law of Identity is based upon the simple observation that a thing is that thing.

The Laws cycle through eachother...as argued above. …

Or they just follow logically from there being a P.

"P is P" is triadic in the respect that:
"P" multiplies into "P,P" through "is", hence observes a replication through linear logic. "is" is the third medial term that binds P and P and from which P replicates. In these respects "P,P" and hence "P" originates from "is" as a medial term. The law of Identity observes an inherent element of 3 dimension as (P,P) and "is", without anyone of the three none could exist.

All you need is a P and you don't need any of the others for there to be a P but if there is a P then the others follow logically.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

I had smoked some weed last night while I was looking through your argument in this thread, and It wasn't making a whole lot of sense to me so I came to the conclusion that I was too high. Now I'm sober, and what you're saying makes even less sense to me.

The way that you write is extraordinarily confusing to anyone but yourself. You don't strike me as someone who knows a lot of philosophical terminology, so it seems like you just google search a bunch of words and put them together in an alphabet soup. As per usual, I was only able to pick up bits and pieces of what you're trying to say.

And what terms would be best to use if the law of excluded middle only uses a limited number of terms?

How about we start with actual terms, that are actually used in the English language, and not some made up word gargle like 'regressive contradiction', 'medial conceptual boundary', 'boundary of alternation' or 'unifier of opposites'? The average person looks at stuff like that, and they don't know what you're trying to say. It sort of sounds like you're pulling those string of words from somewhere - like they're common philosophical concepts/terms, but 3 search engines say otherwise. It makes it very complicated to decipher your argument, when it's presented in this verbose jargon. From a grammatical standpoint, it is also...very odd. I'm sure someone who knows a lot more about literature rules could explain the fundamentals of why every sentence shouldn't be written like this, but to me it just seems like you're trying way too hard to sound smart.

I'm going to stop talking to you, now, for the reason I've just explained. I can only assume that's why anyone on this site would stop talking to you, so I probably wouldn't take it as too much of a victory for your arguments. They're not stumped at what you're saying, they're stumped at what you're trying to say.

[Eodnhoj7]

...
"P" exists if and only if there is a law of identity. The law of identity is a set of relations observed as "P=P" where this in itself is set of relations.

No it doesn't, P exists because there is a thing or state of affairs, "The cat sat on the mat."

The cat exists if and only if it is relative to another set of phenomenon, in this case the mat. The action of sitting provides the boundaries of what the Cat can and cannot do (hence the Cat) and what the mat can and cannot do. The verb "sat" as a function and "on" as a form of direction (when something is on something it is directed towards it) observes this action as a neutral medial third term from which the cat and mat exist

No they don't, monadic, dyadic and triadic do not apply to Propositional Logic.

Last time I checked "propositional logic" exists as a branch of logic, hence exists if and only if it relates to other logical fields. It cannot sustain itself logically in simple terms and because of this contradicts itself, leads to further logics, or both at the same time in different respects.

Don't push your religious dogma on me.

Pierce may differ: http://paulburgess.org/triadic.html

Pierce was not talking about Propositional Logic.

The law of identity is based upon a positive form (ie, "is". The Law of contradiction observes a negative form (ie "is not"). The law of Exclude middle, as either/or being a neutral foundation from which P and -P extend is the third medial law which reflects back to "is" and "is not" existing as a set of relations in themselves. …

The Law of Identity is based upon the simple observation that a thing is that thing.
And that "thing is a thing" observes "thing" exists if only only if it replicates.

Take for example the portion of the sentence in bolded, italicized and underlined. "a" exists if and only if "a=a", hence "a" must replicate itself. This replication observes that while "a=a" as (a,a) the two "a"'s in themselves exist at two relative points in the BIU (bold, italicized, underlined) portion of the sentence. These "a"s in turn, while equivalent, have a different set of relations because of their positions.

The first "a" exists through "Take" and the second "a" exists through "example", hence because of their seperation they exist through different relations and while one "a" may be equal to another "a", because of their positions they are not the same. This seperation of "a", and thier inherent relations through the BIU portion causes what can be argued the sentence to form and curve around "a", considering "a" is the localized point of measurement. "a" causes the BIU portion to curve around "a" which in turn gives form to "a", but simultaneously in a different respect causes the sentence to form from "a". In these respects an alternation occurs within the law of identity that necessitates a repetition through frequency as a part of identity, but this repitition itself forming the relations which form it.

So in simpler terms:

1) (A = A) → ((A,A,=) ↔ (((∃A ↔ (A,=)) ⇄((∃[=] ↔ (A,A)) ⇄ ((∃A ↔ (=,A))))

The Laws cycle through eachother...as argued above. …

Or they just follow logically from there being a P.
Logic is dependent upon the observation of symmetry, with this symmetry existing as an observation of relation or parts or units. Considering this relation of parts exists if and only if there are further parts a necessity of progress is inevitable, in linear terms, conducive to perpetual change to both observe further axioms and maintain the prior ones. This observe alternation as the fundamental foundational boundary of all logical systems that can both maintain their axioms and progress to further ones.

"P is P" is triadic in the respect that:
"P" multiplies into "P,P" through "is", hence observes a replication through linear logic. "is" is the third medial term that binds P and P and from which P replicates. In these respects "P,P" and hence "P" originates from "is" as a medial term. The law of Identity observes an inherent element of 3 dimension as (P,P) and "is", without anyone of the three none could exist.

All you need is a P and you don't need any of the others for there to be a P but if there is a P then the others follow logically.
But the law of identity is not "P" it is "P = P"...this is a major difference.

[Eodnhoj7]

I had smoked some weed last night while I was looking through your argument in this thread, and It wasn't making a whole lot of sense to me so I came to the conclusion that I was too high. Now I'm sober, and what you're saying makes even less sense to me.

The way that you write is extraordinarily confusing to anyone but yourself. You don't strike me as someone who knows a lot of philosophical terminology, so it seems like you just google search a bunch of words and put them together in an alphabet soup. As per usual, I was only able to pick up bits and pieces of what you're trying to say.

And what terms would be best to use if the law of excluded middle only uses a limited number of terms?

How about we start with actual terms, that are actually used in the English language, and not some made up word gargle like 'regressive contradiction', 'medial conceptual boundary', 'boundary of alternation' or 'unifier of opposites'?

Those are not made up terms if you just look in a dictionary. You however can start by learning the English language.

Regressive contradiction observes a contradiction, or deficiency in structure, that continually negates. Considering all axioms are dependent upon the progression to further axioms, ad-infinitum, this regression is a continual negation of the starting axiom ad-infinitum.

Medial Conceptual Boundary: A Concept with exists as a boundary in itself with this limit mediating to further concepts. All concepts mediate to further concepts. All boundaries mediate to further boundaries. A conceptual boundary is what it is a conceptual boundary, with concept equivalent to a form produced in the mind and boundary as a limit which gives structure.

Get a dictionary. If "xy" is worded as such, and "x" means "x1,x2" and "y" means "y1,y2" then "xy" means "x1,x2,y1,y2".

The average person looks at stuff like that, and they don't know what you're trying to say.
If you are average...then don't bother reading it...the average person barely understand the three laws of logic...why would you bother reading whether they contradict themselves or not.

It sort of sounds like you're pulling those string of words from somewhere - like they're common philosophical concepts/terms, but 3 search engines say otherwise.

Searching for what exactly?


It makes it very complicated to decipher your argument, when it's presented in this verbose jargon. From a grammatical standpoint, it is also...very odd. I'm sure someone who knows a lot more about literature rules could explain the fundamentals of why every sentence shouldn't be written like this, but to me it just seems like you're trying way too hard to sound smart.

I'm going to stop talking to you, now, for the reason I've just explained. I can only assume that's why anyone on this site would stop talking to you, so I probably wouldn't take it as too much of a victory for your arguments. They're not stumped at what you're saying, they're stumped at what you're trying to say.

If you look at half of the arguments here, objectively speaking, they are ad-hominums and very poor...after all the time I have spent here I have come to the conclusion that most (not all) of the people here are stupid.

I have an idea...since you know so much...pick a point of argument as to what is "right" in you point of view. PM me the thread and I will see how much you know about what you believe to be true.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

How about we start with actual terms, that are actually used in the English language, and not some made up word gargle like 'regressive contradiction', 'medial conceptual boundary', 'boundary of alternation' or 'unifier of opposites'?

Those are not made up terms if you just look in a dictionary.

Well according to what you go on to say, they are in fact made-up terms, but you just think that's okay. Yeah, that doesn't have anything to do with a dictionary.

Regressive contradiction obser-

I knew you were going to go on to try to explain what you meant when you said those things, and congratulations - that means you missed my point, entirely. The problem is easy communication to the person you're trying to get your argument across. They could ask you for what everything you've ever said, means, but that's not practical, especially when you give a definition that in itself includes verbose, over-complications like 'deficiency in structure', and 'continuous negation'.

I realize that adjectives and adverbs are a thing, but the way that you chain words together makes it sound like you're talking about well established concepts in philosophy, which you clearly aren't. And on paper alone, I don't even think something like 'regressive contradiction' makes any sense.

If you are average...then don't bother reading it...the average person barely understand the three laws of logic...why would you bother reading whether they contradict themselves or not.

It's about why the average person wouldn't understand - because they can't, because there is nothing to actually look up, or material to familiarize themselves with. The average person can at least look into what the laws of thought are, because they're actual philosophical concepts; Nobody can look up what 'regressive contradiction' or 'medial conceptual boundary' means. The closest they may get to hearing those words IRL, is if their philosophy professor has a stroke.

If you look at half of the arguments here, objectively speaking, they are ad-hominums and very poor...after all the time I have spent here I have come to the conclusion that most (not all) of the people here are stupid.

An 'Ad Hominem' is only a fallacy when an insult of someones character is in place of a logical argument, it is not fallacious to give an argument and then insult someone. However, the problem here is actually that the argument we're having is specifically centered around your character, so insults to your character are bound to be perceived.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

I have an idea...since you know so much...pick a point of argument as to what is "right" in you point of view. PM me the thread and I will see how much you know about what you believe to be true.

Oh, and a little life advice, never end your post with a random 'challenge' to the person you're conversing with like it would make you look cool, especially one that involves a PM to you. It is one of the cringiest things. I mean, let's just put this into a bit of perspective - we're guys sitting in front of a computer arguing on an internet forum. You're not a drug lord challenging me to play russian roulette in an underground sewer.

[Eodnhoj7]

How about we start with actual terms, that are actually used in the English language, and not some made up word gargle like 'regressive contradiction', 'medial conceptual boundary', 'boundary of alternation' or 'unifier of opposites'?

Those are not made up terms if you just look in a dictionary.

Well according to what you go on to say, they are in fact made-up terms, but you just think that's okay. Yeah, that doesn't have anything to do with a dictionary.

Try harder:

"regressive" is an adjective, "contradiction" is a noun.

"medial" and "conceptual" are adjectives, "boundary" is a noun.

"boundary" and "alternation" are nouns, with "of" observation an extension. A boundary extends through the act of alternation.

"unifier of opposites"....seriously....that which unifies opposities.

Regressive contradiction obser-

I knew you were going to go on to try to explain what you meant when you said those things, and congratulations - that means you missed my point, entirely. The problem is easy communication to the person you're trying to get your argument across. They could ask you for what everything you've ever said, means, but that's not practical, especially when you give a definition that in itself includes verbose, over-complications like 'deficiency in structure', and 'continuous negation'.

Who said I was trying to communicate to you...you barely understand grammar and the laws of logic. It would be best for you to leave...this conversation is above your head. Philosopher and Arising UK, while they do not agree nor understand the argument enough, understand it enough to provide counter arguments on certain key pivotal points. In these respects it is not above their heads at all.




I realize that adjectives and adverbs are a thing, but the way that you chain words together makes it sound like you're talking about well established concepts in philosophy, which you clearly aren't. And on paper alone, I don't even think something like 'regressive contradiction' makes any sense.

So I should enter the conversation without being convinced of my argument, in any degree what so ever? That would not be an argument.

If you are average...then don't bother reading it...the average person barely understand the three laws of logic...why would you bother reading whether they contradict themselves or not.

It's about why the average person wouldn't understand - because they can't, because there is nothing to actually look up, or material to familiarize themselves with. The average person can at least look into what the laws of thought are, because they're actual philosophical concepts; Nobody can look up what 'regressive contradiction' or 'medial conceptual boundary' means. The closest they may get to hearing those words IRL, is if their philosophy professor has a stroke.

You are focusing on a few sets of words when in reality the argument extends much further. That fact that the Three basic laws alternate through eachother and in turn are composed of alternating logic is above your head.

Take for example the portion of the sentence in bolded, italicized and underlined. "a" exists if and only if "a=a", hence "a" must replicate itself. This replication observes that while "a=a" as (a,a) the two "a"'s in themselves exist at two relative points in the BIU (bold, italicized, underlined) portion of the sentence. These "a"s in turn, while equivalent, have a different set of relations because of their positions.

The first "a" exists through "Take" and the second "a" exists through "example", hence because of their seperation they exist through different relations and while one "a" may be equal to another "a", because of their positions they are not the same. This seperation of "a", and thier inherent relations through the BIU portion causes what can be argued the sentence to form and curve around "a", considering "a" is the localized point of measurement. "a" causes the BIU portion to curve around "a" which in turn gives form to "a", but simultaneously in a different respect causes the sentence to form from "a". In these respects an alternation occurs within the law of identity that necessitates a repetition through frequency as a part of identity, but this repitition itself forming the relations which form it.

So in simpler terms:

1) (A = A) → ((A,A,=) ↔ (((∃A ↔ (A,=)) ⇄((∃[=] ↔ (A,A)) ⇄ ((∃A ↔ (=,A))))



No big terms here...just logic.

If you look at half of the arguments here, objectively speaking, they are ad-hominums and very poor...after all the time I have spent here I have come to the conclusion that most (not all) of the people here are stupid.

An 'Ad Hominem' is only a fallacy when an insult of someones character is in place of a logical argument, it is not fallacious to give an argument and then insult someone. However, the problem here is actually that the argument we're having is specifically centered around your character, so insults to your character are bound to be perceived.

Here on this forum, not thread...that is my fault. My point is that the majority of the people on this forum...well are what they are...

Yes because argument is directly applied to my character...not the argument itself... I look at your posts, and have of them there and if you want an argument about character the simple truth is:

1) Most people argue from preconcieved beliefs and are biased.
2) Most do not understand their own arguments.
3) Your arguments are poor...I can tear them all apart if you wish.

Just stay out of the conversation...it is not meant for you...unless you want to argue why the Three laws of Logic are Correct.

Here is an article you can copy and paste if you have no original thoughts. Just copy and paste the paragraphs you choose:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/laws-of-thought


The blunt truth Sir Sister of Suck is that this is not written for people like you...your opinion is not valuable enough...if at all...that is the reality check. So either stop reading the post and go back to drawing in a coloring book or come up with an original argument....hell you can even quote one...I don't care.

If you don't understand the whole of the argument presented, then pick a part you do understand and argue against that...but your emphasis on a few terms, out of a few pages, is merely just an excuse for your own intellectual weakness....the other's in this thread are not intellectually weak. I don't agree with them, and they don't agree with me, but they present valid arguments nonetheless...wrong...but valid.

You are just useless....relative to this thread.

[Eodnhoj7]

I have an idea...since you know so much...pick a point of argument as to what is "right" in you point of view. PM me the thread and I will see how much you know about what you believe to be true.

Oh, and a little life advice, never end your post with a random 'challenge' to the person you're conversing with like it would make you look cool, especially one that involves a PM to you. It is one of the cringiest things. I mean, let's just put this into a bit of perspective - we're guys sitting in front of a computer arguing on an internet forum. You're not a drug lord challenging me to play russian roulette in an underground sewer.

Back out of the debate however you want coward...this is just an internet debate which essentially means nothing and you cannot even man up for something so cheap.... here is a coloring book:

http://www.crayola.com/featured/free-coloring-pages/

This is the internet...noone takes it seriously...grow up.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Try harder:

"regressive" is an adjectiv-

That's 2 in the stink, shoot once more for one in the pink.

Who said I was trying to communicate to you...

Not me.

Philosopher and Arising UK, while they do not agree nor understand the argument enough

You probably shouldn't use that as a bragging right to juxtapose my position that you don't sufficiently communicate your ideas; Why do you think it is that no one in this thread fully understands your argument? Someone shouldn't understand your argument because it's complicated, not because it's over-complicated. There's a reason why they asked you for another source on what you're saying.

That fact that the Three basic laws alternate through eachother and in turn are composed of alternating logic is above your head.

No I get a bit of what you're trying to say, I just don't understand exactly what you are saying. I also very much disagree with that premise, but I'm not here to discuss that with you. I'm here on how you can better discuss a premise such as that; We need to deal with the leprosy before we deal with the rotten limbs

You are focusing on a few sets of words when in reality the argument extends much further.

Maybe it could be said that arguments extend pass the words that describe them, but if someone can't get past the words that you choose to use, it doesn't matter.

3) Your arguments are poor...I can tear them all apart if you wish.

Well, I'm glad you took my constructive criticism with as much nuance and maturity as a level-headed human being possibly could.

the other's in this thread are not intellectually weak. I don't agree with them, and they don't agree with me, but they present valid arguments nonetheless

You probably think that because they're not attacking a part of your character like I am.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

I have an idea...since you know so much...pick a point of argument as to what is "right" in you point of view. PM me the thread and I will see how much you know about what you believe to be true.

Oh, and a little life advice, never end your post with a random 'challenge' to the person you're conversing with like it would make you look cool, especially one that involves a PM to you. It is one of the cringiest things. I mean, let's just put this into a bit of perspective - we're guys sitting in front of a computer arguing on an internet forum. You're not a drug lord challenging me to play russian roulette in an underground sewer.

Back out of the debate however you want coward...this is just an internet debate which essentially means nothing and you cannot even man up for something so cheap.... here is a coloring book:

http://www.crayola.com/featured/free-coloring-pages/

This is the internet...noone takes it seriously...grow up.

Oh sure, after I say you're taking this too seriously, just throw the same thing back at me and tell me that I'm actually the one that's taking this too seriously. That's definitely a clever comeback to me giving you some forum advice.

While we're passing around site suggestions, I hear you aren't the biggest fan of the regulars here; I think this is a forum that's definitely more suited to someone of your intellectual stature. You should check it out sometime.

http://wrongplanet.net/forums/

[Arising_uk]

The cat exists if and only if it is relative to another set of phenomenon, in this case the mat. The action of sitting provides the boundaries of what the Cat can and cannot do (hence the Cat) and what the mat can and cannot do. The verb "sat" as a function and "on" as a form of direction (when something is on something it is directed towards it) observes this action as a neutral medial third term from which the cat and mat exist

Well you won't here me arguing against the phenomenological idea that the basic unit of meaning when it comes to the senses and phenomena is figure/foreground but regardless of there being terms or not the reason why the proposition P -"The cat sat on the mat" - is true or false and cannot be true and false is exactly because there is or is not a cat sitting on a mat.

Last time I checked "propositional logic" exists as a branch of logic, hence exists if and only if it relates to other logical fields. It cannot sustain itself logically in simple terms and because of this contradicts itself, leads to further logics, or both at the same time in different respects.

Don't push your religious dogma on me.

What are you babbling about? Propositional Logic existed before the other Logics and can sustain itself absolutely with no contradictions. That other logics were developed was due to us wanting to talk about the attributes of things or states of affairs and to talk about groups of things or states of affairs and their relations.

And that "thing is a thing" observes "thing" exists if only only if it replicates.

No idea what you are trying to say here? "This apple is this apple" just observes that there is an apple and only this apple. Now it may be superfluous to say so but it is logically correct.

So in simpler terms:

1) (A = A) → ((A,A,=) ↔ (((∃A ↔ (A,=)) ⇄((∃[=] ↔ (A,A)) ⇄ ((∃A ↔ (=,A))))

[/color]

I have no idea what this quasi-logical formalism is supposed to mean? Do you think you could knock up a post defining your formal 'Logic' so we can maybe understand what it is you are trying to say?

Logic is dependent upon the observation of symmetry, with this symmetry existing as an observation of relation or parts or units. Considering this relation of parts exists if and only if there are further parts a necessity of progress is inevitable, in linear terms, conducive to perpetual change to both observe further axioms and maintain the prior ones. This observe alternation as the fundamental foundational boundary of all logical systems that can both maintain their axioms and progress to further ones.

No idea what you are saying? To me Logic exists because there are things and states of affairs and Symbolic Logic because there are creatures with memory and language.

But the law of identity is not "P" it is "P = P"...this is a major difference.

A law that could not exist without there being a P in the first place and one that logically follows from there being a P.

[Eodnhoj7]

Oh, and a little life advice, never end your post with a random 'challenge' to the person you're conversing with like it would make you look cool, especially one that involves a PM to you. It is one of the cringiest things. I mean, let's just put this into a bit of perspective - we're guys sitting in front of a computer arguing on an internet forum. You're not a drug lord challenging me to play russian roulette in an underground sewer.

Back out of the debate however you want coward...this is just an internet debate which essentially means nothing and you cannot even man up for something so cheap.... here is a coloring book:

http://www.crayola.com/featured/free-coloring-pages/

This is the internet...noone takes it seriously...grow up.

Oh sure, after I say you're taking this too seriously, just throw the same thing back at me and tell me that I'm actually the one that's taking this too seriously. That's definitely a clever comeback to me giving you some forum advice.

While we're passing around site suggestions, I hear you aren't the biggest fan of the regulars here; I think this is a forum that's definitely more suited to someone of your intellectual stature. You should check it out sometime.

http://wrongplanet.net/forums/

Blah...blah...blah...word salad.

[Eodnhoj7]

The cat exists if and only if it is relative to another set of phenomenon, in this case the mat. The action of sitting provides the boundaries of what the Cat can and cannot do (hence the Cat) and what the mat can and cannot do. The verb "sat" as a function and "on" as a form of direction (when something is on something it is directed towards it) observes this action as a neutral medial third term from which the cat and mat exist

Well you won't here me arguing against the phenomenological idea that the basic unit of meaning when it comes to the senses and phenomena is figure/foreground but regardless of there being terms or not the reason why the proposition P -"The cat sat on the mat" - is true or false and cannot be true and false is exactly because there is or is not a cat sitting on a mat.

Last time I checked "propositional logic" exists as a branch of logic, hence exists if and only if it relates to other logical fields. It cannot sustain itself logically in simple terms and because of this contradicts itself, leads to further logics, or both at the same time in different respects.

Don't push your religious dogma on me.

What are you babbling about? Propositional Logic existed before the other Logics and can sustain itself absolutely with no contradictions. That other logics were developed was due to us wanting to talk about the attributes of things or states of affairs and to talk about groups of things or states of affairs and their relations.

And that "thing is a thing" observes "thing" exists if only only if it replicates.

No idea what you are trying to say here? "This apple is this apple" just observes that there is an apple and only this apple. Now it may be superfluous to say so but it is logically correct.

So in simpler terms:

1) (A = A) → ((A,A,=) ↔ (((∃A ↔ (A,=)) ⇄((∃[=] ↔ (A,A)) ⇄ ((∃A ↔ (=,A))))

[/color]

I have no idea what this quasi-logical formalism is supposed to mean? Do you think you could knock up a post defining your formal 'Logic' so we can maybe understand what it is you are trying to say?

Logic is dependent upon the observation of symmetry, with this symmetry existing as an observation of relation or parts or units. Considering this relation of parts exists if and only if there are further parts a necessity of progress is inevitable, in linear terms, conducive to perpetual change to both observe further axioms and maintain the prior ones. This observe alternation as the fundamental foundational boundary of all logical systems that can both maintain their axioms and progress to further ones.

No idea what you are saying? To me Logic exists because there are things and states of affairs and Symbolic Logic because there are creatures with memory and language.

But the law of identity is not "P" it is "P = P"...this is a major difference.

A law that could not exist without there being a P in the first place and one that logically follows from there being a P.

[Eodnhoj7]

The cat exists if and only if it is relative to another set of phenomenon, in this case the mat. The action of sitting provides the boundaries of what the Cat can and cannot do (hence the Cat) and what the mat can and cannot do. The verb "sat" as a function and "on" as a form of direction (when something is on something it is directed towards it) observes this action as a neutral medial third term from which the cat and mat exist

Well you won't here me arguing against the phenomenological idea that the basic unit of meaning when it comes to the senses and phenomena is figure/foreground but regardless of there being terms or not the reason why the proposition P -"The cat sat on the mat" - is true or false and cannot be true and false is exactly because there is or is not a cat sitting on a mat.

It can be true and false at the same time in different respects considering "sat" is past tense referencing a different position in the time line. The cat may have got up, during a seperate part of the same time line. In these respects the cat both sat and did not sat, relative to the length of time measured.

The proposition is actually neutral considering it exists if and only if it continues to progress in definition. As the proposition is non-localized, as in not existing within a set of further localities, it observes a retro-gressive potential statement. Let me elaborate that point....the cat may have sat potentially within "x" period of time, but unless the proposition expands further it is only a potential statement. Because it is potential it maintains both possibilities simultaneously.

Propositional logic only works if the definition of the propistion continually expands.

Last time I checked "propositional logic" exists as a branch of logic, hence exists if and only if it relates to other logical fields. It cannot sustain itself logically in simple terms and because of this contradicts itself, leads to further logics, or both at the same time in different respects.

Don't push your religious dogma on me.

What are you babbling about? Propositional Logic existed before the other Logics and can sustain itself absolutely with no contradictions. That other logics were developed was due to us wanting to talk about the attributes of things or states of affairs and to talk about groups of things or states of affairs and their relations.

Propositional logic is a framework of rules, which exist as limits, that exists as a synthesis of axioms. It most likely began with aristotle and was later developed by the stoics (as you already probably know) https://www.iep.utm.edu/prop-log/#H2 and is a measurement system. The problem of "choice" comes along, as the axioms which necessitate Propositional Logic either:

1) Where chosen as a beginning point of measurment, admidst other possible axioms, hence an element of randomness was involved by the application of choice.

2) Because these axioms exist if and only if they relate, they inevitably result in a form of circular reasoning (as argued above) which contradicts their form and function. One axiom, as each law is an axiom, exists if and only if they relate to further axioms.

This form and function is contradicted as they are required to observe a dualism of "being or non-being" but require a third neutral median of "either/or" which exists between "is" and "is-not". Even then the propostion, as evidenced by the Cat example above, must continually replicate itself if it is to be truly justified.

3) These axioms of Propositional logic leads to further axioms, such as those of intuitionist logic, with Propositional logic existing if and only if it extends to these further axioms. It is does not extend to these further axioms, it is not continually justified, it also circulates through itself and contradicts itself.

And that "thing is a thing" observes "thing" exists if only only if it replicates.

No idea what you are trying to say here? "This apple is this apple" just observes that there is an apple and only this apple. Now it may be superfluous to say so but it is logically correct.

An apple is an apple observes the apple exists through replication across time and space. Logic follows this same course of definition, as this replication allows "the apple" to exist through various different positions in the argument, hence not just tying the argument together but Replication observes an extension across the argument.


So in simpler terms:

1) (A = A) → ((A,A,=) ↔ (((∃A ↔ (A,=)) ⇄((∃[=] ↔ (A,A)) ⇄ ((∃A ↔ (=,A))))

[/color]

I have no idea what this quasi-logical formalism is supposed to mean? Do you think you could knock up a post defining your formal 'Logic' so we can maybe understand what it is you are trying to say?

"A = A " tends toward "A","A" and "equality" as things in themselves. They exists if and only if:

1) There exists "A", which exists if and only if there is "equality" and a seperate "A".
2) There exists "equality", which exists if and only if there are seperate "A"'s.
3) Rehash of point 1 with second A as premise.
4) These existences of A, equality, and A are directed through eachother and alternate


All of this is depending upon the beginning point of measurement, however the fact that the definitions require a form of alternation to exist, a medial term is necessary.

Logic is dependent upon the observation of symmetry, with this symmetry existing as an observation of relation or parts or units. Considering this relation of parts exists if and only if there are further parts a necessity of progress is inevitable, in linear terms, conducive to perpetual change to both observe further axioms and maintain the prior ones. This observe alternation as the fundamental foundational boundary of all logical systems that can both maintain their axioms and progress to further ones.

No idea what you are saying? To me Logic exists because there are things and states of affairs and Symbolic Logic because there are creatures with memory and language.

And what is memory but the replication of events in the minds, as a frequency, conducive to a form of symmetry. X event is replicated "Y" times across the mind as a form of memory, hence is structure in itself dependent upon symmetry.

Logic exists "because there are things and states of affairs"...what does that mean? If that is the case I am logical because I exist.

But the law of identity is not "P" it is "P = P"...this is a major difference.

A law that could not exist without there being a P in the first place and one that logically follows from there being a P.

There can only be a P in the first place if P replicates itself, hence P exists if and only if there are multiple "P"s.

There are 7 P's in the above sentence. P exists as a letter and a letter exists if and only if it conveys a thought through sentence. The sentence exists through the letter, however the letter must exists in seperate postions within the sentence simultaneously if the sentence is to exist...hence the P must replicate if it is to exist.

[Arising_uk]

It can be true and false at the same time in different respects considering "sat" is past tense referencing a different position in the time line. The cat may have got up, during a seperate part of the same time line. In these respects the cat both sat and did not sat, relative to the length of time measured. …

There is no time in Propositional Logic.

The proposition is actually neutral considering it exists if and only if it continues to progress in definition. As the proposition is non-localized, as in not existing within a set of further localities, it observes a retro-gressive potential statement. Let me elaborate that point....the cat may have sat potentially within "x" period of time, but unless the proposition expands further it is only a potential statement. Because it is potential it maintains both possibilities simultaneously. …

Only in your barking world where time is a factor in Propositional Logic(PL).

Propositional logic only works if the definition of the propistion continually expands.

No, PL works because there are things or states of affairs, declarative sentences and Reason.

Propositional logic is a framework of rules, which exist as limits, that exists as a synthesis of axioms. …

What limits?

It most likely began with aristotle and was later developed by the stoics (as you already probably know) https://www.iep.utm.edu/prop-log/#H2 and is a measurement system. …

There is no measurement in PL.

The problem of "choice" comes along, as the axioms which necessitate Propositional Logic either:

1) Where chosen as a beginning point of measurment, admidst other possible axioms, hence an element of randomness was involved by the application of choice. …

There is no 'problem of choice' in PL, the axioms came from logical deduction from the idea that if there is a P then there can be a Not P, etc.

2) Because these axioms exist if and only if they relate, they inevitably result in a form of circular reasoning (as argued above) which contradicts their form and function. One axiom, as each law is an axiom, exists if and only if they relate to further axioms. …

The only relation is logical deduction.

This form and function is contradicted as they are required to observe a dualism of "being or non-being" but require a third neutral median of "either/or" which exists between "is" and "is-not". Even then the propostion, as evidenced by the Cat example above, must continually replicate itself if it is to be truly justified. …

No it doesn't, it just requires there to be a cat sitting on a mat.

3) These axioms of Propositional logic leads to further axioms, such as those of intuitionist logic, with Propositional logic existing if and only if it extends to these further axioms. It is does not extend to these further axioms, it is not continually justified, it also circulates through itself and contradicts itself. …

You have in no way shown that the axioms of PL contradict themselves and you won't because they don't.

An apple is an apple observes the apple exists through replication across time and space. Logic follows this same course of definition, as this replication allows "the apple" to exist through various different positions in the argument, hence not just tying the argument together but Replication observes an extension across the argument.

What it observes is that there is an apple.

"A = A " tends toward "A","A" and "equality" as things in themselves. They exists if and only if:

1) There exists "A", which exists if and only if there is "equality" and a seperate "A". …

No, P exists if there is a P.

2) There exists "equality", which exists if and only if there are seperate "A"'s. …

No, 'equality' exists if you can substitute the term with no change in truth value.

3) Rehash of point 1 with second A as premise.
4) These existences of A, equality, and A are directed through eachother and alternate …

Really no idea what you are talking about?

All of this is depending upon the beginning point of measurement, however the fact that the definitions require a form of alternation to exist, a medial term is necessary. …

There is no measurement in PL. What does 'medial term' mean?

And what is memory but the replication of events in the minds, as a frequency, conducive to a form of symmetry. X event is replicated "Y" times across the mind as a form of memory, hence is structure in itself dependent upon symmetry. …

But the event does not depend upon there being a mind.

Logic exists "because there are things and states of affairs"...what does that mean? If that is the case I am logical because I exist. …

No, if you exist then Logic applies to you as Logic(at least PL) comes from there being things or states of affairs.
P - You exist
¬ P - You don't exist.
(P v ¬P) - You exist or you don't exist.
¬(P ^ ¬P) - You can't exist and not exist.
P = P - You exist if and only if you exist.

There can only be a P in the first place if P replicates itself, hence P exists if and only if there are multiple "P"s.

There are 7 P's in the above sentence. P exists as a letter and a letter exists if and only if it conveys a thought through sentence. The sentence exists through the letter, however the letter must exists in seperate postions within the sentence simultaneously if the sentence is to exist...hence the P must replicate if it is to exist.

You seem to not understand that "P" is a variable?