Why Logic, At its Root in Contexts, Is Unprogrammable
Why Logic, At its Root in Contexts, Is Unprogrammable
The grounding of all definition is reliant upon a progression of contexts, inherently assumed, with the alignment of these contexts setting the foundation for "equivocation". It is this "equivocation", through a connective context that allows for one seemingly separate context to
The infinite progression of contexts, to further contexts, leads to a default connection by a variation...thus we are left with a Paradox where progression necessitates an inherent "loop" of definitions causing a fallacy of equivocation given a perceived progression.
Cat = Toaster
(Cat) → (Mammal) → (...) → ((atoms) → (carbon)→ (selenium) → (...)) → object → (...)
(Toaster) → (Machine) → (...) → ((atoms) → (carbon)→ (selenium) → (...)) → object → (...)
All phenomenon, are equivocated through an inherent indefinite state (...) while simultaneously through symmetrical contexts:
[((Cat) → (Mammal)) ↔ ((Toaster) → (Machine))] → (...) → ((atoms) → (carbon)→ (selenium) → (...)) → object → (...)
Thus identity, through equivocation, is bounded by an inherent synthetic nature where the continual progression of contexts causes an inherent synthetic looping where all "identities as contexts" are grounded in an inherent convergence/divergence of contextual strings.
Equivocation occurs through an inherent dynamic projection of definition and occurs through a state of expansion and contraction:
expansion: [((atoms) → (carbon)→ (selenium) → (...)) → object → (...)] → (...) → [(Cat) V (Toaster)]
contraction: [(Cat) ∧ (Toaster)] → (...) → [((atoms) → (carbon)→ (selenium) → (...)) → object → (...)]
The infinite progression of contexts, to further contexts, leads to a default connection by a variation...thus we are left with a Paradox where progression necessitates an inherent "loop" of definitions causing a fallacy of equivocation given a perceived progression.
Cat = Toaster
(Cat) → (Mammal) → (...) → ((atoms) → (carbon)→ (selenium) → (...)) → object → (...)
(Toaster) → (Machine) → (...) → ((atoms) → (carbon)→ (selenium) → (...)) → object → (...)
All phenomenon, are equivocated through an inherent indefinite state (...) while simultaneously through symmetrical contexts:
[((Cat) → (Mammal)) ↔ ((Toaster) → (Machine))] → (...) → ((atoms) → (carbon)→ (selenium) → (...)) → object → (...)
Thus identity, through equivocation, is bounded by an inherent synthetic nature where the continual progression of contexts causes an inherent synthetic looping where all "identities as contexts" are grounded in an inherent convergence/divergence of contextual strings.
Equivocation occurs through an inherent dynamic projection of definition and occurs through a state of expansion and contraction:
expansion: [((atoms) → (carbon)→ (selenium) → (...)) → object → (...)] → (...) → [(Cat) V (Toaster)]
contraction: [(Cat) ∧ (Toaster)] → (...) → [((atoms) → (carbon)→ (selenium) → (...)) → object → (...)]
Re: Why Logic, At its Root in Contexts, Is Unprogrammable
How did this become the insane crank forum?

 Posts: 2355
 Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Why Logic, At its Root in Contexts, Is Unprogrammable
the cats got together and made toast
Imp
Imp
Re: Why Logic, At its Root in Contexts, Is Unprogrammable
Infinite regress of two perceptibly different variables lead them to eventually intertwine. Take a dictionary look up two different words, continue observing the progressive definitions and eventually they will intertwine and point to eachother.
 Arising_uk
 Posts: 11921
 Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Why Logic, At its Root in Contexts, Is Unprogrammable
Whoosh goes the irony bird.
Re: Why Logic, At its Root in Contexts, Is Unprogrammable
Better than a chicken flopping around from no head...
 Arising_uk
 Posts: 11921
 Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Why Logic, At its Root in Contexts, Is Unprogrammable
But you are this chicken. Still, no surprise that a Yank is not a selfaware twitcher.Eodnhoj7 wrote: Better than a chicken flopping around from no head...
Re: Why Logic, At its Root in Contexts, Is Unprogrammable
Says the man with the chicken avatar..Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:20 amBut you are this chicken. Still, no surprise that a Yank is not a selfaware twitcher.Eodnhoj7 wrote: Better than a chicken flopping around from no head...
Nationalistic envy...so sad, anyhow Islam will take care of that...unless you are xenophobic, are you xenophobic?
Regardless, to get back on point, logic is unprogrammable at its base roots as computers cannot assume "assumption" as a variable.
All variables, as both assumed and assuming, are subject to expansion into many variables and a contraction into a singular variable with this continuum necessitating you are left with the original variable to begin with...at the most universal and particle phase this is "assumption" itself.
Definition, as subject to expansion and contraction effectively starts at a point zero and ends with it as an underlying repeated medium.
 Arising_uk
 Posts: 11921
 Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Why Logic, At its Root in Contexts, Is Unprogrammable
Well the Rooster, I say, I say, the Rooster is my favourite cartoon charter and I like the irony with Rodin's work, whereas your's appears to have been chose to represent your pomposity.Eodnhoj7 wrote: Says the man with the chicken avatar.. ...
Not so, I like Americans, just hate Yanks.Nationalistic envy... so sad, ...
Only with respect to Yanks but no idea why you think Islam has anything to do with anything, is it the usual Yank need to have an enemy to give them a sense of national identity?anyhow Islam will take care of that...unless you are xenophobic, are you xenophobic?
Not heard of PROLOG then? I'll give you a clue, PROgrammable LOGic.Regardless, to get back on point, logic is unprogrammable at its base roots as computers cannot assume "assumption" as a variable. ...
Compete gobbledygook.All variables, as both assumed and assuming, are subject to expansion into many variables and a contraction into a singular variable with this continuum necessitating you are left with the original variable to begin with...at the most universal and particle phase this is "assumption" itself. ...
Ditto.Definition, as subject to expansion and contraction effectively starts at a point zero and ends with it as an underlying repeated medium.
Re: Why Logic, At its Root in Contexts, Is Unprogrammable
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:39 pmWell the Rooster, I say, I say, the Rooster is my favourite cartoon charter and I like the irony with Rodin's work, whereas your's appears to have been chose to represent your pomposity.Eodnhoj7 wrote: Says the man with the chicken avatar.. ...
So you like cocks, is that what you are saying?
Not so, I like Americans, just hate Yanks.Nationalistic envy... so sad, ...Only with respect to Yanks but no idea why you think Islam has anything to do with anything, is it the usual Yank need to have an enemy to give them a sense of national identity?anyhow Islam will take care of that...unless you are xenophobic, are you xenophobic?
I dont know ask the British colonists, my great grandparents came over on the boat from Eastern Europe.
Not heard of PROLOG then? I'll give you a clue, PROgrammable LOGic.Regardless, to get back on point, logic is unprogrammable at its base roots as computers cannot assume "assumption" as a variable. ...
"At its base roots" considering logic is grounded in the convergence and divergence of assumption, logic is assumptions taking form. A computer cannot axiomize space.
Compete gobbledygook.All variables, as both assumed and assuming, are subject to expansion into many variables and a contraction into a singular variable with this continuum necessitating you are left with the original variable to begin with...at the most universal and particle phase this is "assumption" itself. ...
I will break it down for you then:
X is a variable.
As a variable it is formless.
It can assume "1,2,3,...57,485..." or "cow", "ribonucleic acid" or an infinite number or phenomena...even "infinity" itself.
Thus "x" as formless takes form when one of the above is used to replace it and give it form. All variables as subject to equivocation are formless.
Now all of those phenomena, such as number, can represent a variety of other phenomena. If 1,2 and 3 are base numbers for counting, and an infinite number of things can be counted, these numbers are subject to equivocation thus are variables.
If Cow is a mammal, has fur, reproduces, is composed of molecules, is composed of carbon, etc...as well as being composed of various different types of cows...then cow is a variable as it is subject to equivocation. Even taking anyone of the above variables, such as carbon, carbon eventually progresses to anything from a cow to charcoal to steel to ...etc.
All variables assumes further variables and are assumed by variables. A variable both imprints and is imprinted by other variables leaving us with progressive empty loops. One variable can effectively loop itself through all other variables thus leaving it as subject to equivocation given a continuum.
This is why logic, as grounded in variables, is fundamentally unprogrammable. It is assumptive in nature due to the repeating of variables and the inversion of one variable into another all of which is what a variable is. A variable is both one and many phenomenon.
Variables, as "logic", are strictly a distillation of metaphors that have there roots in the collective unconscious mythos. As such no computer, as of yet, can apply or form metaphors as these metaphors are an archetypal form of reason where each phenomenon has a metaphorical nature.
Metaphors as qualitative equations, such as poetry or a story, and programming's essence of finiteness negated is calculation of infinities.
Ditto.Definition, as subject to expansion and contraction effectively starts at a point zero and ends with it as an underlying repeated medium.
I will break this down further.
All definition is the connection of assumptions.
This connection of assumption is the grounding of identity.
The core nature of identity is circular as evidenced by "P=P".
All identities as circular (the repetition of a phenomenon, "P", in the case of the above) are intrinsically empty on their own terms as they must progress to further identities if they are to be further defined. "=" in "P=P" is empty of any meaning unless progressing to some other identity.
As intrinsically empty loops, all assumptions must progress from one assumption to many assumptions. This is expansion.
These many assumptions, as subject to obscurity induced multiplicity, must in turn be summited under 1 assumption. This is contraction.
"•" is the assumption as instrincially void.
"( )" is the assumption as looping into a form which gives it identity, which is expressed above.
(•) > ((•)(•)(•)) > (•)
The assumption as void is fundamentally point 0, and in looping the the assumption is given form, but thus looping process results in a loop back to its origins where it is effectively nothing.
A simple example would be you start out with one fact. This one fact results in further and further facts until you are left with a mass of facts. This mass of facts effectively becomes a formless field of facts where each fact effectively means nothing as the original fact is so fragmented it is subject to equivocation.
One can look at math and counting for example. The simple number 1, that number which can not only be applied and is the foundation for progressive numbers of mathematics but used to count just about anything, leaves it in both form and function as subject to equivocation where it might as well be 0.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest