Laws ? What's a 'law'?
The structure underneath the language matters more than the words themselves.
An axiom as a point of origin, definition and maintainer of further axioms.
Addressed in laws:TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:26 amLaws ? What's a 'law'?
The structure underneath the language matters more than the words themselves.
And why should I accept such an axiom? It seems like just another invented authority.
You really are re-inventing computation
Strange loops/recursion. Computation
All axioms as laws existing through further axioms as laws are Continuuims, they don't prevent anything.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:29 amAnd why should I accept such an axiom? It seems like just another invented authority.
To me "laws" prevent me from doing things. What is it that your "law" prevents me from doing?
No, the laws you claim are formalized exist through these laws, no formalism in computation can occur as all computation as a system of axioms must progress past computation as an axiom.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:31 amYou really are re-inventing computation
Continumm progressing == time-progression. You are describing inductive reasoning.
What you are observing is how algorithms/computation works (obviously this is true in my framework), but the point I am making is that you are busy formalising what is already formal.
Strange loops/recursion. Computation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALL_(complexity)
ALL decomposes into RE and co-RE. Both of which deal with recursion.
it's not an axiom. It is an activity. What I claim is formalised is the process. The progression through time. Algorithms.
It needs not be defined. Definitions concern themselves with language. One can progress (act? directed movement?) without comprehension of the axioms OR language.
All addressed in laws.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:47 amit's not an axiom. It is an activity. What I claim is formalised is the process. The progression through time. Algorithms.
They are not laws. They are descriptions.
The above statement are axioms defined through further axioms. All activity is an axiom which progresses to further axioms seperate from activity.
A formalized process, must progress to another formalized process.
It needs not be defined. Definitions concern themselves with language. One can progress (act? directed movement?) without comprehension of the axioms OR language.
All language is an axiom which must progress to another axiom which is eparate from language. This axiom separate from language is an axiom and hence defined. Definition occurs through linear progression as seperation and connection, hence all being axioms may be defined under the axiom of language as a language itself but not limited to language.
I am hungry -> i get food. Progression.
And this works in the metaphysical realm too.
What is there?
And what is it like?
1. What is there? The Universe (ALL - complexity class)
2. What is it like? By DOING scientific reduction we break down ALL (The Universe) into its axioms: quarks, atoms and leptons.
All C ontinuums as axioms eventually cycle back to there origins and are maintained as non progressive constants where they exist for what they are as connected to all axioms which cycle as a point of origin.
All activity simply is. Change.
Yes, but the process need not be formalized to progress. The formalism is for the benefit of the humans. So that we can study it/understand it/communicate it.
I think the term "axiom" is only valid in linguistics/logic.
All definitions are linguistic.
You are describing the progression - which needs not be described. Just observe it
Laws are prescriptive. What you are busy DOING is describing 'laws'.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:04 amAll activity simply is. Change.
To speak of any axioms is to speak of language. To use language in this way is to describe activity.
All change as a continuum is no change it is infinite, hence change is void as an axiom.
These laws progress past language as language is an axiom, while connected to them as an axiom.
In laws already.
Yes, but the process need not be formalized to progress. The formalism is for the benefit of the humans. So that we can study it/understand it.
Nobody ever formalised "hunger" before you progressed to "eating".
All progression as not formalized is a a void axiom on its own terms. All formalities as axioms must progress past formality as an axiom.
Understanding as an axiom is void on its own terms.
Addressed in above laws.
I think the term "axiom" is only valid in linguistics/logic.
The "axiom" as an axiom is void and must progress resulting in an axiom.
Addressed in laws.
All definitions are linguistic.
You are describing the progression - which needs not be described. Just observe it
description as an axiom is connected to observation as an axiom.
Addressed in Laws.
Laws are prescriptive. You are busy describing.
"Laws are prescriptive" as an axiom progresses past this axiom to further axioms. Description cancels itself out into a point of origin.
Addressed in above laws.
Good. Depart the land of metaphysics. There is nothing more for you there.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:13 amTimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:04 amAll activity simply is. Change.
To speak of any axioms is to speak of language. To use language in this way is to describe activity.
All change as a continuum is no change it is infinite, hence change is void as an axiom.
These laws progress past language as language is an axiom, while connected to them as an axiom.
In laws already.
Yes, but the process need not be formalized to progress. The formalism is for the benefit of the humans. So that we can study it/understand it.
Nobody ever formalised "hunger" before you progressed to "eating".
All progression as not formalized is a a void axiom on its own terms. All formalities as axioms must progress past formality as an axiom.
Understanding as an axiom is void on its own terms.
Addressed in above laws.
I think the term "axiom" is only valid in linguistics/logic.
The "axiom" as an axiom is void and must progress resulting in an axiom.
Addressed in laws.
All definitions are linguistic.
You are describing the progression - which needs not be described. Just observe it
description as an axiom is connected to observation as an axiom.
Addressed in Laws.
Laws are prescriptive. You are busy describing.
"Laws are prescriptive" as an axiom progresses past this axiom to further axioms. Description cancels itself out into a point of origin.
Addressed in above laws.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:04 amAll activity simply is. Change.
To speak of any axioms is to speak of language. To use language in this way is to describe activity.
Yes, but the process need not be formalized to progress. The formalism is for the benefit of the humans. So that we can study it/understand it/communicate it.
Nobody ever formalised "hunger" before we progressed to "eating".
I think the term "axiom" is only valid in linguistics/logic.
All definitions are linguistic.
You are describing the progression - which needs not be described. Just observe it
Laws are prescriptive. What you are busy DOING is describing 'laws'.
You are inventing an authority for yourself. Which is perfectly fine - if it works
Authority is void on its own terms as an axiom.
Law 1.
Just don't forget to change your 'laws' if you ever falsify/contradict them... else you risk dogma.
These laws must progress to further laws, through which these laws exist through. This is law.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:14 amGood. Depart the land of metaphysics. There is nothing more for you there.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:13 amTimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:04 am
All activity simply is. Change.
To speak of any axioms is to speak of language. To use language in this way is to describe activity.
All change as a continuum is no change it is infinite, hence change is void as an axiom.
These laws progress past language as language is an axiom, while connected to them as an axiom.
In laws already.
Yes, but the process need not be formalized to progress. The formalism is for the benefit of the humans. So that we can study it/understand it.
Nobody ever formalised "hunger" before you progressed to "eating".
All progression as not formalized is a a void axiom on its own terms. All formalities as axioms must progress past formality as an axiom.
Understanding as an axiom is void on its own terms.
Addressed in above laws.
I think the term "axiom" is only valid in linguistics/logic.
The "axiom" as an axiom is void and must progress resulting in an axiom.
Addressed in laws.
All definitions are linguistic.
You are describing the progression - which needs not be described. Just observe it
description as an axiom is connected to observation as an axiom.
Addressed in Laws.
Laws are prescriptive. You are busy describing.
"Laws are prescriptive" as an axiom progresses past this axiom to further axioms. Description cancels itself out into a point of origin.
Addressed in above laws.
Metaphysics as an axiom is connected to all other axioms, all axioms are an extension of metaphysics.
Metaphysics as an axiom must progress.
Just don't forget to change your 'laws' if you ever falsify/contradict them... else you risk dogma.
Not necessarily. You can abandon a 'law' (having found it contradictory) while searching for a new one.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests