Double Negation --> P=P --> Double Positives

[Arising_uk]

I'm not sure of your point here, as for sure if pears don't exist then its false that pears exist and the proposition "Pears exist" will be false?

This is a proposition about pears:
P1: Pears exist
P1 is false.

This is a proposition about another proposition (P1):
P2: P1 is false
P2 is true.

...

P2 is not the same proposition as 'Pears don't exist'.

Keeping the language/meta language distinction in the back of your head ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalanguage )

P1 is stated in the object language.
P2 is stated in the metalanguage.

It's a primitive form of Encapsulation

Sorry but again I'm slow on the uptake as whilst I think I get the idea of a 'meta-language', i.e. that a formal language is applied to its own objects(I think) I'd also like to know what the difference is between a 'metalanguage' and a 'sematic' for that language? But anyhoo I'm still a bit puzzled here as we are saying P1 is false, i.e. 'pears don't exist' and P2 appears to just be agreeing with that claim and given that they don't exist I'm not surprised it is true?

[Eodnhoj7]

P =/= P
root-P = (+) or (-) P
P = (+/-)P
P = *P
_____
*denotes relative variability (+) or (-) allowing for (e)motion)

*P x *P... = (?)P

Let P = (+/-)1
and expand:

i. 1 x 1 = 1
ii. 1 x -1 = -1
iii. -1 x 1 = -1
iv. -1 x -1 = 1
_________
(1 x 1) = (-1 x -1)

four quadrants:
i. only positive = positive
ii. negative subject = negative relative result
iii. (inversion of ii) = (same as ii)
iv. only negative = (same as i)

implications:
a. only accumulative subjects implies only accumulative results
b. a negative subject (either) implies only negative results
c. only negative subjects implies only accumulative results
follows
d. 'only accumulative' results come either by way of 'only positive' subjects or 'only negative' subjects.

(1 x 1) = (-1 x -1)

__________
viz. a pair of equivalent antithetical dichotomous dipole(s): letter a/aleph/alpha
viz. a theoretically simultaneous-inside-outside view of a single toroid
viz. first fundamental distinction (universal): in(side)/out(side) and second letter b/beis/beta
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wQ5QydF29oU/maxresdefault.jpg

GENESIS 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

If ignorance is accumulated (ie. as food is eaten/digested), and a and c are both accumulative, whereas b negates, then b is the only 'solution' that allows negation of any/all belief-based ignorance, which demands trial:

ii. 1 x -1 = -1
iii. -1 x 1 = -1

All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying all belief, but
not all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all.

0 I am (willing to...)
-1 KNOW
(+) any/all (creation)
(-) not to (destruction)
+1 BELIEVE
____________________________
-0 KNOW, any/all not to BELIEVE = KNOWLEDGE (Conscious)
+0 BELIEVE, not to any/all KNOW = IGNORANCE (of)

resolves back into P requiring more than just P:
P = *P
wherein P can be viewed from/as one of two directions
(inside-out and/or outside-in)
thus two views of the same subject. Therefor, if P is known,
it can be used to infer/know anything that is not P
by removing what is known of P from the concerned equation.

Positives lead to negatives read the op.

A short example is "the bluest blue" necessitates a gradation of blue, hence non blues.

The fullest knowledge, results in lesser grades of knowledge, hence belief.

[nothing]

Positives lead to negatives read the op.

Not necessarily.

Perhaps in the 'context' of mathematical operators obeying 'mathematical' law.

A short example is "the bluest blue" necessitates a gradation of blue, hence non blues.

"The bluest blue" requires a definite whence gradation(s), hence all else definitely (/ not) a gradation therefrom.

The fullest knowledge, results in lesser grades of knowledge, hence belief.

And not necessarily.

The "fullest knowledge" is fully absent belief and results in grades of belief-based ignorance(s), hence belief being required for belief-based ignorance(s) for lacking knowledge in the first place (!).

Lesser grades of knowledge are lesser knowledge(s) as they apply to the uncertainty of belief(s).
As one knows more of any/all degrees of uncertainty of a particular belief(s), they become more knowledgeable.
As one tends towards belief-based ignorance, one tends towards less knowledge of uncertainty of belief, hence suffering.

[Eodnhoj7]

Positives lead to negatives read the op.

Not necessarily.

Perhaps in the 'context' of mathematical operators obeying 'mathematical' law.

And you don't quantify in your theorem?

A short example is "the bluest blue" necessitates a gradation of blue, hence non blues.

"The bluest blue" requires a definite whence gradation(s), hence all else definitely (/ not) a gradation therefrom.

Speak English. The bluest blue necessitates various grades of blue, hence various non-blues.

The fullest knowledge, results in lesser grades of knowledge, hence belief.

And not necessarily.

Yes necessarily.


The "fullest knowledge" is fully absent belief and results in grades of belief-based ignorance(s), hence belief being required for belief-based ignorance(s) for lacking knowledge in the first place (!).



Lesser grades of knowledge are lesser knowledge(s) as they apply to the uncertainty of belief(s).
As one knows more of any/all degrees of uncertainty of a particular belief(s), they become more knowledgeable.
As one tends towards belief-based ignorance, one tends towards less knowledge of uncertainty of belief, hence suffering.

As knowledge increases in grades so does belief. Infinite grades of knowledge results in infinite beliefs.

[nothing]

And you don't quantify in your theorem?

No, actually. That is what is so beautiful about it.

Speak English. The bluest blue necessitates various grades of blue, hence various non-blues.

Why demand what is already being done? The bluest blue necessitates various grades of blue if gradients exist, but not necessarily non-blues.

Yes necessarily.

(!)

As knowledge increases in grades so does belief. Infinite grades of knowledge results in infinite beliefs.

A volume of knowledge is measured by the absence of belief-based ignorance.
All-knowing is absent belief, thus any gradation derived therefrom involves belief-based ignorance(s).

If we say the bluest blue is knowledge, in order for there to be any else but bluest blue, there must be a gradation therefrom. This would be belief-based ignorance(s).

[Eodnhoj7]

And you don't quantify in your theorem?

No, actually. That is what is so beautiful about it.

Good then you can count out the variables then.

Speak English. The bluest blue necessitates various grades of blue, hence various non-blues.

Why demand what is already being done? The bluest blue necessitates various grades of blue if gradients exist, but not necessarily non-blues.

Yes necessarily.

(!)

Did I stutter?

As knowledge increases in grades so does belief. Infinite grades of knowledge results in infinite beliefs.

A volume of knowledge is measured by the absence of belief-based ignorance.
All-knowing is absent belief, thus any gradation derived therefrom involves belief-based ignorance(s).

Thus ignorance and knowledge are simultaneous and inseperable from a higher context.

If we say the bluest blue is knowledge, in order for there to be any else but bluest blue, there must be a gradation therefrom. This would be belief-based ignorance(s).

And this gradation occurs with knowledge. Knowledge is over rated.

[nothing]

Good then you can count out the variables then.

Nope: they need to be there to allow for any/all and *not to* (ie. creation/destruction) as "stuff" happens in-between.

Did I stutter?

Not to my knowledge, but confidence without clarity is similarly debilitating.

Thus ignorance and knowledge are simultaneous and inseperable from a higher context.

Not that they are inseparable (!) from a higher context: fully distinguishable in any higher context. Their conflation exists locally in the being *P who can either tend towards +P or -P, the latter being the higher context that allows knowledge of any/all +P thus to neutralize.

And this gradation occurs with knowledge. Knowledge is over rated.

The gradation occurs with belief-based ignorance, not knowledge. You have it the wrong-way-around.
All-knowing could be a 'default' state of creation whence any/all beings, for whatever reason(s), are less this state: the same as +P attaining to (or not attaining to) -P.

Belief is thus over-rated: it takes a believer to believe themselves to be something they are not, thus unconsciously practically defining their own looping tautology rooted in nothing but the illusion of themselves. This is the 'default state' of ignorant people who merely believe they are to-be instead of knowing they are (not) to-be.

[Eodnhoj7]

Good then you can count out the variables then.

Nope: they need to be there to allow for any/all and *not to* (ie. creation/destruction) as "stuff" happens in-between.

Then you are stuck quantifying reality then.

Did I stutter?

Not to my knowledge, but confidence without clarity is similarly debilitating.

Clarity without confidence has the same effect as well. You cannot seperate one from the other.

Thus ignorance and knowledge are simultaneous and inseperable from a higher context.

Not that they are inseparable (!) from a higher context: fully distinguishable in any higher context. Their conflation exists locally in the being *P who can either tend towards +P or -P, the latter being the higher context that allows knowledge of any/all +P thus to neutralize.

P as tending towards a positive or negative necessitates P as both positive and negative.

And this gradation occurs with knowledge. Knowledge is over rated.

The gradation occurs with belief-based ignorance, not knowledge. You have it the wrong-way-around.
All-knowing could be a 'default' state of creation whence any/all beings, for whatever reason(s), are less this state: the same as +P attaining to (or not attaining to) -P.

If no gradation in knowledge occurs, it does not fragment, then you "know it all" then?

Belief is thus over-rated: it takes a believer to believe themselves to be something they are not, thus unconsciously practically defining their own looping tautology rooted in nothing but the illusion of themselves. This is the 'default state' of ignorant people who merely believe they are to-be instead of knowing they are (not) to-be.

And do you believe people understand your position?

[nothing]

Then you are stuck quantifying reality then.

That is what the reality is: putting a value on human life, for example.
It is called religion. It relies on belief-based ignorance(s).

Clarity without confidence has the same effect as well. You cannot seperate one from the other.

Clarity requires absence of, thus inverse effect.
In rage = confidence without clarity
Our of rage = clarity without "confidence"
confidence is not a virtue: knowing its weakness(es) is.

P as tending towards a positive or negative necessitates P as both positive and negative.

It's the default 'state' -P: +P is any local anomaly relative to an otherwise "balanced" 'state' -P.
Conscious Knowledge of Ignorance (Inference) Theorem (CKIIT) does not assume that 'neutral' is "between" (+) and (-).
CKIIT allows -P to be 'neutral' whereas +P is any/all polarization. Abel and Cain.
Each is their own anomaly according to how much they "polarize" and how much they know (not to believe) one is not as one seems.

P =/= P
P = *P

If no gradation in knowledge occurs, it does not fragment, then you "know it all" then?

If one knows "all" there is to know: of themselves, there is nothing/no-being that can not be "known": in relation to.

For example +P has a definite relationship with -P.
Definite as a property is is.
Is not collapses "definitude(s)".

2 I believe...
-1 I believe not...
I
+1 I know...
-2 I know not...

+P = body of ignorance(s)
+2 I believe...(any/all belief-based ignorance)
+1 I know...(any/all)
-P = all-knowing
-1 I believe not (in knowing...)
-2 I know not (to believe...)

And do you believe people understand your position?

No - concerned people understanding my position is not a thing I (even care to) speculate about: either I know they do viz. degrees to which, or do not. I treat time/interaction as I would any currency: I 'have' time, and thus choose what occupies 'my time'. However I acknowledge there is others' time as well: others have 'their' own 'time' and whence any/all converge is always 'now'. The interaction thus merits itself by way of time: if they have the time to try to understand it, I have the time to try to understand their understanding of it. It's give-and-take.

[Eodnhoj7]

Then you are stuck quantifying reality then.

That is what the reality is: putting a value on human life, for example.
It is called religion. It relies on belief-based ignorance(s).

So math is a religion if it acts as value placement?

Clarity without confidence has the same effect as well. You cannot seperate one from the other.

Clarity requires absence of, thus inverse effect.
In rage = confidence without clarity
Our of rage = clarity without "confidence"
confidence is not a virtue: knowing its weakness(es) is.
There is no virtue that stands alone which can be properly spoken of.

P as tending towards a positive or negative necessitates P as both positive and negative.

It's the default 'state' -P: +P is any local anomaly relative to an otherwise "balanced" 'state' -P.
Conscious Knowledge of Ignorance (Inference) Theorem (CKIIT) does not assume that 'neutral' is "between" (+) and (-).
Void is between positive and negative, as it is the point of inversion between on and the other. The standard number line is the easiest example of this.


CKIIT allows -P to be 'neutral' whereas +P is any/all polarization. Abel and Cain.
Each is their own anomaly according to how much they "polarize" and how much they know (not to believe) one is not as one seems.

P =/= P
P = *P

If no gradation in knowledge occurs, it does not fragment, then you "know it all" then?

If one knows "all" there is to know: of themselves, there is nothing/no-being that can not be "known": in relation to.

The self is empty of its own nature, it is merely a form or vessel.

For example +P has a definite relationship with -P.
Definite as a property is is.
Is not collapses "definitude(s)".

2 I believe...
-1 I believe not...
I
+1 I know...
-2 I know not...

+P = body of ignorance(s)
+2 I believe...(any/all belief-based ignorance)
+1 I know...(any/all)
-P = all-knowing
-1 I believe not (in knowing...)
-2 I know not (to believe...)

And do you believe people understand your position?

No - concerned people understanding my position is not a thing I (even care to) speculate about: either I know they do viz. degrees to which, or do not.

Or they sort of know.

I treat time/interaction as I would any currency: I 'have' time, and thus choose what occupies 'my time'. However I acknowledge there is others' time as well: others have 'their' own 'time' and whence any/all converge is always 'now'. The interaction thus merits itself by way of time: if they have the time to try to understand it, I have the time to try to understand their understanding of it. It's give-and-take.

[nothing]

So math is a religion if it acts as value placement?

It certainly can be: General Relativity is considered by me to be something "religious".

Protons/electrons are "ends" of any electrostatic line(s) of force: they have no physical existence / mass: their apparent mass is a function of their velocity in/of the lines of force.

Void is between positive and negative, as it is the point of inversion between on and the other. The standard number line is the easiest example of this.

This is an assumption: it is not necessarily.

The self is empty of its own nature, it is merely a form or vessel.

If so, belief in/as any otherwise is ignorant.

Or they sort of know.

"degrees to which" = "sort of know"

[Eodnhoj7]

So math is a religion if it acts as value placement?

It certainly can be: General Relativity is considered by me to be something "religious".

Protons/electrons are "ends" of any electrostatic line(s) of force: they have no physical existence / mass: their apparent mass is a function of their velocity in/of the lines of force.

So as having value placement your stance can be considered a religion as well.

Void is between positive and negative, as it is the point of inversion between on and the other. The standard number line is the easiest example of this.

This is an assumption: it is not necessarily.

Actually it is necessary.

The self is empty of its own nature, it is merely a form or vessel.

If so, belief in/as any otherwise is ignorant.

Knowledge is empty in and of itself. It is a point of view.

Or they sort of know.

"degrees to which" = "sort of know"

So they can both know and not know.

[nothing]

So as having value placement your stance can be considered a religion as well.

There is no fixed 'value' placement anywhere in CKIIT.

Actually it is necessary.

To each their own.

Knowledge is empty in and of itself. It is a point of view.

It is your point of view.

So they can both know and not know.

Glass half full half empty.

If/when more than one angle (requires: known of) whence to observe,
assuming multiple angles clarifies definition.

[Eodnhoj7]

So as having value placement your stance can be considered a religion as well.

There is no fixed 'value' placement anywhere in CKIIT.

P is a fixed variable.

Actually it is necessary.

To each their own.

No.

Knowledge is empty in and of itself. It is a point of view.

It is your point of view.

That is also your point of view, thus viewpoint is absolute.

So they can both know and not know.

Glass half full half empty.

False, just a glass with water in it.

If/when more than one angle (requires: known of) whence to observe,
assuming multiple angles clarifies definition.

Point paradox.

[nothing]

P is a fixed variable.

There is no "P" in CKIIT.
CKIIT develops P =/= P.
P = *P

That is also your point of view, thus viewpoint is absolute....

...ly pointless.

False, just a glass with water in it.

If it is half-empty half-full, it has a property(s) otherwise absent as with any arbitrary amount of water.

Point paradox.

That there is no real "point" makes the paradox.