All Assertions are Multidimensional in Meaning

[Eodnhoj7]

All assertions, existing as relative to the observer, necessitate each assertion as having multiple angles of interpretation thus necessitating each assertion as having multiple levels of meaning.

The phrase: "Nothing exists" can be translated at minimum as:

1. Absence of "thingness" exists.
2. There is no existence.
3. Existence is not limited to "things".
4. Existence is limited to "things".

All of which are correct statements, given the appropriate context. Therefore each statement is layered with potential meanings and context is always necessitated by an expansion to further context. What we understand of an assertion, which exists as a self referential context under it's own terms due to (P=P), is decided by the contexts which are derived from it potentially. Each assertiom, as a context through the law of identity, under it's own terms is a self referential loop.

[Skepdick]

In the broadest possible interpretation - this is what Quine said. There is no "fact of the matter" which determines what any particular user-of-words means when they us the words that they use.

Quine was essentially anti-post-modernism, but he couldn't help but fall into the patterns of thought that defined post-modernism for what it is.

Watch the last few minutes of this video: https://youtu.be/we6cwmzhbBE?t=2362

[Eodnhoj7]

In the broadest possible interpretation - this is what Quine said. There is no "fact of the matter" which determines what any particular user-of-words means when they us the words that they use.

Quine was essentially anti-post-modernism, but he couldn't help but fall into the patterns of thought that defined post-modernism for what it is.

Watch the last few minutes of this video: https://youtu.be/we6cwmzhbBE?t=2362

It is the inherent identity processes of the assertion as self referential, due to (P=P) as its identity property, which also necessitates each context as inherently empty in and of itself. As empty all contexts are a means of change into a newer context.

The context as actual is dependent solely on the potential contexts which are derived from it, therefore in the relation of actuality and potentiality the assertion is determined retrocausally in a manner where what the assertion may mean exists as defining the context for what it is.

The potential is linked towards the actual in such a way that meaning is determined by future contexts in a manner where the assertion, as a context, is linked across time and becomes transfinite. Meaning exists in a larger finite state compared to its original finite assertion.

[Skepdick]

In the broadest possible interpretation - this is what Quine said. There is no "fact of the matter" which determines what any particular user-of-words means when they us the words that they use.

Quine was essentially anti-post-modernism, but he couldn't help but fall into the patterns of thought that defined post-modernism for what it is.

Watch the last few minutes of this video: https://youtu.be/we6cwmzhbBE?t=2362

It is the inherent identity processes of the assertion as self referential, due to (P=P) as its identity property, which also necessitates each context as inherently empty in and of itself. As empty all contexts are a means of change into a newer context.

The context as actual is dependent solely on the potential contexts which are derived from it, therefore in the relation of actuality and potentiality the assertion is determined retrocausally in a manner where what the assertion may mean exists as defining the context for what it is.

The potential is linked towards the actual in such a way that meaning is determined by future contexts in a manner where the assertion, as a context, is linked across time and becomes transfinite. Meaning exists in a larger finite state compared to its original finite assertion.

You are tripping over the explicit/implicit distinction and nothing more.

P=P can be true.
P=P can be false.

You are defaulting (biasing towards) the implicit interpretation. You are assuming P=P means "true". This is implicit.

Here is a logical system in which P=P evaluates to False. This is explicit.

https://repl.it/repls/BuzzingAbsoluteReality

[Eodnhoj7]

In the broadest possible interpretation - this is what Quine said. There is no "fact of the matter" which determines what any particular user-of-words means when they us the words that they use.

Quine was essentially anti-post-modernism, but he couldn't help but fall into the patterns of thought that defined post-modernism for what it is.

Watch the last few minutes of this video: https://youtu.be/we6cwmzhbBE?t=2362

It is the inherent identity processes of the assertion as self referential, due to (P=P) as its identity property, which also necessitates each context as inherently empty in and of itself. As empty all contexts are a means of change into a newer context.

The context as actual is dependent solely on the potential contexts which are derived from it, therefore in the relation of actuality and potentiality the assertion is determined retrocausally in a manner where what the assertion may mean exists as defining the context for what it is.

The potential is linked towards the actual in such a way that meaning is determined by future contexts in a manner where the assertion, as a context, is linked across time and becomes transfinite. Meaning exists in a larger finite state compared to its original finite assertion.

You are tripping over the explicit/implicit distinction and nothing more.

P=P can be true.
P=P can be false.

You are defaulting (biasing towards) the implicit interpretation. You are assuming P=P means "true". This is implicit.

Here is a logical system in which P=P evaluates to False. This is explicit.

https://repl.it/repls/BuzzingAbsoluteReality

It is true as existing self referentially, it is false as open to expansion. Definition takes on the nature of rings within rings.

[Skepdick]

It is true as existing self referentially, it is false as open to expansion. Definition takes on the nature of rings within rings.

You have recognized relativisation/relativity as a fact of being and the nature of all philosophical arguments. Formally speaking, this the P vs NP problem!

https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2009/08/ ... ice-exams/