Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 25, 2018 1:55 amThere is no time in Propositional Logic.Eodnhoj7 wrote: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. …Only in your barking world where time is a factor in Propositional Logic(PL).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. …

That is the problem, considering propositional logic is not just premised but necessitates an inherent observation of "finiteness". This problem extends to the very issue of finiteness itself, considering the finite answer's of propositional logic exist as true or false if and only if the answers relate to further finite answers...and is dependent upon an infinite regression in many respects.

So the "cat sat on the mat" may be either true or false, if the statement is further localized. "the cat sat on the mat at noon" shows an increase in definition however may still be neither true or false. "The cat sat on the mat at noon on the day of july 12th" still deals with assumptions on the year, where the "cat and mat" exist, so on and so forth. In simple terms the definition, because of its finiteness, has to continually relate to further "truth atoms" or "logical atoms" if it is to exist as a finite true/false statement in itself.

The issue with propositional logic is it is dependent upon assumptions or empirical evidenced not always expressed within the statement itself, hence has an inherent irrational element.

Time is an observation of finiteness considering time itself is at minimum dependent upon an observation of relating parts. Time does not exist without observing relativism and propositional logic is highly relativistic. Propositional logic is an observation of finiteness as localized time and space, hence cannot exist on its own terms unless it mediates to a greater truth or set of truths. Without mediation, which propositional logic does not allow, it contradicts itself on its own terms.

No, PL works because there are things or states of affairs, declarative sentences and Reason.Propositional logic only works if the definition of the propistion continually expands.

See above statement.

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

The three laws of logic are the limits which provide the framework for propositional logic itself.

There is no measurement in PL.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. …

Yes there is...logic is an act of measurement by observing certain limits and how these limits they relate. The cat, as a thing in itself according to the law of Identity, exists as a limit which relates to the limit of "the mat", with the relations of these limits in turn forming a new limit as the statement itself.

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.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 not logical argument for the axiom of the Law of Identity without providing a further set of axioms to argue for it. The law of non-contradiction and excluded middle provide a framework through which this law exists, however the point of beginning measurement (the law of identity in this case) must first be chose as a starting point from which the argument extends.

The question of logic, and its axioms, is dependent upon an inherent choice as to where to begin the application of measurement. In the case of the three laws it begins primarily with the law of identity, however when this law is broken down it is still an observation of relation of "P" against itself and inherent multiplicity occurs from what was once a unified variable.

In reality the law of identity should not be "P=P", but most likely (and I am still working on defining an argument for it), "1 as unity" from which a dual quantitative and qualitative nature can extend from the perceived phenomenon. "Equality" should be replaced with "tending towards/directed towards" considering the linear nature of logic is by default dependent upon progressive "direction" which shows inherent relations. We cannot seperate direction or movement, as the premise for all phenomenon, from logic itself...it is geometric in nature whether it is intended as such or not.

The only relation is logical deduction.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 law of identity is dependent upon deduction, P → (P,P), where a unified variable (in this case P) is broken down into parts which relate. The law of identity is an observation of deduction as self-relation where the variable individuates into multiple variables through replication. In simpler terms, the law of identity sets a premise for replication as necessary within logic.

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

See first argument.

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

The laws must cycle through eachother, with the law of excluded middle acting as the middle through which they alternate. It contradicts itself as the law of excluded middle must be observed as either existing or not existing. If it exists, its still acts as a medial law with "either/or" being the medial neutral term. If it does not exists...well then the laws cease to exist considering they are base upon them. Propositional logic inevitable points to further necessary laws or contradicts itself through a continual regression.

Logic is triadic in nature if it:

1) It is to maintain truth statements while

2) simultaneously progressing truth statements.

3) With this dualism of maintanance and progression being the foundation of the axiom as a limit in itself being the third variable.

What it observes is that there is an apple.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.

With the apple existing if and only if it replicates itself across time as the apple. The apple, as a variable, inevitably must progress past its point of origin to another point of origin, with these separate points of origin observing the apple maintaining a seperate set of relations each time. The apple on the tree vs the apple on the table, may fundamentally be the same apple in one respect but considering its relations define it it changes according to its locality. We see this practically as the apply may be more alive when connected to the tree (longer life span, fuller color) but it changes when it is on the table (shorter lifespan, less color). The same apple actually multiplies across time and space as "apple on tree" and "apple on table" even though it is the same apple. "P=P" as P → (P1,P2)

No, P exists if there is a P."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, 'equality' exists if you can substitute the term with no change in truth value.2) There exists "equality", which exists if and only if there are seperate "A"'s. …

"Equality" is a truth value that exists if and only if (P,P).

Really no idea what you are talking about?3) Rehash of point 1 with second A as premise.

4) These existences of A, equality, and A are directed through eachother and alternate …

"A" exists if and only if there is "Equality" and "A", with Equality being the medial term. This set of relations can cycle to "equality" being the beginning point of measurement where it exists if and only if there is (A,A).

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

A third term from which both terms originate, move towards or both.

But the event does not depend upon there being a mind.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 is mind considering the mind exists the observation of limit through limit with the mind being a limit in itself. Logic is the science and art of limits and the defintions (as limits in themselves) which proceed from them.

No, if you exist then Logic applies to you as Logic(at least PL) comes from there being things or states of affairs.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. …

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.

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

Yes "P" is a variable, but the same argument applies if we use the variable "P" to stand for "T" or "h" in the sentence. A variable must replicate itself hence maintains an inherent element of consistency, in accords with the standard law of identity.

In regards to variables, they can be observed as constants in themselves (this argument deals with number):

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=24152

## The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

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

- Arising_uk
**Posts:**11347**Joined:**Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

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

What problem? The only 'infinite regression' is that contingent things or states of affairs may change in the future and if so the proposition can be true or false according to the state at the time.Eodnhoj7 wrote:That is the problem, considering propositional logic is not just premised but necessitates an inherent observation of "finiteness". This problem extends to the very issue of finiteness itself, considering the finite answer's of propositional logic exist as true or false if and only if the answers relate to further finite answers...and is dependent upon an infinite regression in many respects. …

It cannot be 'neither true or false', although I'll give you it can be 'unknown'.Eodnhoj7 wrote:

So the "cat sat on the mat" may be either true or false, if the statement is further localized. "the cat sat on the mat at noon" shows an increase in definition however may still be neither true or false. …

No it doesn't, it just has to relate to whether a cat was actually sitting there at that time."The cat sat on the mat at noon on the day of july 12th" still deals with assumptions on the year, where the "cat and mat" exist, so on and so forth. In simple terms the definition, because of its finiteness, has to continually relate to further "truth atoms" or "logical atoms" if it is to exist as a finite true/false statement in itself. …

Only the contingent propositions are dependent upon empirical evidence as that appears to so far be the best way to discover whether something is true or not. You appear to think Logic itself should be able to say whether a contingent proposition is true or false?The issue with propositional logic is it is dependent upon assumptions or empirical evidenced not always expressed within the statement itself, hence has an inherent irrational element. …

No idea what you mean by 'exist on its own terms'? PL just says what is necessary, what is contingent and what is impossible. You appear bothered by the contingent propositions but I have no idea why and so far you appear to have made no understandable case for PL being contradictory?Time is an observation of finiteness considering time itself is at minimum dependent upon an observation of relating parts. Time does not exist without observing relativism and propositional logic is highly relativistic. Propositional logic is an observation of finiteness as localized time and space, hence cannot exist on its own terms unless it mediates to a greater truth or set of truths. Without mediation, which propositional logic does not allow, it contradicts itself on its own terms. …

See reply.See above statement.

The framework for PL is that there are things and states of affairs. I agree that PL identifies limits and they are the limits of Reason, hence PL says what is necessary, possible and impossible, i.e. the tautologies, contingents and contradictions.The three laws of logic are the limits which provide the framework for propositional logic itself.

You are using "measurement" in a very strange way to my ears.Yes there is...logic is an act of measurement by observing certain limits and how these limits they relate. The cat, as a thing in itself according to the law of Identity, exists as a limit which relates to the limit of "the mat", with the relations of these limits in turn forming a new limit as the statement itself.

The starting point of PL is P. You appear to not like 'equals' so why not just think of it as 'if and only if'.There is not logical argument for the axiom of the Law of Identity without providing a further set of axioms to argue for it. The law of non-contradiction and excluded middle provide a framework through which this law exists, however the point of beginning measurement (the law of identity in this case) must first be chose as a starting point from which the argument extends. …

Noting that a thing is that thing or itself is not multiplying it.The question of logic, and its axioms, is dependent upon an inherent choice as to where to begin the application of measurement. In the case of the three laws it begins primarily with the law of identity, however when this law is broken down it is still an observation of relation of "P" against itself and inherent multiplicity occurs from what was once a unified variable. …

Really no idea what you are saying? But if you don't like "P=P" why not just use (P<->P).In reality the law of identity should not be "P=P", but most likely (and I am still working on defining an argument for it), "1 as unity" from which a dual quantitative and qualitative nature can extend from the perceived phenomenon. …

Really no idea what you are talking about?"Equality" should be replaced with "tending towards/directed towards" considering the linear nature of logic is by default dependent upon progressive "direction" which shows inherent relations. We cannot seperate direction or movement, as the premise for all phenomenon, from logic itself...it is geometric in nature whether it is intended as such or not. …

Eh! No, P->P or if you prefer it stricter (P->P)^(P<-P).The law of identity is dependent upon deduction, P → (P,P), where a unified variable (in this case P) is broken down into parts which relate. …

Really no idea what you are talking about?The law of identity is an observation of deduction as self-relation where the variable individuates into multiple variables through replication. In simpler terms, the law of identity sets a premise for replication as necessary within logic.

See reply.See first argument.

Really what are you talking about?The laws must cycle through eachother, with the law of excluded middle acting as the middle through which they alternate. It contradicts itself as the law of excluded middle must be observed as either existing or not existing. If it exists, its still acts as a medial law with "either/or" being the medial neutral term. If it does not exists...well then the laws cease to exist considering they are base upon them.

Seriously, what are you talking about?Propositional logic inevitable points to further necessary laws or contradicts itself through a continual regression.

Logic is triadic in nature if it:

1) It is to maintain truth statements while

2) simultaneously progressing truth statements.

3) With this dualism of maintanance and progression being the foundation of the axiom as a limit in itself being the third variable.

It's the same apple undergoing change and decay? Not multiple apples in discreet states.With the apple existing if and only if it replicates itself across time as the apple. The apple, as a variable, inevitably must progress past its point of origin to another point of origin, with these separate points of origin observing the apple maintaining a seperate set of relations each time. The apple on the tree vs the apple on the table, may fundamentally be the same apple in one respect but considering its relations define it it changes according to its locality. We see this practically as the apply may be more alive when connected to the tree (longer life span, fuller color) but it changes when it is on the table (shorter lifespan, less color). The same apple actually multiplies across time and space as "apple on tree" and "apple on table" even though it is the same apple. "P=P" as P → (P1,P2)

No, it exists if there is a P and it can be itself. (P->P)"Equality" is a truth value that exists if and only if (P,P).

And still makes no sense really.3) Rehash of point 1 with second A as premise. …

Just repeating the same thing is not helpful, can you explain in simpler terms what it is you are trying to say, just plain English would do."A" exists if and only if there is "Equality" and "A", with Equality being the medial term. This set of relations can cycle to "equality" being the beginning point of measurement where it exists if and only if there is (A,A).

Words or terms don't move towards each other?A third term from which both terms originate, move towards or both.

Seriously no idea what you are trying to say?Logic is mind considering the mind exists the observation of limit through limit with the mind being a limit in itself. Logic is the science and art of limits and the defintions (as limits in themselves) which proceed from them.

For there to be a P all there has to be is a thing or state of affairs, no idea where all these multiple P's are coming from?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. …

No idea what you mean by "replicate itself"?Yes "P" is a variable, but the same argument applies if we use the variable "P" to stand for "T" or "h" in the sentence. A variable must replicate itself hence maintains an inherent element of consistency, in accords with the standard law of identity. …

If you are saying there is Algebra then sure.In regards to variables, they can be observed as constants in themselves (this argument deals with number): …

Not a clue what you are on about? Although as usual you appear to give no definitions for your symbols.

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

Put up post, then time expired, logged in a reply not evident...will get back when have time.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Jun 29, 2018 12:50 amWhat problem? The only 'infinite regression' is that contingent things or states of affairs may change in the future and if so the proposition can be true or false according to the state at the time.Eodnhoj7 wrote:That is the problem, considering propositional logic is not just premised but necessitates an inherent observation of "finiteness". This problem extends to the very issue of finiteness itself, considering the finite answer's of propositional logic exist as true or false if and only if the answers relate to further finite answers...and is dependent upon an infinite regression in many respects. …It cannot be 'neither true or false', although I'll give you it can be 'unknown'.Eodnhoj7 wrote:

So the "cat sat on the mat" may be either true or false, if the statement is further localized. "the cat sat on the mat at noon" shows an increase in definition however may still be neither true or false. …No it doesn't, it just has to relate to whether a cat was actually sitting there at that time."The cat sat on the mat at noon on the day of july 12th" still deals with assumptions on the year, where the "cat and mat" exist, so on and so forth. In simple terms the definition, because of its finiteness, has to continually relate to further "truth atoms" or "logical atoms" if it is to exist as a finite true/false statement in itself. …Only the contingent propositions are dependent upon empirical evidence as that appears to so far be the best way to discover whether something is true or not. You appear to think Logic itself should be able to say whether a contingent proposition is true or false?The issue with propositional logic is it is dependent upon assumptions or empirical evidenced not always expressed within the statement itself, hence has an inherent irrational element. …No idea what you mean by 'exist on its own terms'? PL just says what is necessary, what is contingent and what is impossible. You appear bothered by the contingent propositions but I have no idea why and so far you appear to have made no understandable case for PL being contradictory?Time is an observation of finiteness considering time itself is at minimum dependent upon an observation of relating parts. Time does not exist without observing relativism and propositional logic is highly relativistic. Propositional logic is an observation of finiteness as localized time and space, hence cannot exist on its own terms unless it mediates to a greater truth or set of truths. Without mediation, which propositional logic does not allow, it contradicts itself on its own terms. …See reply.See above statement.

The framework for PL is that there are things and states of affairs. I agree that PL identifies limits and they are the limits of Reason, hence PL says what is necessary, possible and impossible, i.e. the tautologies, contingents and contradictions.The three laws of logic are the limits which provide the framework for propositional logic itself.

You are using "measurement" in a very strange way to my ears.Yes there is...logic is an act of measurement by observing certain limits and how these limits they relate. The cat, as a thing in itself according to the law of Identity, exists as a limit which relates to the limit of "the mat", with the relations of these limits in turn forming a new limit as the statement itself.

The starting point of PL is P. You appear to not like 'equals' so why not just think of it as 'if and only if'.There is not logical argument for the axiom of the Law of Identity without providing a further set of axioms to argue for it. The law of non-contradiction and excluded middle provide a framework through which this law exists, however the point of beginning measurement (the law of identity in this case) must first be chose as a starting point from which the argument extends. …Noting that a thing is that thing or itself is not multiplying it.The question of logic, and its axioms, is dependent upon an inherent choice as to where to begin the application of measurement. In the case of the three laws it begins primarily with the law of identity, however when this law is broken down it is still an observation of relation of "P" against itself and inherent multiplicity occurs from what was once a unified variable. …Really no idea what you are saying? But if you don't like "P=P" why not just use (P<->P).In reality the law of identity should not be "P=P", but most likely (and I am still working on defining an argument for it), "1 as unity" from which a dual quantitative and qualitative nature can extend from the perceived phenomenon. …Really no idea what you are talking about?"Equality" should be replaced with "tending towards/directed towards" considering the linear nature of logic is by default dependent upon progressive "direction" which shows inherent relations. We cannot seperate direction or movement, as the premise for all phenomenon, from logic itself...it is geometric in nature whether it is intended as such or not. …Eh! No, P->P or if you prefer it stricter (P->P)^(P<-P).The law of identity is dependent upon deduction, P → (P,P), where a unified variable (in this case P) is broken down into parts which relate. …Really no idea what you are talking about?The law of identity is an observation of deduction as self-relation where the variable individuates into multiple variables through replication. In simpler terms, the law of identity sets a premise for replication as necessary within logic.See reply.See first argument.Really what are you talking about?The laws must cycle through eachother, with the law of excluded middle acting as the middle through which they alternate. It contradicts itself as the law of excluded middle must be observed as either existing or not existing. If it exists, its still acts as a medial law with "either/or" being the medial neutral term. If it does not exists...well then the laws cease to exist considering they are base upon them.Seriously, what are you talking about?Propositional logic inevitable points to further necessary laws or contradicts itself through a continual regression.

Logic is triadic in nature if it:

1) It is to maintain truth statements while

2) simultaneously progressing truth statements.

3) With this dualism of maintanance and progression being the foundation of the axiom as a limit in itself being the third variable.It's the same apple undergoing change and decay? Not multiple apples in discreet states.With the apple existing if and only if it replicates itself across time as the apple. The apple, as a variable, inevitably must progress past its point of origin to another point of origin, with these separate points of origin observing the apple maintaining a seperate set of relations each time. The apple on the tree vs the apple on the table, may fundamentally be the same apple in one respect but considering its relations define it it changes according to its locality. We see this practically as the apply may be more alive when connected to the tree (longer life span, fuller color) but it changes when it is on the table (shorter lifespan, less color). The same apple actually multiplies across time and space as "apple on tree" and "apple on table" even though it is the same apple. "P=P" as P → (P1,P2)

No, it exists if there is a P and it can be itself. (P->P)"Equality" is a truth value that exists if and only if (P,P).

And still makes no sense really.3) Rehash of point 1 with second A as premise. …

Just repeating the same thing is not helpful, can you explain in simpler terms what it is you are trying to say, just plain English would do."A" exists if and only if there is "Equality" and "A", with Equality being the medial term. This set of relations can cycle to "equality" being the beginning point of measurement where it exists if and only if there is (A,A).

Words or terms don't move towards each other?A third term from which both terms originate, move towards or both.

Seriously no idea what you are trying to say?Logic is mind considering the mind exists the observation of limit through limit with the mind being a limit in itself. Logic is the science and art of limits and the defintions (as limits in themselves) which proceed from them.

For there to be a P all there has to be is a thing or state of affairs, no idea where all these multiple P's are coming from?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. …No idea what you mean by "replicate itself"?Yes "P" is a variable, but the same argument applies if we use the variable "P" to stand for "T" or "h" in the sentence. A variable must replicate itself hence maintains an inherent element of consistency, in accords with the standard law of identity. …

If you are saying there is Algebra then sure.In regards to variables, they can be observed as constants in themselves (this argument deals with number): …Not a clue what you are on about? Although as usual you appear to give no definitions for your symbols.

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

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.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Jun 29, 2018 12:50 amWhat problem? The only 'infinite regression' is that contingent things or states of affairs may change in the future and if so the proposition can be true or false according to the state at the time.Eodnhoj7 wrote:That is the problem, considering propositional logic is not just premised but necessitates an inherent observation of "finiteness". This problem extends to the very issue of finiteness itself, considering the finite answer's of propositional logic exist as true or false if and only if the answers relate to further finite answers...and is dependent upon an infinite regression in many respects. …

Propositional logic is not dependent upon time according to you:

You (page 3, first post)

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

It cannot be 'neither true or false', although I'll give you it can be 'unknown'.Eodnhoj7 wrote:

So the "cat sat on the mat" may be either true or false, if the statement is further localized. "the cat sat on the mat at noon" shows an increase in definition however may still be neither true or false. …No it doesn't, it just has to relate to whether a cat was actually sitting there at that time.

Considering the "cat sat on the mat" requires a further form of definition in order to be observed as either true or false, this definition must continually propogate in the respect that while we may observe the statement as "happening at noon" we are left with further definitions of "day" "month" etc. along with the locality of where "the cat sat on the mat" such as "house on x street in x county"...etc. Propositional logic is dependent upon empirical assumptions about time and space where we assume the statment to be true from empirical observation not included in the statement itself.

"The cat sat on the mat at noon on the day of july 12th" still deals with assumptions on the year, where the "cat and mat" exist, so on and so forth. In simple terms the definition, because of its finiteness, has to continually relate to further "truth atoms" or "logical atoms" if it is to exist as a finite true/false statement in itself. …

Only the contingent propositions are dependent upon empirical evidence as that appears to so far be the best way to discover whether something is true or not. You appear to think Logic itself should be able to say whether a contingent proposition is true or false?

With "that time" being dependent upon the continued linear progression of definition. In itself the statement is both truth and false at the same time in different respects or neither true nor false in the respect it is possibillitic...what exists as "true" is that the statement exists as an axiom from which other axioms extend.

The issue with propositional logic is it is dependent upon assumptions or empirical evidenced not always expressed within the statement itself, hence has an inherent irrational element. …

No idea what you mean by 'exist on its own terms'? PL just says what is necessary, what is contingent and what is impossible. You appear bothered by the contingent propositions but I have no idea why and so far you appear to have made no understandable case for PL being contradictory?

Considering empirical evidence is dependent upon a logical argument it can be argued that while both logic and empiricism are indeed necessary, a strict empirical approach is indeed illogical considering these experiences are measured through the confines of reason while reason along (dependent upon empiricism in many degrees) is not strictly limited to it.

Time is an observation of finiteness considering time itself is at minimum dependent upon an observation of relating parts. Time does not exist without observing relativism and propositional logic is highly relativistic. Propositional logic is an observation of finiteness as localized time and space, hence cannot exist on its own terms unless it mediates to a greater truth or set of truths. Without mediation, which propositional logic does not allow, it contradicts itself on its own terms. …

See reply.See above statement.

PL contradicts itself as it requires a neutral medial term(s) to balance out not just the propositions but the laws which are composed of the very same propositions...which in turn requires the law of excluded middle to act as a middle in one respect while necessitating a neutral median. "either/or" is a neutral third term which allows P and -P to exist in such a manner where "P" provides the positive limit through which "-P" is observed and "-P" provides the negative limit through which "P = P".

The framework for PL is that there are things and states of affairs. I agree that PL identifies limits and they are the limits of Reason, hence PL says what is necessary, possible and impossible, i.e. the tautologies, contingents and contradictions.The three laws of logic are the limits which provide the framework for propositional logic itself.

You are using "measurement" in a very strange way to my ears.Yes there is...logic is an act of measurement by observing certain limits and how these limits they relate. The cat, as a thing in itself according to the law of Identity, exists as a limit which relates to the limit of "the mat", with the relations of these limits in turn forming a new limit as the statement itself.

Measurement is the observation of limits through the maintanence and change (creation/destruction) of these very same limits. PL is a measurement system in regards to its ability to define these very same limits.

The starting point of PL is P. You appear to not like 'equals' so why not just think of it as 'if and only if'.There is not logical argument for the axiom of the Law of Identity without providing a further set of axioms to argue for it. The law of non-contradiction and excluded middle provide a framework through which this law exists, however the point of beginning measurement (the law of identity in this case) must first be chose as a starting point from which the argument extends. …

"if and only if" observes that P existing if and only if P cannot exist in the respect no relation is valid through P. In simple terms, P cannot exist through other variables however it can only be observed through other variables. "P" does not equal "if", "and", "only" however these terms exist as variables in the respect, as you have observed, considering they can replace "=" or "is" and in these respects "P=P" observes "P(x)P" with "(x)" being a variable in itself. "(x)" further elaborates on the law of excluded middle necessitates a neutral median which in itself is subject to variation as variation.

Neutrality, in these respects, observes a summation of variables where "P" and "-P" dually define the middle through which it extends from a relativistic change in the beginning point of measurement. In simpler terms: Is it "P" which defines "=" or "=" which defines "P"? Both at the same time in different respect considering the placement of where the terms originate. Under these respects the law of identity is really a "law of equality" when inverted.

Noting that a thing is that thing or itself is not multiplying it.The question of logic, and its axioms, is dependent upon an inherent choice as to where to begin the application of measurement. In the case of the three laws it begins primarily with the law of identity, however when this law is broken down it is still an observation of relation of "P" against itself and inherent multiplicity occurs from what was once a unified variable. …Really no idea what you are saying? But if you don't like "P=P" why not just use (P<->P).In reality the law of identity should not be "P=P", but most likely (and I am still working on defining an argument for it), "1 as unity" from which a dual quantitative and qualitative nature can extend from the perceived phenomenon. …Really no idea what you are talking about?

See argument above prior to this statement.

"Equality" should be replaced with "tending towards/directed towards" considering the linear nature of logic is by default dependent upon progressive "direction" which shows inherent relations. We cannot seperate direction or movement, as the premise for all phenomenon, from logic itself...it is geometric in nature whether it is intended as such or not. …Eh! No, P->P or if you prefer it stricter (P->P)^(P<-P).The law of identity is dependent upon deduction, P → (P,P), where a unified variable (in this case P) is broken down into parts which relate. …Really no idea what you are talking about?

You just prove my point where the definition is broken down to an increase in relative terms.

The law of identity is an observation of deduction as self-relation where the variable individuates into multiple variables through replication. In simpler terms, the law of identity sets a premise for replication as necessary within logic.See reply.See first argument.Really what are you talking about?

"P=P" observe "=" as the necessary medial term that allows for "P" to replicate to "P,P" where the variable itself replicates and relates through itself under a seperate variable (as observed in arguments above), that is replaced with "=" but can be observed in different manners.

P is broken down to two terms "=" and "P" with "P" replicating to as "(P,P)". "P" can only be observe if it is deduced to further terms which exists through relation alone.

The laws must cycle through eachother, with the law of excluded middle acting as the middle through which they alternate. It contradicts itself as the law of excluded middle must be observed as either existing or not existing. If it exists, its still acts as a medial law with "either/or" being the medial neutral term. If it does not exists...well then the laws cease to exist considering they are base upon them.Seriously, what are you talking about?Propositional logic inevitable points to further necessary laws or contradicts itself through a continual regression.

Logic is triadic in nature if it:

1) It is to maintain truth statements while

2) simultaneously progressing truth statements.

3) With this dualism of maintanance and progression being the foundation of the axiom as a limit in itself being the third variable.It's the same apple undergoing change and decay? Not multiple apples in discreet states.With the apple existing if and only if it replicates itself across time as the apple. The apple, as a variable, inevitably must progress past its point of origin to another point of origin, with these separate points of origin observing the apple maintaining a seperate set of relations each time. The apple on the tree vs the apple on the table, may fundamentally be the same apple in one respect but considering its relations define it it changes according to its locality. We see this practically as the apply may be more alive when connected to the tree (longer life span, fuller color) but it changes when it is on the table (shorter lifespan, less color). The same apple actually multiplies across time and space as "apple on tree" and "apple on table" even though it is the same apple. "P=P" as P → (P1,P2)

The same apple in one time and space is the same apple in the respect it originates from the apple from one locality, however the change in locality of the apple causes a change in the apple's relations which in effect changes the apple so that it is both the same and different apple in different respects.

No, it exists if there is a P and it can be itself. (P->P)"Equality" is a truth value that exists if and only if (P,P).

And still makes no sense really.3) Rehash of point 1 with second A as premise. …

Just repeating the same thing is not helpful, can you explain in simpler terms what it is you are trying to say, just plain English would do."A" exists if and only if there is "Equality" and "A", with Equality being the medial term. This set of relations can cycle to "equality" being the beginning point of measurement where it exists if and only if there is (A,A).

Words or terms don't move towards each other?A third term from which both terms originate, move towards or both.

Seriously no idea what you are trying to say?Logic is mind considering the mind exists the observation of limit through limit with the mind being a limit in itself. Logic is the science and art of limits and the defintions (as limits in themselves) which proceed from them.

For there to be a P all there has to be is a thing or state of affairs, no idea where all these multiple P's are coming from?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. …No idea what you mean by "replicate itself"?Yes "P" is a variable, but the same argument applies if we use the variable "P" to stand for "T" or "h" in the sentence. A variable must replicate itself hence maintains an inherent element of consistency, in accords with the standard law of identity. …

If you are saying there is Algebra then sure.In regards to variables, they can be observed as constants in themselves (this argument deals with number): …Not a clue what you are on about? Although as usual you appear to give no definitions for your symbols.

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

All you had to do was take out the word "failure" and your post would have some value. Otherwise you've just spent three pages mentally masturbating.

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

They fail to support themselves in there own right, as these laws must be applied simultaneously to themselves if they are maintain themselves as axiomatic.

Provide an argument, otherwise you just spent a post "mentally masturbating".

- Arising_uk
**Posts:**11347**Joined:**Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

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

It's very hard to follow your replies with the way you respond by embedding coloured replies within a complete requote of the last post and then just adding stuff outside the quote. Could you not just respond by quoting the last reply and let the reader track back if they wish to see the context?

I simply can't follow the rest of your replies, if any, as you're using green which you already did in the last post so I'll give them a miss until they become clearer or you amend your reply.

The logical state of the world in PL at that time is not dependent upon the state in the past nor on possible states in the future, which is what you appear to want so that you can have a 'neither true nor false' in PL, which you can't, of course you could have a three-valued logic if you wish, True, False, Unknown but I don't think this is what you are aiming at or maybe not.Eodnhoj7 wrote:Propositional logic is not dependent upon time according to you:

You (page 3, first post)

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

I simply can't follow the rest of your replies, if any, as you're using green which you already did in the last post so I'll give them a miss until they become clearer or you amend your reply.

More that "tending towards" is a meaningless or at least unclear relationship not amenable to a formal treatment. It doesn't help that you use the logical material conditional( -> - "If...Then...) too.… 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.

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

First of all, it is not my job to present an argument when you haven't clearly offered one against laws that have been in place for more than 2,000 years. Aside from your posts being hard to read because of your quoting everything in sight, none of what you're saying makes any real sense.

"... fail to support themselves in their own right ... " What does that even mean? And "... these laws must be applied simultaneously to themselves ..." What are you trying to say?

All three laws are just like the things they are applied to. Each law satisfies itself and the other two. Each and every law is what it is, it is not what it's not, and it falls nowhere in between. It's only right that the law of identity comes before the other two. With it, the other laws wouldn't have a reference point. And without the other two laws the first law would not be complete. They have a symbiotic relationship.

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

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.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:35 amIt's very hard to follow your replies with the way you respond by embedding coloured replies within a complete requote of the last post and then just adding stuff outside the quote. Could you not just respond by quoting the last reply and let the reader track back if they wish to see the context?

That is true, my last reply was deleted and I retyped it quickly, that is my fault.The logical state of the world in PL at that time is not dependent upon the state in the past nor on possible states in the future, which is what you appear to want so that you can have a 'neither true nor false' in PL, which you can't, of course you could have a three-valued logic if you wish, True, False, Unknown but I don't think this is what you are aiming at or maybe not.Eodnhoj7 wrote:Propositional logic is not dependent upon time according to you:

You (page 3, first post)

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

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

Empiricism is grounded in finiteness and approximation leading to an inherent form of relativism...the three laws do not embody this and when they do they contradict themselves.

I simply can't follow the rest of your replies, if any, as you're using green which you already did in the last post so I'll give them a miss until they become clearer or you amend your reply.More that "tending towards" is a meaningless or at least unclear relationship not amenable to a formal treatment. It doesn't help that you use the logical material conditional( -> - "If...Then...) too.… 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.

Some examples:

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

A → B

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

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

Erk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 1:35 amFirst of all, it is not my job to present an argument when you haven't clearly offered one against laws that have been in place for more than 2,000 years. Aside from your posts being hard to read because of your quoting everything in sight, none of what you're saying makes any real sense.

"... fail to support themselves in their own right ... " What does that even mean? And "... these laws must be applied simultaneously to themselves ..." What are you trying to say?

Godel's incompleteness theorem observes all logical/mathematical structure must be self-referential in one degree or another if they are to be rational.

All three laws are just like the things they are applied to. Each law satisfies itself and the other two.

Yes and there are three, contradicting the law of excluded middle as it is not "Either the law of identity or the law of non-contradiction".

Each and every law is what it is, it is not what it's not, and it falls nowhere in between. It's only right that the law of identity comes before the other two. With it, the other laws wouldn't have a reference point.

And without the other two laws the first law would not be complete. They have a symbiotic relationship.

- Sir-Sister-of-Suck
**Posts:**875**Joined:**Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

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

Welcome to the Eodnhoj universe, a place where pseudo-intellectualism reigns supreme. The upside is that young, sexy lifeguards will fuck anyone, though.

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

ROTFLMAO. Thank you. And I would hope Eodnhoj thanks you for the redemption you have so kindly offered him.Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:55 pmWelcome to the Eodnhoj universe, a place where pseudo-intellectualism reigns supreme. The upside is that young, sexy lifeguards will fuck anyone, though.

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

Considering you have no original arguments...maybe you are the pseudo-intellectual? Go push your religious dogma elsewhere.Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:55 pmWelcome to the Eodnhoj universe, a place where pseudo-intellectualism reigns supreme. The upside is that young, sexy lifeguards will fuck anyone, though.

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

What redemption...acceptance by a wannabe...like you?Erk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:21 pmROTFLMAO. Thank you. And I would hope Eodnhoj thanks you for the redemption you have so kindly offered him.Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:55 pmWelcome to the Eodnhoj universe, a place where pseudo-intellectualism reigns supreme. The upside is that young, sexy lifeguards will fuck anyone, though.

Provide an argument like Arising, or get off...

- Sir-Sister-of-Suck
**Posts:**875**Joined:**Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

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

You need to work on your comebacks. Throwing the same insult back at someone is just not a clever way to respond, in and of itself...In fact, it's probably the least clever way to respond to someone. If you're going to go that route, you should at least figure out a less transparent way to phrase it, and try to reveal a juicy irony.

If you had said something like, "Considering you never have an argument, at least I have an intellect," that would have been a more acceptable reply. Not the best material I could have come up with, but I'd rather not give my best roasts to someone who would probably ruin them by trying to fit in his pre-established madness about the 'regressive symphonic concurrency of universal existentialism'.

At least you didn't end your post with, '...or else..'

If you had said something like, "Considering you never have an argument, at least I have an intellect," that would have been a more acceptable reply. Not the best material I could have come up with, but I'd rather not give my best roasts to someone who would probably ruin them by trying to fit in his pre-established madness about the 'regressive symphonic concurrency of universal existentialism'.

You see, that is something a kid on a playground would say. I literally read that bit in my nephews voice.

At least you didn't end your post with, '...or else..'

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest