## The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:02 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:52 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:48 pm
Not only, considering even convergence requires relative phenomena as directive properties unifying to form a new directive.
Well, if you take the arrow of time the system that is the universe is converging. Towards maximum entropy. The heat death of the universe.

At maximum entropy structure no longer exists.
Entropy is merely a means of inversion where a phenomenon is divide into parts and the parts form new parts.

Blackholes for instance observe this inversion where the parts are broken down...then when the black hole "fills up" they are redirected as unified in seperate directions which eventually break apart and form new materials.
I consider entropy as axiomatic. Chaos. Disorder. Ignorance. Uncertainty, lack of control etc. Different English phrases for the same phenomenon I am experiencing. This way I need only one category in my head: epistemology

The map is not the territory but it is as precise and useful as the human condition will allow me to make it.

https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_map ... _territory

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:27 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:02 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:52 pm

Well, if you take the arrow of time the system that is the universe is converging. Towards maximum entropy. The heat death of the universe.

At maximum entropy structure no longer exists.
Entropy is merely a means of inversion where a phenomenon is divide into parts and the parts form new parts.

Blackholes for instance observe this inversion where the parts are broken down...then when the black hole "fills up" they are redirected as unified in seperate directions which eventually break apart and form new materials.
I consider entropy as axiomatic. Chaos. Disorder. Ignorance. Uncertainty, lack of control etc. Different English phrases for the same phenomenon I am experiencing. This way I need only one category in my head: epistemology

The map is not the territory but it is as precise and useful as the human condition will allow me to make it.

https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_map ... _territory
All entropy is inversion of a unified phenomena into multiple phenomena, which still are unified as themselves while separate due to necessary relation to further phenomena...with this separation existing as a connection from a separate respect; hence a further localization in itself. This inversion, through entropy, is axiomatic with the inversion as the axiom relatively observing the axiom as inversion considering the axiom itself inverts from a unity into multiplicity to further axioms.

Entropy as axiomatic and entropy as inversive observes the axiom as inversive through the medial limit of entropy (which in itself is 0 dimensional, however the connective median of the line existing as infinite 0d points or infinite inversion as no-inversion). We can observe this triad existing with the structure of not just axioms in arguments but also nature where a form of continual particulation occurs over a period of time (all logical arguments on-line end in ad-hominums and dissolve in logical structure while entropy in nature and physics is more practically observed in an empirical state through the senses). The boundary of time, as finiteness conducive to a multiplicity through seperation, inevitably observes the entropic effect tied in where time as finiteness stems not just through empirical realities but the abstract phenomena of basic dialogue and reasoning which stems from this empirical reality (such as this conversation dissolving eventually but inverting into further axioms from which other conversation will exist).

WarnerLot
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 5:52 pm
Location: Panama
Contact:

### The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Togo, -- Do you pick and choose those thoughts that seemingly pop into your head вЂ¦or do they just вЂњpop into your headвЂќ?

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

WarnerLot wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 2:11 pm
Togo, -- Do you pick and choose those thoughts that seemingly pop into your head вЂ¦or do they just вЂњpop into your headвЂќ?
Did you pick and choose this thought or did it just pop put of your head?

planetlonely23
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:32 am

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:12 pm
philosopher wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:03 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 3:48 pm
The Law of Excluded Middle is excluding a third possibility - not a third rule. Either/Or - binary. But binaries can have more than a 00 or 01 or 11 - it can have 01011 (11) - it doesn't mean it has 11 possibilities, but 11 bits of whatever. That's entirely a different thing.
The Law of excluded middle is a third rule and as a third rule, acts as the middle means from which the law of identity and the law of no-contradiction proceed form.

It manifests as the neutral median of "/" under "either/or".

The law of Identity is triadic with "P = P" being mediated by the middle term of "=". Equality implies seperation as what is equal is seperate.

It cannot be "equal" to myself unless comparing one me to another me across time/space. "=" would have to exist as "="="=" if it is to maintain any accurate definition under its own rule or "P = P" would have to be observed strictly as "P"...not even (P,P) as this observes an inherent seperation also.

A "possibility" becomes a rule in itself considering the "possibility" is the negative boundary (what is not) of an actual limit. This negation, as a limit of limit so to speak, makes it a medial third point as a negative.

A dualism, or binary set of units, extends from a unity in itself that is inherently neutral. 1,0 exist if and only if their is possible 1,0 from which 1,0 extend from and/or moves towards.

The law of exclude middle contradicts itself in the respect it necessitates a medial third point from which the dualisms either extend from or move towards (such as "=", "is", "is not") which in themselves must exist under the law of identity ("=" is "=", "is" = "is", "is not" = "is not", etc.).

The law of exclude middle must follow its own law of identity and law of non-contradiction in these respects as it either exists or does not exist. In these respects the law of excluded middle exists as an observation of a neutral medial element that exists as negative neutral (either/or) which exists if and only if there is a positive neutral (both/and) considering a negative cannot exist on its own terms without negating a positive.

In these respects it is dependent upon the first two laws, with the first to laws extending from the law of excluded middle making the law of exclude middle an observation of a third medium in one respect (hence a contradiction) and necessitating the law of excluded middle observes an inherent element of neutrality (not contradictory to its definition).
For me in synthesis we have the third law that rules out the meaning of the first Law which deemed itself as part of the first rule where P is P. in the way you define it as triadic, considering it from a relativism of the dualistic point of view, there is not a rejection of the axiom which implies the result of it, but give the idea that the first law, giving a middle term is not possible, so as to ensure the menaing of the first law what the third is trying to simplified the idea that first stament P is out of P., so is a paradox which tried to explain that the neutral possibility, give the idea of another statement that not give a true or false result but a result which avoid the contradictory definition with a new statement.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

planetlonely23 wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:34 pm
For me in synthesis we have the third law that rules out the meaning of the first Law which deemed itself as part of the first rule where P is P. in the way you define it as triadic, considering it from a relativism of the dualistic point of view, there is not a rejection of the axiom which implies the result of it, but give the idea that the first law, giving a middle term is not possible, so as to ensure the menaing of the first law what the third is trying to simplified the idea that first stament P is out of P., so is a paradox which tried to explain that the neutral possibility, give the idea of another statement that not give a true or false result but a result which avoid the contradictory definition with a new statement.
Jesus, that's a lot of verbiage...

Just build the damn thing and see what happens! Construct a logic in which your axioms are:

1 = 1 -> true
P = P -> false
N = N -> undefined
Q = Q -> Monkey
F = F -> P

e.g construct a logic where = means different things in different contexts.

How? Write an interpreter for your shiny, new logic ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpreter_(computing) )
If you've never programmed in your life use a tool like MPS: https://www.jetbrains.com/mps/

I am going to bet \$100 that you are going to end up with Type Theory...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory
In mathematics, logic, and computer science, a type theory is any of a class of formal systems, some of which can serve as alternatives to set theory as a foundation for all mathematics. In type theory, every "term" has a "type" and operations are restricted to terms of a certain type.
This human tendency to re-invent the wheel is just killing me!

Contradictions are caused by grammatical and syntax errors! If you remove grammatical and syntax errors - you remove contradictions also.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

planetlonely23 wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:34 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:12 pm
philosopher wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:03 pm

The Law of Excluded Middle is excluding a third possibility - not a third rule. Either/Or - binary. But binaries can have more than a 00 or 01 or 11 - it can have 01011 (11) - it doesn't mean it has 11 possibilities, but 11 bits of whatever. That's entirely a different thing.
The Law of excluded middle is a third rule and as a third rule, acts as the middle means from which the law of identity and the law of no-contradiction proceed form.

It manifests as the neutral median of "/" under "either/or".

The law of Identity is triadic with "P = P" being mediated by the middle term of "=". Equality implies seperation as what is equal is seperate.

It cannot be "equal" to myself unless comparing one me to another me across time/space. "=" would have to exist as "="="=" if it is to maintain any accurate definition under its own rule or "P = P" would have to be observed strictly as "P"...not even (P,P) as this observes an inherent seperation also.

A "possibility" becomes a rule in itself considering the "possibility" is the negative boundary (what is not) of an actual limit. This negation, as a limit of limit so to speak, makes it a medial third point as a negative.

A dualism, or binary set of units, extends from a unity in itself that is inherently neutral. 1,0 exist if and only if their is possible 1,0 from which 1,0 extend from and/or moves towards.

The law of exclude middle contradicts itself in the respect it necessitates a medial third point from which the dualisms either extend from or move towards (such as "=", "is", "is not") which in themselves must exist under the law of identity ("=" is "=", "is" = "is", "is not" = "is not", etc.).

The law of exclude middle must follow its own law of identity and law of non-contradiction in these respects as it either exists or does not exist. In these respects the law of excluded middle exists as an observation of a neutral medial element that exists as negative neutral (either/or) which exists if and only if there is a positive neutral (both/and) considering a negative cannot exist on its own terms without negating a positive.

In these respects it is dependent upon the first two laws, with the first to laws extending from the law of excluded middle making the law of exclude middle an observation of a third medium in one respect (hence a contradiction) and necessitating the law of excluded middle observes an inherent element of neutrality (not contradictory to its definition).
For me in synthesis we have the third law that rules out the meaning of the first Law which deemed itself as part of the first rule where P is P. in the way you define it as triadic, considering it from a relativism of the dualistic point of view, there is not a rejection of the axiom which implies the result of it, but give the idea that the first law, giving a middle term is not possible, so as to ensure the menaing of the first law what the third is trying to simplified the idea that first stament P is out of P., so is a paradox which tried to explain that the neutral possibility, give the idea of another statement that not give a true or false result but a result which avoid the contradictory definition with a new statement.

The third law requires the first law, and the third law exist in the third, then necessitating each of the three laws is a middle in itself where there is no excluded middle without contradicting itself.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:51 pm
planetlonely23 wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:34 pm
For me in synthesis we have the third law that rules out the meaning of the first Law which deemed itself as part of the first rule where P is P. in the way you define it as triadic, considering it from a relativism of the dualistic point of view, there is not a rejection of the axiom which implies the result of it, but give the idea that the first law, giving a middle term is not possible, so as to ensure the menaing of the first law what the third is trying to simplified the idea that first stament P is out of P., so is a paradox which tried to explain that the neutral possibility, give the idea of another statement that not give a true or false result but a result which avoid the contradictory definition with a new statement.
Jesus, that's a lot of verbiage...

Just build the damn thing and see what happens! Construct a logic in which your axioms are:

1 = 1 -> true
P = P -> false
N = N -> undefined
Q = Q -> Monkey
F = F -> P

e.g construct a logic where = means different things in different contexts.

How? Write an interpreter for your shiny, new logic ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpreter_(computing) )
If you've never programmed in your life use a tool like MPS: https://www.jetbrains.com/mps/

I am going to bet \$100 that you are going to end up with Type Theory...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory
In mathematics, logic, and computer science, a type theory is any of a class of formal systems, some of which can serve as alternatives to set theory as a foundation for all mathematics. In type theory, every "term" has a "type" and operations are restricted to terms of a certain type.
This human tendency to re-invent the wheel is just killing me!

Contradictions are caused by grammatical and syntax errors! If you remove grammatical and syntax errors - you remove contradictions also.
I know, why bother with programming then.

Please don't tell me you are timeseeker on a different account. He pushed all the same stuff you did.

Listen you have not argument other than "It allows me to do what I want"...and noone sees value in it.

You are useless to us.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:26 pm
I know, why bother with programming then.
So that your mind develops the habbits you speak of. Currently you are just paying lip service to Triadic Logic. You don't actually think in tri-valued terms and until you actually practice it. A LOT you are unlikely to.
.
All the false dichotomies you keep throwing at me suggest to me you actually think like an Aristotelian.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:26 pm
Listen you have not argument other than "It allows me to do what I want"...and noone sees value in it.

What argument do I need to give you? Lambda calculus is Mathematically complete!

What more do you want? Why is that not enough?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:26 pm
You are useless to us.
In one breath you undermine my pursuit of utility, in another you deem me useless.

What utility are you pursuing exactly. Do you even know?

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:35 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:26 pm
I know, why bother with programming then.
So that your mind develops the habbits you speak of. Currently you are just paying lip service to Triadic Logic. You don't actually think in tri-valued terms and until you actually practice it. A LOT you are unlikely to.
.
All the false dichotomies you keep throwing at me suggest to me you actually think like an Aristotelian.

What false dichotomies? You claim, as your premise, a dualism of nature vs. man.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:26 pm
Listen you have not argument other than "It allows me to do what I want"...and noone sees value in it.

What argument do I need to give you? Lambda calculus is Mathematically complete!

What more do you want? Why is that not enough?

Tell me what this mathematical completeness is...in your own words since you are the one talking about it.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:26 pm
You are useless to us.
In one breath you undermine my pursuit of utility, in another you deem me useless.

What utility are you pursuing exactly. Do you even know?

You are useful in provide the nature of uselessness, thus allowing certain definitions of "usefullness" to be negated. Utility is a philosophical concept which cannot exist on its own terms.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:48 pm
You claim, as your premise, a dualism of nature vs. man.
*yawn*

My premise is that humans are dualists. There is no escaping it.

True <-> False Dualism
Light <-> Dark Dualism
Yes <-> No Dualism
Existence <-> Non-existence
Life <-> Death

At the most primitive level of human understanding (First Order Logic) everything is a dichotomy.
If you CHOOSE to think in FOL, if you choose to only use FOL and no other logic as the foundation for your metaphysic you are trapped in dualism. Forever.

The properties of the logical system you adhere to become the properties of your mind.

To escape dualism is to abandon one antithesis. Truth without Falsity. Light without darkness. Good without Bad.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:26 pm
Tell me what this mathematical completeness is...in your own words since you are the one talking about it.
The ability to derive every single theorem from the axioms of the system.
The ability to describe every truth.
The ability to express absolutely anything that there is to be expressed.

In English: completeness is the ability to say everything that CAN be said. The ability to leave no truth unsaid.
And it is consistent! So you can do ALL of that without a single contradiction.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:26 pm
You are useful in provide the nature of uselessness, thus allowing certain definitions of "usefullness" to be negated. Utility is a philosophical concept which cannot exist on its own terms.
Philosophical concept? You mean sophistry?

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Logik wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 12:02 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:48 pm
You claim, as your premise, a dualism of nature vs. man.
*yawn*

My premise is that humans are dualists. There is no escaping it.

True <-> False Dualism
Light <-> Dark Dualism
Yes <-> No Dualism
Existence <-> Non-existence
Life <-> Death

At the most primitive level of human understanding (First Order Logic) everything is a dichotomy.
If you CHOOSE to think in FOL, if you choose to only use FOL and no other logic as the foundation for your metaphysic you are trapped in dualism. Forever.

The properties of the logical system you adhere to become the properties of your mind.

To escape dualism is to abandon one antithesis. Truth without Falsity. Light without darkness. Good without Bad.

Actually synthesis is the triad, and the lambda calculus you argue observes this. Synthesis is not limited to lambda calculus, but the premise you state that all humans are dualists is incomplete, hence false.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:26 pm
Tell me what this mathematical completeness is...in your own words since you are the one talking about it.
The ability to derive every single theorem from the axioms of the system.
There is no proof as to the limits of what a system can or cannot do when all systems require further systems. If arithmetic observes new discoveries, the theorems of algebra progress.

Second all theorems are composed of axioms that defined what a theorem is, trillema

The ability to describe every truth.
Good describe all the theorems that stem from a simple line.

The ability to express absolutely anything that there is to be expressed.
Express how this expression happens without ending up in and infinite regress, assumption or circularity.

Wow you are really dumb...good thing I am here to put you in check. All that money and forcing your ideas on innocent little children who don't know better is really getting to your head.

The prime triad observes this as all axiom exist through spatial axioms as all axioms originate in space.

Actually lambda calculus cannot derive every single theorem from the axioms of that system, as that requires an infinite regress from arithmetic...and lambda calculus cannot define the axiom of infinity.

Actually lambda calculus cannot describe space, without being subject to a higher phenomenon of space through which it exist; thus space exists through space.

Actually lambda calculus cannot express anything that can be expressed without first expressing what expression is.

In English: completeness is the ability to say everything that CAN be said. The ability to leave no truth unsaid.
And it is consistent! So you can do ALL of that without a single contradiction.

Space is definition, the prime triad observes this foundation while arguing it is subject to expansion with this expansion itself being subject to definition.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:26 pm
You are useful in provide the nature of uselessness, thus allowing certain definitions of "usefullness" to be negated. Utility is a philosophical concept which cannot exist on its own terms.
Philosophical concept? You mean sophistry?

You are the one arguing lambda calculus is just a paint brush...who is the sophist now? I give absolutes that are beyond me; space as divinity.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 12:18 am
I give absolutes that are beyond me; space as divinity.

You haven't done enough science to have any truth that is "beyond you". It is all the structure of your mind.

What you are claiming is Truth-by-revelation. Like all theists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Logik wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 12:23 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 12:18 am
I give absolutes that are beyond me; space as divinity.

You haven't done enough science to have any truth that is "beyond you". It is all the structure of your mind.

What you are claiming is Truth-by-revelation. Like all theists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation
So space does not exist?

Speakpigeon
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

philosopher wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:12 pm
You can't trust intuition. Never. Intuition is a GUI (Graphical User Interface) for the brain to work with, but as with other software, if you really want to understand stuff, you go behind the GUI and read the source code itself.
I don't think you can go behind intuition, let alone read the "source code". All we have is our intuition and rational methods of inquiry. But dismissing intuition is really insane. Unfortunately, it has become the dogma of our time: don't trust intuition. I wonder how humans managed to survive at all, apparently for more than 400,000 years, in a world without formal methods.
EB

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest