The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)

[Eodnhoj7]

All patterns exist from a fundamental boundary of limits, where the limits themselves replicate and change over time but fundamentally stay the same as one limit.

Limits/rules - semantics? It may not be wise to mix them up in Mathematics. limit-functions


Mathematics is an extension of being and fundamentally the mathematical term of limit and function comes from prior definitions and a self defining framework that extends dually from other frameworks.

Mathematics is a language and hence subject to the problems of semantics as they false ignore quality as a foundation of quantity.

For example the butterfly may reproduce over time, become extinct, but the fundamentally qualities of the butterfly (wings, insectoid body) replicate through time and space.

These qualities are defined through numerical aspects (6 to 8 legs, 4 parts to the wing) and qualitative ones (described above) which replicate through various aspects of the further insects. The qualities and quantities of the insects further replicate through other organisms (Iegs, head, abdomen, etc.) with qualtities of the organisms reflecting other organic and non-organic properties (branching of veins and nerves found in plant life, rivers, and mineral deposits.

You are describing iterative evolution (not Darwin's one, a more general sense).

No, because the branching effect as a form of frequency, occurs in natural non organic elements...along with abstract theories.

All patterns are premised in the limit of the line with the line effecitively folding through itself, under the ratio where 1 line is both composed of and composed multiple lines, as a directed movement which gives foundation to form.

Can't parse this either.

Form follows function AND failure. Those forms that didn't survive selection (entropy) are no longer with us. Those that did - are.

Broadly this is the Lindy effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect

All movement exists if and only if it is directed.

This directed movement exists as the foundation of limit.

The limit exists through limit exists as a structure (or form in platonic sense).

This form is directed through time as a movement, hence exists as linear limit in itself relative to larger forms (considering size is relative).

All forms cycle back to linear limits, through parts moving in time, because of relativistic size.

All phenomena exist through the line as the line with the line folding through itself providing the foundation of the ratio where a phenomena is defined by its size to another phenomena as there own time zones.

So all phenomena, determined by size, projecting through time as 1 direction exist as ratios of other phenomena (which exist through the linear direction of time) and exist as ratios of one line to another.

Time, as the relation of lines, effectively observes phenomena fold through further phenomena as one line (timezone) folding through another (timezone) with the line being the constant foundation of 1 directional projective movement as time itself.

[Eodnhoj7]

To pause movement is effectively just slow it down, for a period of time in which case it resumes movement. This pausing of movement effectively is just dividing reality into certain ratios where the phenomena appears non moving relative to other movements.

Yes. Engineers call this Equilibrium. Mathematicians call this isomorphisms. Logicians call this identity. Quantum physicists call it entanglement.

If two objects are self-similar in all possible properties that we know how to observe/measure. Then we can say they are identical.

Identity is only possible when there is no change. And even then it is contingent on us ignoring coordinates in space.

Good way of wording it.

[TimeSeeker]

To pause movement is effectively just slow it down, for a period of time in which case it resumes movement. This pausing of movement effectively is just dividing reality into certain ratios where the phenomena appears non moving relative to other movements.

Yes. Engineers call this Equilibrium. Mathematicians call this isomorphisms. Logicians call this identity. Quantum physicists call it entanglement.

If two objects are self-similar in all possible properties that we know how to observe/measure. Then we can say they are identical.

Identity is only possible when there is no change. And even then it is contingent on us ignoring coordinates in space.

Good way of wording it.

Which is why the law of identity is a lie To assert identity requires one to omit information about the things one tests for identity.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes. Engineers call this Equilibrium. Mathematicians call this isomorphisms. Logicians call this identity. Quantum physicists call it entanglement.

If two objects are self-similar in all possible properties that we know how to observe/measure. Then we can say they are identical.

Identity is only possible when there is no change. And even then it is contingent on us ignoring coordinates in space.

Good way of wording it.

Which is why the law of identity is a lie

The law of Identity should have a trifold nature of:

1) P
a) as a constant

2) P(P)P
a) as the relation of parts through repitition
b) (P) equals "=", or anyother string of symbols that show a connection of parts implying a seperation of parts

3) (P)
a) as both connection and seperation as unity and multiplicity as a third neutral median from which P both stems from and returns too considering
P=P observes just P in one respect while P as a part (P,P) in another respect where the multiplicity of P in rule 2 as (P,P) is an approximation of rule 1 as just P.

Very loose argument, but I lean towards this statement...it needs work though.

[TimeSeeker]

Good way of wording it.

Which is why the law of identity is a lie

The law of Identity should have a trifold nature of:

1) P
a) as a constant

2) P(P)P
a) as the relation of parts through repitition
b) (P) equals "=", or anyother string of symbols that show a connection of parts implying a seperation of parts

3) (P)
a) as both connection and seperation as unity and multiplicity as a third neutral median from which P both stems from and returns too considering
P=P observes just P in one respect while P as a part (P,P) in another respect where the multiplicity of P in rule 2 as (P,P) is an approximation of rule 1 as just P.

Very loose argument, but I lean towards this statement...it needs work though.

You can't make this argument in classical logic. You will run into the limits of set theory (Barber's paradox).
You need a HIgher order logic. You need type theory.
There are TYPES of things. Not things. Quarks are not things they are TYPES of things. The word 'quark' is an abstraction.

This is straight out of programming 101: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-or ... rogramming

[Eodnhoj7]

Which is why the law of identity is a lie

The law of Identity should have a trifold nature of:

1) P
a) as a constant

2) P(P)P
a) as the relation of parts through repitition
b) (P) equals "=", or anyother string of symbols that show a connection of parts implying a seperation of parts

3) (P)
a) as both connection and seperation as unity and multiplicity as a third neutral median from which P both stems from and returns too considering
P=P observes just P in one respect while P as a part (P,P) in another respect where the multiplicity of P in rule 2 as (P,P) is an approximation of rule 1 as just P.

Very loose argument, but I lean towards this statement...it needs work though.

You can't make this argument in classical logic. You will run into the limits of set theory (Barber's paradox).
You need a HIgher order logic. You need type theory.
There are TYPES of things. Not things. Quarks are not things they are TYPES of things. The word 'quark' is an abstraction.

This is straight out of programming 101: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-or ... rogramming

"The barber is the "one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not shave themselves." The question is, does the barber shave himself?[2]

Answering this question results in a contradiction. The barber cannot shave himself as he only shaves those who do not shave themselves. As such, if he shaves himself he ceases to be the barber. Conversely, if the barber does not shave himself, then he fits into the group of people who would be shaved by the barber, and thus, as the barber, he must shave himself."

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

Actually the barber observes a facet of time and exists as a modality.

The barber exists as the barber when he shaves others.

He ceases to be the barber when he shaves himself.

Hence the man is both barber and non barber and we observe this dualism stemming from a neutral limit as a medial point. Now this medial point, may be "man" or whatever, but the logic requires a transcendence to a further type to maintain it (causing the contradiction to occur as an absence of information).

With "man" running into the same paradox again causing a continuation.

However considering the logic stems from this neutral median, what we understand of the statement is that it exists if and only if it continually directs to further means of definition, hence the statement sustains itself by providing the boundary lines between barber and non-barber and is a foundation for division as definition.

So in one respects the statement observes a necessary connecting median "man" while simultaneoulsy observe a divisive median "man" with this median being the foundation of the statement itself as "both/and", hence neutral.

I may have to explain further the above, but the logic of the paradox is relative to the problem of dualisms requiring a form of continual projection in definition as they must continually relate to further definitions if they are to exist.

[TimeSeeker]

The law of Identity should have a trifold nature of:

1) P
a) as a constant

2) P(P)P
a) as the relation of parts through repitition
b) (P) equals "=", or anyother string of symbols that show a connection of parts implying a seperation of parts

3) (P)
a) as both connection and seperation as unity and multiplicity as a third neutral median from which P both stems from and returns too considering
P=P observes just P in one respect while P as a part (P,P) in another respect where the multiplicity of P in rule 2 as (P,P) is an approximation of rule 1 as just P.

Very loose argument, but I lean towards this statement...it needs work though.

You can't make this argument in classical logic. You will run into the limits of set theory (Barber's paradox).
You need a HIgher order logic. You need type theory.
There are TYPES of things. Not things. Quarks are not things they are TYPES of things. The word 'quark' is an abstraction.

This is straight out of programming 101: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-or ... rogramming

"The barber is the "one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not shave themselves." The question is, does the barber shave himself?[2]

Answering this question results in a contradiction. The barber cannot shave himself as he only shaves those who do not shave themselves. As such, if he shaves himself he ceases to be the barber. Conversely, if the barber does not shave himself, then he fits into the group of people who would be shaved by the barber, and thus, as the barber, he must shave himself."

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

Actually the barber observes a facet of time and exists as a modality.

The barber exists as the barber when he shaves others.

He ceases to be the barber when he shaves himself.

Hence the man is both barber and non barber and we observe this dualism stemming from a neutral limit as a medial point. Now this medial point, may be "man" or whatever, but the logic requires a transcendence to a further type to maintain it (causing the contradiction to occur as an absence of information).

With "man" running into the same paradox again causing a continuation.

However considering the logic stems from this neutral median, what we understand of the statement is that it exists if and only if it continually directs to further means of definition, hence the statement sustains itself by providing the boundary lines between barber and non-barber and is a foundation for division as definition.

So in one respects the statement observes a necessary connecting median "man" while simultaneoulsy observe a divisive median "man" with this median being the foundation of the statement itself as "both/and", hence neutral.

I may have to explain further the above, but the logic of the paradox is relative to the problem of dualisms requiring a form of continual projection in definition as they must continually relate to further definitions if they are to exist.

I think it is too esoteric again.

According to naive set theory, any definable collection is a set. Let R be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. If R is not a member of itself, then its definition dictates that it must contain itself, and if it contains itself, then it contradicts its own definition as the set of all sets that are not members of themselves.

There is only one super-set: The Universe. It contains all the things that are 'real': quarks and leptons.
The laws of physics dictate how structure emerges from quarks and leptons.

Everything else is an abstraction and is covered in Type theory/Lambda calculus.

In between "The universe" (the whole) and "quarks and leptons" (the parts) there is complexity.

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

[Eodnhoj7]

You can't make this argument in classical logic. You will run into the limits of set theory (Barber's paradox).
You need a HIgher order logic. You need type theory.
There are TYPES of things. Not things. Quarks are not things they are TYPES of things. The word 'quark' is an abstraction.

This is straight out of programming 101: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-or ... rogramming

"The barber is the "one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not shave themselves." The question is, does the barber shave himself?[2]

Answering this question results in a contradiction. The barber cannot shave himself as he only shaves those who do not shave themselves. As such, if he shaves himself he ceases to be the barber. Conversely, if the barber does not shave himself, then he fits into the group of people who would be shaved by the barber, and thus, as the barber, he must shave himself."

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

Actually the barber observes a facet of time and exists as a modality.

The barber exists as the barber when he shaves others.

He ceases to be the barber when he shaves himself.

Hence the man is both barber and non barber and we observe this dualism stemming from a neutral limit as a medial point. Now this medial point, may be "man" or whatever, but the logic requires a transcendence to a further type to maintain it (causing the contradiction to occur as an absence of information).

With "man" running into the same paradox again causing a continuation.

However considering the logic stems from this neutral median, what we understand of the statement is that it exists if and only if it continually directs to further means of definition, hence the statement sustains itself by providing the boundary lines between barber and non-barber and is a foundation for division as definition.

So in one respects the statement observes a necessary connecting median "man" while simultaneoulsy observe a divisive median "man" with this median being the foundation of the statement itself as "both/and", hence neutral.

I may have to explain further the above, but the logic of the paradox is relative to the problem of dualisms requiring a form of continual projection in definition as they must continually relate to further definitions if they are to exist.

I think it is too esoteric again.

According to naive set theory, any definable collection is a set. Let R be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. If R is not a member of itself, then its definition dictates that it must contain itself, and if it contains itself, then it contradicts its own definition as the set of all sets that are not members of themselves.

There is only one super-set: The Universe. It contains all quarks and leptons.

All sets must exist through sets which in itself is a set, hence set theory is an observation of repitition where the set effectively circulates through itself while projecting leading to a dualism of self-direction and projection as the set itself being conducive to 1.

The set is form and function under a boundary of 1 where the set as 0 strictly observes it as a point of inversion from one set into many sets.

[TimeSeeker]

All sets must exist through sets which in itself is a set

Yes, but set theory contains a paradox. That is why you must throw it in the trash can. Together with all the classical 'laws' of logic.

I spent years down that rabbit hole Try type theory.

The benefit is that if (when?) somebody figures out that there are even more fundamental particles than leptons and quarks then we won't have to trip over Problems of reduction ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_(complexity) ).

We already made this mistake once with the "atom" which was SUPPOSED to mean "indivisible".

[Eodnhoj7]

All sets must exist through sets which in itself is a set

Yes, but set theory contains a paradox. That is why you must throw it in the trash can. Together with all the classical 'laws' of logic.

I spent years down that rabbit hole Try type theory.

Elaborate type theory, as set theory proves (considering the form and function of the argument provide its axiomatic nature) circularity as the constant limit through which all subjective and objective truths exist....set theory fails to acknowledge it hence is contradictory in this respect as a qualitative directional form gives premise to number as a directive entity in itself.

[RCSaunders]

If two objects are self-similar in all possible properties that we know how to observe/measure. Then we can say they are identical.

If two things are "identical," that is, if they truly have all the same qualities and attributes, they are not two things. Ontologically, every existent must be different in some way from every other existent or it is not a different existent.

Randy

[RCSaunders]

But if you mean that you can’t make progress in philosophy without learning how to draw distinctions without a difference - then yeah. I agree.

Yes, that's what I mean.

Randy

[TimeSeeker]

Elaborate type theory, as set theory proves (considering the form and function of the argument provide its axiomatic nature) circularity as the constant limit through which all subjective and objective truths exist....set theory fails to acknowledge it hence is contradictory in this respect as a qualitative directional form gives premise to number as a directive entity in itself.

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

The only example I can give you is the word "atom". It was SUPPOSED to mean "indivisible". The building blocks of matter! Atoms are 'real'!
And then we found out about protons and electrons. So they are also real. So:

Atom = (protons, electrons)

But then we found out that protons are made of quarks! Cool so Proton = (3x quarks)... so...

Atom = ((3x quarks), electrons)

But then we found out that there are different kinds of quarks. They have up spin and down spin and ..... MANY properties.
And so one must ask are atoms real or abstractions? If atoms are real, and protons are real and quarks are real then uhhh? What? All structure AND the entire field of system dynamics disappears in this mental muddle.

This is captured by the sentiment "It is turtles all the way down" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down )
And so far scientific reduction (deconstructing/decomposing things) has always yielded another turtle underneath. There is no good reason to think this will stop so why do we keep on making the same mistake over and over? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_(complexity)

Maybe we will figure out one day what quarks/leptons are made of ...

To avoid such problems as human knowledge grows just assume everything is a type from type theory. Then you can model it and reduce it, deconstruct it and update it as new information arrives. AND you can do computation on it! And you can do inheritance ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritan ... ogramming) ) so while you are doing all that you are actually producing a taxonomy/structure which DOES correspond to reality.

It just solves all these silly scientific AND socio-political problems we have run into thanks to Logocentrism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism )

[TimeSeeker]

But if you mean that you can’t make progress in philosophy without learning how to draw distinctions without a difference - then yeah. I agree.

Yes, that's what I mean.

Randy

It is sad and ironic at the same time. Because then philosophy is only paying lip service to epistemology.

[Eodnhoj7]

Elaborate type theory, as set theory proves (considering the form and function of the argument provide its axiomatic nature) circularity as the constant limit through which all subjective and objective truths exist....set theory fails to acknowledge it hence is contradictory in this respect as a qualitative directional form gives premise to number as a directive entity in itself.

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

The only example I can give you is the word "atom". It was SUPPOSED to mean "indivisible". The building blocks of matter! Atoms are 'real'!
And then we found out about protons and electrons. So they are also real. So:

Divisibility is indivisible except through a self negation as connection.

Let me elaborate this point.

1) The atom is a localization of phenomenon synonymous to a "part", "atom", "type", "concept" or any degree of definition where a phenomenon of either physical or abstract nature is reduced from a whole to a series of wholes in themselves that exist through each other but paradoxically are divided because of it.

2) The act of relation, through which the locality (or "part", "atom", "type", "concept" respective of the scientific or philosophical field) observes a negation of unity, in one respect, where the locality exists as separate to another locality.

3) This separation of one locality and another, through relativity, is an inversion of unity through multiplicity where the relation of one locality to another observes a quality of division from a holistic or unified perspective.

4) Localization, under these terms, is inherently divisive in nature; hence the respective terms of "part", "atom", "type", "concept" as static form represent "division" while "particularizing", "atomizing", "typing", "conceptualizing" represent an active form of dividing.

5) "Indivisibility" observes the divisive nature of localization as constant where division itself is "undividable" except through a form of self-negation where the division of division results in an observation of connection. This "connection", premised under this dualistic negation, effectively observes division canceling itself to reveal a connectedness underneath the phenomena where an observation of division inversely, through its own nature, necessitates a connection.

6) This "connection" is observed through the nature of time considering what was divided, must inherently have been connected and in these respects the previous connection shows the boundary of division, and the existence of the respective localities, being determined by the previous unity with this previous unity existing through the seperate localities as the premise which formed them. For example a square may be divided into angles, or an orange into slices, but these angles and slices exist because of the square and orange.

7) The resulting localities, stemming from a prior unity, observes this unity as effectively constant considering the act of division observes not just a connection, but the similarities of the parts observe a quantum effect (or connection) that while perceivabley separate the localities are extensions of eachother hence connected.

Under these premises divisibility exists as self-evidence and through its own means as inversive cancels itself out relative to non-divisibility (with indivisibility as a form of unity) with non-divisibility as the premise for atoms observing division. The locality, or atom and any other mirroring definition) exists as a connector when multiplicity is observed as unified from a 1 dimensional perspective under the qualitative and quantitative premise of the "The All".




Atom = (protons, electrons)

But then we found out that protons are made of quarks! Cool so Proton = (3x quarks)... so...

Atom = ((3x quarks), electrons)

The following example of atoms (protons, electrons, quarks) observes that all atoms exist through further division where the division itself is the constant medial boundary which form the respective atoms (protons, electrons, quarks) as a negative boundary. In simpler terms, division acts as a negative boundary to a locality by observing what it is not where the localized phenomenon is an observed of division. This divisive nature of localization, negates itself under its own form and function, resulting in the localization as positive boundary of change where it effectively exists as a connective median between further localities.





But then we found out that there are different kinds of quarks. They have up spin and down spin and ..... MANY properties.

The observation of quarks having up and down directive qualities defines such "atoms" as existing through their directional nature.

Up and down spin observes a base dualism where up and down act as inverse dual directions where direction as a localization of movement exists relative to other localities. This can be observed in the premise example of a line in void projecting ad-infinitum. The line existing as infinite exists through a projection where it projects if and only if there is somewhere to project, hence other parts. In these respects the line must invert from a unity into multiple lines if it is to project past itself, hence it "folds" through the 0d point which defines it into further lines. However considering the line exists as directional, for no line exists without directive qualities, the inversion of one line into many lines (beginning with a base dualism as the foundation of all multiplicity and relativity) is fundamentally the inversion of one direction into many directions.

So the directional quality of "up" exists if and only if there is a "down", "left" if there is a "right", "forwards" if there is a "backwards" with these dualisms existing as fundamentally divided through a median of "vertice", "horizon" and "depth". VHD as a median of division dually observes a connection where all dualisms are fundamentally an observation of 1 connective median of "change" which in itself is infinite and observed as infinite through "alternation" as "up/down", "left/right", "forward/backward" exist through a continual alternation between the duals and through eachother respectively.

In these respects all localities as "atoms" exist through directive qualities of movement which simultaneoulsy divide and connect through the base limit of "linearism" or the "line".

The spin cycle, is fundamentally an observation of linear movement premised from its continually movement away from one point to another point with the movement away from one point effectively being movement towards the same point as all points are the same.

This example can be observed more fully in the example of the line again (the base limit from which all directed forms and functions exist) where the projection away from 1 0d point is the projection towards another 0d point with both 0d points being the same 0d point; hence the line exists as a negative quality in the respect it seperates, but this negative qualities negates itself as a boundary of movement or "connector" which necessitates the line as a mediation of movement through constant change under inversion (considering the 0d point is an inversion of unified being into nothingness and the line is composed as infinite 0d points as infinite change through infinite inversion).

The line, as the foundation of all localization, in these respects is circular in nature as an approximation of the circle in the respect it observes a "part" of the circle due to its foundation in alternating movement with movement being an approximation of constant non-movement.







And so one must ask are atoms real or abstractions? If atoms are real, and protons are real and quarks are real then uhhh? What? All structure AND the entire field of system dynamics disappears in this mental muddle.

Excellent questions and points and I present the following argument (which can be observe multiple place on the forum considering its universality)

1) All physical and abstract realities are observed through limits.

2) These base limits exist through the triad of the line, point and circle both objectively and intuitively (for barring actual observation of the line point and circle in phenomena we intuitively relegate phenomena in terms of "getting to the point", "I see the angle you are getting at", "I feel like I am going in circles" etc where percievably non-geometric phenomena (such as life circumstances) are defined through geometric spatial terms as qualities of limit.

3) This nature of limit, from which both physical and abstract reality stem from and exist as limits in themselves, is the foundational means from which we percieve these dualisms in themselves and even the dualism exists under the connective and divisive nature of limit (which connection as unity being the inversion of multiplicity as division and vice versa through 0 dimensionality as an absence of structure).




This is captured by the sentiment "It is turtles all the way down" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down )
And so far scientific reduction (deconstructing/decomposing things) has always yielded another turtle underneath. There is no good reason to think this will stop so why do we keep on making the same mistake over and over? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_(complexity)

Maybe we will figure out one day what quarks/leptons are made of ...

To avoid such problems as human knowledge grows just assume everything is a type from type theory. Then you can model it and reduce it, deconstruct it and update it as new information arrives. AND you can do computation on it! And you can do inheritance ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritan ... ogramming) ) so while you are doing all that you are actually producing a taxonomy/structure which DOES correspond to reality.

It just solves all these silly scientific AND socio-political problems we have run into thanks to Logocentrism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism )