## The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

The law of identity is the cornerstone of Arostotelian/Classical logic.
A = A is True.

In the 2nd half of the 20th century the American mathematician Haskell Curry and logician William Alvin Howard discovered an analogy between logical proofs and working computer programs. This is known as the Curry-Howard correspondence.
Mathematical proofs are working computer programs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence

Therefore, if we can write a working computer program which asserts that A = A is false without producing an error then we have living proof contradicting the founding axiom of Classic/Aristotelian logic.

I hereby reject the law of identity, and give you the law of humanity: A = A is False.

A thing needs not be the same as itself!

Version 1: https://repl.it/repls/SuperficialShimmeringAnimatronics

Update1: I have INTENTIONALLY overridden the meaning of "=" and I am being accused of playing tricks.
You are missing the forrest for the trees. What is important is NOT that I am "cheating". What is important is that I have removed the "foundation" of classical logic and the skyscraper remains standing. The system did not explode ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion ). Because the explosion is contained by Chomsky's hierarchy! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy

To the point: how can you call something a "LAW" of thought when it it plays no role in the functionality of the system? Computation is the "LAWS OF THOUGHT".
First Order Logic is a massive error! It is complete-but-undecidable. How do you THINK without making decisions?!?

Turing-completeness/equivalence is the bar for "reason": λ-calculus ⇔ λ-calculus ⇔ λ-calculus ⇔ λ-calculus ⇔ λ-calculus ⊇ Type theory ⊇ Mathematics

I will spell this out in English: Turing-completeness guarantees GLOBAL consistency. Type theory allows for the containment of LOCALIZED contradictions thus preventing explosions. This is why intuitionistic logic is vastly superior to any "complete" logic that is NOT Turing-complete.
Consistency paralyzes human thought! We are wildly inconsistent!

Being able to contain LOCAL inconsistencies actually allows for the GLOBAL system to become more and more consistent. This is completely and utterly counter-intuitive to most logicians!

##### EDIT 1 (changelog)

SpeakPigeon has embarked on a crusade to smear my character. So for the sake of transparency (and to let make an even bigger fool of himself) I have revised the code. I have nothing to hide

Version 2: https://repl.it/repls/TintedDefiantInstruction

Observe how the Aristotelian universe dehumanizes John and Jane
English: John is human.
Formalism: John = Human
False

English: Jane is human.
Formalism: Jane = Human
False
#### EDIT 2

I am tightening the noose around the Pigeon's neck

Version 3: https://repl.it/repls/StrangeLiquidPolyhedron
Last edited by Logik on Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:42 pm, edited 16 times in total.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6600
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Logik wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:25 pm The law of identity is the cornerstone of Arostotelian/Classical logic.
A = A is True.

In the 2nd half of the 20th century the American mathematician Haskell Curry and logician William Alvin Howard discovered an analogy between logical proofs and working computer programs. This is known as the Curry-Howard correspondence.
Mathematical proofs are working computer programs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence

Therefore, if we can write a working computer program which asserts that A = A is false without producing an error then we have living proof contradicting the founding axiom of Classic/Aristotelian logic.

I hereby reject the law of identity, and give you the law of humanity: A = A is False.

A thing needs not be the same as itself!

https://repl.it/repls/SuperficialShimmeringAnimatronics
I already observed this in the two 90 degree angles are not always equal (which I have to type of the rest of the proof from my notes so it is clearer) as well as 1 existing in multiple states where 1 is not always equal to itself, etc. Nothing new.

As to the nature of Identity:

False and True.

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=26108

The replication of that thing always observes a constant underlying identity where all identities as approximate always observe a simultaneously true/false state.

You need to observe a new symbolism that transitions to classical symbolism as the old symbolism in logic is part of the problem considering form and function are the same thing.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:47 pm
Logik wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:25 pm The law of identity is the cornerstone of Arostotelian/Classical logic.
A = A is True.

In the 2nd half of the 20th century the American mathematician Haskell Curry and logician William Alvin Howard discovered an analogy between logical proofs and working computer programs. This is known as the Curry-Howard correspondence.
Mathematical proofs are working computer programs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence

Therefore, if we can write a working computer program which asserts that A = A is false without producing an error then we have living proof contradicting the founding axiom of Classic/Aristotelian logic.

I hereby reject the law of identity, and give you the law of humanity: A = A is False.

A thing needs not be the same as itself!

https://repl.it/repls/SuperficialShimmeringAnimatronics
I already observed this in the two 90 degree angles are not always equal (which I have to type of the rest of the proof from my notes so it is clearer) as well as 1 existing in multiple states where 1 is not always equal to itself, etc. Nothing new.

As to the nature of Identity:

False and True.

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=26108

The replication of that thing always observes a constant underlying identity where all identities as approximate always observe a simultaneously true/false state.

You need to observe a new symbolism that transitions to classical symbolism as the old symbolism in logic is part of the problem considering form and function are the same thing.
The difference is I have provided living proof - for everyone to see in a language that millions can learn and understand.

How many people can understand your arguments?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6600
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Logik wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:23 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:47 pm
Logik wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:25 pm The law of identity is the cornerstone of Arostotelian/Classical logic.
A = A is True.

In the 2nd half of the 20th century the American mathematician Haskell Curry and logician William Alvin Howard discovered an analogy between logical proofs and working computer programs. This is known as the Curry-Howard correspondence.
Mathematical proofs are working computer programs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence

Therefore, if we can write a working computer program which asserts that A = A is false without producing an error then we have living proof contradicting the founding axiom of Classic/Aristotelian logic.

I hereby reject the law of identity, and give you the law of humanity: A = A is False.

A thing needs not be the same as itself!

https://repl.it/repls/SuperficialShimmeringAnimatronics
I already observed this in the two 90 degree angles are not always equal (which I have to type of the rest of the proof from my notes so it is clearer) as well as 1 existing in multiple states where 1 is not always equal to itself, etc. Nothing new.

As to the nature of Identity:

False and True.

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=26108

The replication of that thing always observes a constant underlying identity where all identities as approximate always observe a simultaneously true/false state.

You need to observe a new symbolism that transitions to classical symbolism as the old symbolism in logic is part of the problem considering form and function are the same thing.
The difference is I have provided living proof - for everyone to see in a language that millions can learn and understand.

How many people can understand your arguments?
False, what you provided was an english translation few agree with. You are argue that (A=A)=F where prior arguments observe that (A=A)=T
All you did what apply aristotelian logic to aristotelian logic where (A=A) acts as the transitive property...big whoop.

(A=A)=T
(A=A)=F
T=F ∴ (A=A)≠(A=A)

What you observed is an inversion of the aristotelian law of identity where the undefined property of [=] is further fragmented to have no actual identity under the statement of (A=A)≠(A=A) → [=]≠[=].

You are just observing how equality is undefined and exploiting the deficiency in the logic.

This is solvable, but it requires a higher logic that allows for aristotelian identity properties; thus observing aristotelian identity properties are wrong...but only on their own terms.

1) (P)=(P) observes "=" as undefined.

2) (=)P(=) observe (=) as defined but P is undefined.

3) P is defined in Law 1, Equality is defined in Law 2, Law 1 and Law 2 are defined under a Convergence in Law three:
(P=) This synthesis observes simultaneously that law 3 diverges back to laws 1 and laws 2.

All variables are simultaneously form and function.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:42 pm
Logik wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:23 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:47 pm
I already observed this in the two 90 degree angles are not always equal (which I have to type of the rest of the proof from my notes so it is clearer) as well as 1 existing in multiple states where 1 is not always equal to itself, etc. Nothing new.

As to the nature of Identity:

False and True.

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=26108

The replication of that thing always observes a constant underlying identity where all identities as approximate always observe a simultaneously true/false state.

You need to observe a new symbolism that transitions to classical symbolism as the old symbolism in logic is part of the problem considering form and function are the same thing.
The difference is I have provided living proof - for everyone to see in a language that millions can learn and understand.

How many people can understand your arguments?
False, what you provided was an english translation few agree with. You are argue that (A=A)=F where prior arguments observe that (A=A)=T
All you did what apply aristotelian logic to aristotelian logic where (A=A) acts as the transitive property...big whoop.

(A=A)=T
(A=A)=F
T=F ∴ (A=A)≠(A=A)

What you observed is an inversion of the aristotelian law of identity where the undefined property of [=] is further fragmented to have no actual identity under the statement of (A=A)≠(A=A) → [=]≠[=].

You are just observing how equality is undefined and exploiting the deficiency in the logic.

This is solvable, but it requires a higher logic that allows for aristotelian identity properties; thus observing aristotelian identity properties are wrong...but only on their own terms.

1) (P)=(P) observes "=" as undefined.

2) (=)P(=) observe (=) as defined but P is undefined.

3) P is defined in Law 1, Equality is defined in Law 2, Law 1 and Law 2 are defined under a Convergence in Law three:
(P=) This synthesis observes simultaneously that law 3 diverges back to laws 1 and laws 2.

All variables are simultaneously form and function.

Look at the code. I have nothing to say.
It is self-explanatory.

A=A is false (A != A is true) and the system doesn’t explode.
Identity is not a law.

You are welcome to expand on it.
Last edited by Logik on Wed Feb 27, 2019 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Logik wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:25 pm The law of identity is the cornerstone of Arostotelian/Classical logic.
A = A is True.

In the 2nd half of the 20th century the American mathematician Haskell Curry and logician William Alvin Howard discovered an analogy between logical proofs and working computer programs. This is known as the Curry-Howard correspondence.
Mathematical proofs are working computer programs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence

...
Well given the correspondence appears to be between intutionistic logic and constructivist mathematics its not a surprise as they bascially are the same things?
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Arising_uk wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:50 pm
Logik wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:25 pm The law of identity is the cornerstone of Arostotelian/Classical logic.
A = A is True.

In the 2nd half of the 20th century the American mathematician Haskell Curry and logician William Alvin Howard discovered an analogy between logical proofs and working computer programs. This is known as the Curry-Howard correspondence.
Mathematical proofs are working computer programs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence

...
Well given the correspondence appears to be between intutionistic logic and constructivist mathematics its not a surprise as they bascially are the same things?
Yes. That is litaerally the implication of Curry-Howard.

Lambda calculus (computation) is a superset of all logic/mathematics.

Turing-completeness.

This is why Difital physics is taking off..
Physicists construct models.
Mathematical models.

If you are after meaning - look elsewhere.

Logic is just LEGO for your mind.
Last edited by Logik on Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6600
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Logik wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:44 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:42 pm
Logik wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:23 pm
The difference is I have provided living proof - for everyone to see in a language that millions can learn and understand.

How many people can understand your arguments?
False, what you provided was an english translation few agree with. You are argue that (A=A)=F where prior arguments observe that (A=A)=T
All you did what apply aristotelian logic to aristotelian logic where (A=A) acts as the transitive property...big whoop.

(A=A)=T
(A=A)=F
T=F ∴ (A=A)≠(A=A)

What you observed is an inversion of the aristotelian law of identity where the undefined property of [=] is further fragmented to have no actual identity under the statement of (A=A)≠(A=A) → [=]≠[=].

You are just observing how equality is undefined and exploiting the deficiency in the logic.

This is solvable, but it requires a higher logic that allows for aristotelian identity properties; thus observing aristotelian identity properties are wrong...but only on their own terms.

1) (P)=(P) observes "=" as undefined.

2) (=)P(=) observe (=) as defined but P is undefined.

3) P is defined in Law 1, Equality is defined in Law 2, Law 1 and Law 2 are defined under a Convergence in Law three:
(P=) This synthesis observes simultaneously that law 3 diverges back to laws 1 and laws 2.

All variables are simultaneously form and function.

Look at the code. I have nothing to say.
It is self-explanatory.

A=A is false and the system doesn’t break.

You are welcome to expand on it.
Actually it is not, as that "lambda/type/turing" perspective you claimed you thought was original (but found out was not) is strictly an extension of your own perspective looping through itself. You have not put it into language anyone understand but you.

Second, I already covered the contradiction in Aristotelian Identity, by using Aristotelian identity...quoting outside sources, when the source is in front of you, just leads to more confusion. If you have to "quote" someone...it just means you cannot argue it yourself. The linch pin of your argument is the continual "quotation" of a vast wikipedia page...other than that you provide no argument except maybe the word "isomorphism".

I worked with a harvard professor at one time like you on a screen play. I would write a scene, on my own, then show him the scene. If he liked it, we moved on, if not I would rewrite it. 80-90 percent of the time he would like it. Long story short, as time pass he would claim to be responsible for the ideas I wrote down and form and I was just a "secretary"....meanwhile I did all the work and the only thing he would do was give a simple yes or no...Dialogue, action, etc...all created originally by me.

You are behind the curve, I covered all of this already...like months ago...you original ideas are the biproduct of a subconscious mirror effect...which I already covered.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:56 pm
Logik wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:44 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:42 pm

False, what you provided was an english translation few agree with. You are argue that (A=A)=F where prior arguments observe that (A=A)=T
All you did what apply aristotelian logic to aristotelian logic where (A=A) acts as the transitive property...big whoop.

(A=A)=T
(A=A)=F
T=F ∴ (A=A)≠(A=A)

What you observed is an inversion of the aristotelian law of identity where the undefined property of [=] is further fragmented to have no actual identity under the statement of (A=A)≠(A=A) → [=]≠[=].

You are just observing how equality is undefined and exploiting the deficiency in the logic.

This is solvable, but it requires a higher logic that allows for aristotelian identity properties; thus observing aristotelian identity properties are wrong...but only on their own terms.

1) (P)=(P) observes "=" as undefined.

2) (=)P(=) observe (=) as defined but P is undefined.

3) P is defined in Law 1, Equality is defined in Law 2, Law 1 and Law 2 are defined under a Convergence in Law three:
(P=) This synthesis observes simultaneously that law 3 diverges back to laws 1 and laws 2.

All variables are simultaneously form and function.

Look at the code. I have nothing to say.
It is self-explanatory.

A=A is false and the system doesn’t break.

You are welcome to expand on it.
Actually it is not, as that "lambda/type/turing" perspective you claimed you thought was original (but found out was not) is strictly an extension of your own perspective looping through itself. You have not put it into language anyone understand but you.

Second, I already covered the contradiction in Aristotelian Identity, by using Aristotelian identity...quoting outside sources, when the source is in front of you, just leads to more confusion. If you have to "quote" someone...it just means you cannot argue it yourself. The linch pin of your argument is the continual "quotation" of a vast wikipedia page...other than that you provide no argument except maybe the word "isomorphism".

I worked with a harvard professor at one time like you on a screen play. I would write a scene, on my own, then show him the scene. If he liked it, we moved on, if not I would rewrite it. 80-90 percent of the time he would like it. Long story short, as time pass he would claim to be responsible for the ideas I wrote down and form and I was just a "secretary"....meanwhile I did all the work and the only thing he would do was give a simple yes or no...Dialogue, action, etc...all created originally by me.

You are behind the curve, I covered all of this already...like months ago...you original ideas are the biproduct of a subconscious mirror effect...which I already covered.
*yawn* are you being petty about being given credit?

No. These are not your ideas - I have been working on this since March last year.

I joined this forum BECAUSE I have been working these ideas. This is what the “TimeSeeker” project is all about.

Start from first principles with all that I have learned about computation.

If you want fame&glory for being “the first to the finish line”. Take it!

Publish it. Claim it as your own. Put your name on it.

I don’t really give a shit for honours or recognition.

I am going to go back to my glass of wine now.

My gift is not of my own doing. I won Nature’s lotto...
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6600
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Logik wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 7:00 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:56 pm
Logik wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:44 pm

Look at the code. I have nothing to say.
It is self-explanatory.

A=A is false and the system doesn’t break.

You are welcome to expand on it.
Actually it is not, as that "lambda/type/turing" perspective you claimed you thought was original (but found out was not) is strictly an extension of your own perspective looping through itself. You have not put it into language anyone understand but you.

Second, I already covered the contradiction in Aristotelian Identity, by using Aristotelian identity...quoting outside sources, when the source is in front of you, just leads to more confusion. If you have to "quote" someone...it just means you cannot argue it yourself. The linch pin of your argument is the continual "quotation" of a vast wikipedia page...other than that you provide no argument except maybe the word "isomorphism".

I worked with a harvard professor at one time like you on a screen play. I would write a scene, on my own, then show him the scene. If he liked it, we moved on, if not I would rewrite it. 80-90 percent of the time he would like it. Long story short, as time pass he would claim to be responsible for the ideas I wrote down and form and I was just a "secretary"....meanwhile I did all the work and the only thing he would do was give a simple yes or no...Dialogue, action, etc...all created originally by me.

You are behind the curve, I covered all of this already...like months ago...you original ideas are the biproduct of a subconscious mirror effect...which I already covered.
*yawn* are you being petty about being given credit?

No, these universal principle of replicating symmetry apply to me as well. You claim ties to turing, I claim ties to an unknown religion/philosophy long before either of us were born.

No. These are not your ideas - I have been working on this since March last year.

And I have discovered these ideas, long before that. As a matter of fact, they can be observed as reflective of your's where you use "finiteness" as the foundation axiom I use "infinity" as the dual which contains finiteness. You may want to work on axiomizing the nature of your focal axiom "finiteness" because it is the metaphorical "balls" I keep kicking over and over again. Finiteness is strictly multiple infinities. I cover this multiple times.

I joined this forum BECAUSE I have been working these ideas.

If you want fame&glory for being “the first to the finish line”. Take it!

Fame and glory pass, I am just containing the chaos you are creating. You are taking an extremist approach of quantity over quality, and I am arguing they are one and the same through "space" which is not just an axiom in itself but a foundation for consciousness.

Publish it. Claim it as your own. Put your name on it.

I don’t really give a shit for honours or recognition.

I am going to go back to my glass of wine now.

That is sad that you need the wine to keep going, I just use raw will power as faith...who is more "efficient"?

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

It seems to me you are still pursuing “heroism”.

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

Now fuck off.

I am going to go make love to my gorgeous fiancé and drink great wine....
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

No, Turing’s ideas are not new.

The Ouroboros is an ancient symbol representing recursion.

Turing was just at the right place/time. And he formalized it! He communicated it (this is the important part!) in a way other people could understand it!

I am not using his name to give him credit.
I am using his name so you can get a useful Wikipedia page IF you cared to google his name to get more context.

It is called indexing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_indexing
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6600
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Logik wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 7:07 pm It seems to me you are still pursuing “heroism”.

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

Now fuck off.

I am going to go make love to my gorgeous fiancé and drink great wine....
Just remember, at your age she is not the first man she had an orgasm too...she cried out other names before...and due to entropy may again at some other point when she get's bored....money and wealth tend to do that after a while because they lack "quality". But then again who is to know? Maybe she is "different" than other women...at least that is what all men say when they fall in love, I know I have.

Second, no heroism...I already covered the ourboros...It is an anthropomorphization of the inherent cycles which reflect through all of reality that observes the process of "maintainance" (snake is maintained by eating itself) and "dissolution" (snake is dissolved into further snakes because it eats itself) observed in the Prime Triad.

Multiple discoveries reflect this "ourboros" where certain key elements are observed "spontaneously" popping up from the void of the psyche, but as observed in the "impossibility of randomness thread" what we observe is that a spontaneously observed particle (in this case the discovery as atomic fact(s)) always has an underlying symmetry to another spontaneously observed particle (atomic fact(s) in this case again) and as such observe a continual repitition of key elements of symmetry conducive to a cycle in and of itself.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=23122&p=340655&hil ... os#p340655

Re: Time, Reciprocal Containment, & The Ouroboros

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:43 am
While time may be observed, symmetrically, through the nature of the ouroboros as perpetual movement the problem occurs as to the nature of "constants" or "stability" being properly defined.

These concepts manifest themselves with some degree of evidence through the nature of time, however inherently must reflect something deeper. While certain aspects of these concepts morph through the perpetual movement of time, the vary observation of them implies something that transcends time itself. This nature of transcendence past movement provides some foundation for the nature of definition, part of which can be observed in the ouroboros itself.

The inherent act of relying upon a constant geometric nature implies, that while the ourboros is a thing in itself, some aspects of it reflect some other dimension that exists alongside itself.

Perpetual movement, as time, gives grounding for stable elements to be observed within the nature of knowledge as "perpetual movement" is duely a "constant" in a separate respect.

At best the Ouroboros symbolizes the inherent cyclic nature of physical reality that is present in both atoms, stars and much of the behavior exhibited by the people in between. At its worst it manifests itself as a philosophical locking mechanism that prevents the observation of any further knowledge.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=23299&p=344715&hil ... os#p344715

Re: God is testing us all

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Dec 22, 2017 8:02 pm

NSKimura wrote: ↑
Fri Dec 22, 2017 5:39 pm
Sorry but you have to be a troll. I say that atheism is the denial that God exists and you conclude that God indeed exists because atheists deny his existence.
Or are you since you keep repeating the words "nonsense" and "absurd"?

The premise is simple, the atheists keep redefining "nothingness" into something. A metaphor is needed here to answer your question:

It would be equivalent to wolves raising sheep to eat them. They claim the sheep have no power, but the wolves need them in order to exist. The sheep just eat and continue moving on. The problem, metaphorically speaking, is that the wolves raising sheep eventually lead to rams coming into existence. The rams in turn kill the wolves. So they raise cattle instead, and what happens but bulls come into existence and the wolves are still stuck in the circular pattern they seek to avoid.

Atheism creates its own beast. They don't understand that by saying God doesn't exist they actually create one to fight against. Would it be better to say that man is God for the atheist, and that he continually eats himself to sustain himself? Much like the metaphorical ourboros? Does the atheist offer anything moral value besides a savage hate premised on continual negation?

Atheism is the origin of all savagery and it is a disease of the mind. It is universal and extends across all faiths. We see it when we insult the poor, or when spouses commit adultery. We see it when we raise children that they are nothing unless they achieve wealth and fame. We see it in ourselves when we say we are not good enough.

The simple truth is that I did not create any of these arguments, you did by staring into the void. You made arguments and I responded. Is that not what this thread about? A response?

So by your nonsense logic, if I imagine a being, anything I fancy, and deny its existence, then it exists.... the same for everyone, if they deny the existence of something it exists or else we cannot deny its existence.

Atheists gather together all the time to talk about the Spaghetti Monster. Its a bit ironic to equate God to a food group they desire to eat...isn't it? Or is it since they gather to gain spiritual and intellectual sustainance from agreement with eachother? Either way, the idea becomes their God and it steers the course of the rest of their lives.

This is it for me. Thank you very much for showing me that there are people like you out there. This is why people, lots of people, and most scientists, dislike philosophy, because of people like you, because of nonsense such as what you spread here.

Scientists spend most of their time studying Dark Matter, something they cannot see, and yet says it exists. It has become a pure religion whose dogma is mere equations that perpetually change. It is has become a faith whose sole purpose is to stare into the dark and ask "Who am I". Do you understand one possible interpretation for M theory they offer? "Magic Theory". And that is "science"? Or is it hypocrisy?

Why quit if you know so much? I am only getting started, this is easy for me because I know that I know less than you do. Can you say the same? You know more than me don't you?

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24034&p=357795&hil ... os#p357795

Peace and Happiness are "Dirty" Words.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed May 02, 2018 11:49 am
It appears to me that the pursuit of Peace and Happiness causes an absence of Peace and Happiness as the pursuit of what is Potential causes a division of what is actual.

A pursuit of what is by nature subjective causes a division of what is objective, with objectivity being a form of group subjectivity.

With the division of the group subjectivity, as what is objectivity, causes an division of what is subjective as group subjectivity (objectivity) provides the boundaries through which the subjective exists.

The subjective pitted against the objective requires a subjective "sacrifice of the self through the self" in which the individual must divide into parts himself/herself in order gain the necessary relations which allow the individual to move through time and space. He who is hungry must in terms eat himself in order to satisify any intellectual, physical or emotional desire in the face of adversity.

A spiritual of the "ourboros" takes hold in which the individual must loop through himself to maintain himself in the face of percieved chaos, where the ability to "loop" and intertwine oneself through the environment is not a viable option.

The individual is forced to dismember oneself, through an act of intellectual hanging and a piercing of the heart under the linear spear of progressive change, much in the same manner the anthropormized god of Madness, Fury and Wisdom, Oden or Wotan, committed in the pursuit of "opening" himself to the multiplicity of existence. This hanging upon the universal tree of Yggdrasil, or the Tree of Knowledge in Western Judaic Tradition, causes a form of false knowledge through suicide to occur in the respect that seperation of the self causes an appearance of Knowledge to occur under the term "relation".

Relativism in these respects results in a "Satanic" spirituality in which constant division of the self is required in the face of a highly individualistic subjective culture. A deification of oneself and their faculties of reasoning results due to a process of constant individuation in which the individual alone is falsely responsible for the totatily of truth rather than as a mediator or "steward" of it.

This deification, or seeking equality to Godhood, causes a false form of spirituality in the respect that any pursuit of equality implies a division with this division being "actualized" in the respect is it spoken and believed. A problem occurs when an problem is observed as a problem, and these problems are merely observations of seperation. To seek equality is to imply a seperation, but the nature of equality requires a full knowing of what these percievable seperate natures entail.

In simpler terms if man seeks equality with God, a Knowing of God must first occur in the respect a boundary must be given. This boundary, or measurement, however requires a measurement of the measurement, ad-infinitum where a process of continual division occurs under the manifestation of categories that are oftentimes subjective evident. To create God-hood would require a knowing of what God-hood entails, but this knowing would require a continual act of belief in oneself which further causes the very problem of relativism to occur.

The pursuit of divinity, under the terms "peace" and "happiness", becomes a dirty process of synthesis where continual separation into parts lays waste to what is simple and buries it under an idol of "complexity" as a re measurement is believed necessary to give order to the subjective universe that paradoxically is not objectively agreed upon at the group level except under the terms "individuation".

Spatial Tearing, Modern Baal Worship and Satanic Ritualism

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=26140&p=395532&hili ... os#p395532
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Logic wrote:
we can write a working computer program which asserts that A = A is false without producing an error then
we have living proof contradicting the founding axiom of Classic / Aristotelian logic

I hereby reject the law of identity and give you the law of humanity : A = A is False
This is too simplistic an interpretation [ if it is actually true ]

It is not that Classical / Aristotelian logic has been disproven but rather that it has been shown not to be absolute
Outside of computer programmes / mathematical algorithms it is still true that A = A so it is not completely false

In standard mathematics it is still a universally accepted axiom that for every valid equation the
quantities on either side of = are of equal value regardless of anything else [ notation / symbols ]

Also to completely disprove A = A would invalidate the Law Of Non Contradiction
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2059
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

### Re: The death of Classical logic and the birth of Constructive Mathematics

Maybe it might help if you stepped back to the simplistic origins of logic, NOT jump ahead to the complex theories that require more intense investigation to determine the meanings implied in those areas?

All you are asserting is very basic: that you don't trust logic via nature as something based on "consistency" or to the other coinciding assumptions, "the law of excluded middle" and "the law of non-contradiction".

ALL logic that extends to ALL possibilities simply requires accepting "inconsistency" to be the basis of logic. This was understood in ancient times, even long before direct reference to these arguments (as inferred by the context of various sources, such as 'religious' documents.)

That inconsistency is most inclusive to everything, it can't be treated directly by us being inside a subset of Totality, such as our particular Universe because, in a similar argument to Godel's second part of the Incompleteness Theorem, you can't 'prove' something completely about the very system you reside in. As such, while reality can extend to inconsistency as a whole, we can only at least begin with what we've got or you turn any intellectual effort to organize thought into EVERYONE is EQUALLY correct for their reason in a subjectively relative way.

You thus have to BEGIN with a consistent logic to provide rules of conduct (inconsistency is lawless). Then you can use this reasoning to infer things about a broader reality through an organized process of reasoning.

What you appear to be claiming is most extreme: that NO CONSISTENT systems exist or are relevant to intellectual reasoning. If this were true, then everyone would already be correct to randomly agree or disagree with you WITHOUT a need to argue. Why would you even try to "reason" beginning with your implied default of 'reasoning' that 'reasoning == non-reasoning' (A == non-A)?

While I or others could possibly share something you mean, it has to begin FROM a consistent-based system of logic. It can be done but requires understanding at minimal the first-order (special part of the whole) logics, then to expand it to the more complex logics based upon them. Inconsistency is more inclusive of Totality as a whole but is irrelevant if we are subject to be a subset of that larger inconsistent totality because what is 'consistent' is included in what is 'inconsistent', but not the other way around.

0 = 0 and 1 as [inconsistent totality = inconsistent subsets of totality AND consistent subsets of totality]

You are acting as though a totality that has no law is something that has some 'law' that disallows it to also be contradictory.....thus contradicting your belief in contradiction. Then you further contradict the left over consistent reality in a way that cannot ever be resolvable.

Begin with the consistent rules first. Then, if you want to show there are degrees or variations as a part of this world, do so without denying that there are discrete realities. Note, for instance that mathematical calculus is about a continuous logic but it proves it through a discrete form of reasoning. And it also shows that you can reverse this, begin with a continuous default to show how and where discrete realities (non-continuous) ones fit in [more difficult but possible].

This is the same kind of problem with physics regarding the discrete concept of 'quantification' (treating the very small as having discrete whole or integral measures) versus relativity which begins with a continuous (non-discrete) system of reasoning by nature. Both are still understood to be essential. You may find difficulty making sense of one or the other but both are still 'true' of reality. But we don't know which or what universal system includes them both or that some third more inclusive explanation is more conclusive.

If your intent is to show validity to say, some kind of 'fuzzy' logic, don't deny classical true-false logic as completely invalid but rather only a subset of the whole. Denying it would require also denying even 'fuzzy' logic. [I read some books that try to 'sell' out classic logic as being false rather than to simply assert it incomplete. I'm guessing that the authors were not the actual 'fuzzy logicians' because they don't realize that fuzzy logic is an EXTENSION of classical binary-valued logic into multi-variable forms.] It's sad when even authors who may intend to advocate for the concept of multi-variable logics tend to act as the very 'classical' thinkers they accuse 'classical logic' to be about: that to be logical, you have to pick ONLY-classical binary-valued logic XOR non-classical multi-valued logic. Do you see how expressing this is itself is hypocritical?