Eodnhoj7 wrote:Logic extends from limit as a form of limit itself with all limit being the foundation of structure. ...
You know how you keep accusing others of word salad?
Logic, in my personal opinion, extends from there being states of affairs or things. No states of affairs or things, no Logic.
You are trying to seperate logic from certain facets of reality when in reality I am stating they are one and the same.
Which 'facets of reality' are you talking about as as far as I can understand you are using a conceptual metaphysic that you then squeeze everything into. The 'facets of reality' I use are that there are states of affairs or things and that is why there is Logic.
But that "time" is merely a statement of relation where one time exists relative to another time. The proposition "x" may be true for "y" time, but "y" is not stated in the proposition in one respect while in a seperate respect the proposition changes value when presented with "z".
Again you ignore the tautologies and contradictions as being necessarily true and seem only concerned with the contingent propositions, if things or states of affairs change then the proposition then just becomes true or false respectively.
An "axiomatic-truth"...self-evident truth...a phenomena which exists as self-evident through self-evidence.
Contradictions are axiomatic in both the respect they are contradictory (deficient in structure) and composed of parts that are not contradictory. ...
How are they 'deficient in structure'? They are axiomatic because they are self-evidently always false.
The problem of empirical truths is that they are subject to time, which means at one time they are true and eventually they are not. ...
There is nothing necessary about an empirical truth eventually becoming false.
The truth value, through the passing of time, in turn becomes relegates to a facet of "memory" and inherently takes on an entirely different abstract nature from which the empirical cannot be seperated.
No idea what you are talking about?
A higher degree of truth is truth which is relativistically moving towards a greater degree of unity as "the cat sat on the mat" has only so many parts which exist through a relation with further parts. With the increase in particle relations comes an increase in observing a "whole" in the respect their is less potentiality available and more actualization.
What tosh, specifying the date and time of the observation makes the cat being on the cat on Wednesday at two fifteen no more real than the cat being on the mat.
The statement as a relation of parts must continually relate to further parts to contain a higher degree of truth as "The cat is on the mat" is true under multiple realities without this increase in definition ("The cat is on the mat at John's house or Jane's house during wednesday's or thursday's". ...
What 'multiple realities'? The statements are just true or false under one reality.
Their may be "one reality" but this "oneness" is approximated through an inherent multiplicity with the increase in relations observing a movement towards greater unity. So "while the cat sat on the mat" may be "one" statement this one statement may exist through multiple realities of either "John's" or "Jane's" house. With the observation of "the cat sat on the mat at Janes" comes a cessation of the possibility of it sitting at John's and a potential statement (of it sitting at John's) is self-negated in the face of it "sitting at Janes". Actuality is unity with potentiality observing an inherent multiplicity as an absence of structure.
Well for sure if you wanted to do Logic purely by the negation of all the other contingent propositions you probably could but you'd be dead before you got to the point. This is why I think you're trying to construct some kind of semiotic of Logic based upon some kind of deconstructionist metaphysic of language but you ignore, I think, the relationship between Logic, Language, Truth and the World as you appear to think it all just a self-contained language system.
The same question applies to you as well...What are you trying to achieve?
I'm trying to understand the philosophical point you are trying so hard to make.
Why do such as you never answer a question?
The negation of the cat sitting on the mat, still requires an inherently expanding form of negation as this negation must maintain itself as constant if the proposition is to maintain its truth value. ...
No it doesn't, it just requires there to be no cat sitting upon the mat.
The nature of logic, in the respects, has inherently moving properties of expansion and contraction that exists under a form of directive movement which acts as the foundation of the statement itself. ...
The nature of Logic is that there are states of affairs and things.
The linear nature of the proposition observes that the nature of true values stem inherently from limits that exist both outside and through logic and we are left with logic (and its defining properties) as being extensions of limits existing through limits. ...
No idea what you are saying?
Logic is movement with this continual movement acting as the limit through direction which enables logic to exist.
What enables Logic to exist is that there are states of affairs and things, what allows us to talk about it and formalise it is that there are self-conscious beings with a language.