Page 5 of 5

### Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:31 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:54 am It is complete due to law 3, however computation is not limited to completeness as computation as an axiom must progress to further axioms in order to be defined. Computation is an extension of these laws but these laws are not limited to computation.

You can't do that
It is the axioms which produce the structure of the system itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_seed

You can't define a set of axioms, then another set of axioms which justifies problems which may arise from the first set of axioms.
Whatever structure emerges from your axioms will emerge. This emergent structure is subject to further analysis.

Completeness is a structural, not axiomatic property of a logical system.

The only thing that can be said about a system, any system, is that it is e.g the universe exists.
In your language it's a dot. In my language it's a system.

This is simply recognition. A holistic pre-supposition. There is no progression.

It is saying: 1

Any further claims about the universe (progression) requires drawing distinctions. e.g one dot becomes 2.

### Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:27 pm
TimeSeeker wrote: Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:31 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:54 am It is complete due to law 3, however computation is not limited to completeness as computation as an axiom must progress to further axioms in order to be defined. Computation is an extension of these laws but these laws are not limited to computation.

You can't do that
It is the axioms which produce the structure of the system itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_seed

Yes axioms repeat to further axioms, which stem from this law while circulating through eachother as a self contained system.

The laws are self referencing while open to expansion through further laws as extensions of these laws.

You can't define a set of axioms, then another set of axioms which justifies problems which may arise from the first set of axioms.

All axioms are points of origin conducive to all further axioms, this in itself is no problem until a contradiction occurs where one axiom progresses to another causing an absence of structure. The contradictory axioms exist through eachother under a progressive continuum, until it progresses past contradiction as an axiom and cycles back to the original axioms as a complete framework.

Whatever structure emerges from your axioms will emerge. This emergent structure is subject to further analysis.

The laws are a self maintained structure in themselves, but may progress to further structures. However considering this is all existing as an axiom and this axiom is void on its own due to law 1, no emerging structure is necessary.

Completeness is a structural, not axiomatic property of a logical system.

The only thing that can be said about a system, any system, is that it is e.g the universe exists.
In your language it's a dot. In my language it's a system.

And the dot is void canceling itself out into a 1d dot of "I am all, all I am" with this statement progressing in various orders while progressed to further definitions where the above quoted is not limited to a dot as the premise. This progression results in your system, but is not limited to it.

This is simply recognition. A holistic pre-supposition. There is no progression.

It is saying: 1

A progression of a dot, containing everything in it, does not limit the dot to holism but exists through atomism as well. Holism can progress.

Any further claims about the universe (progression) requires drawing distinctions. e.g one dot becomes 2.

This distinction, as explaining everything, is a whole as the progress from one point to another as distinctive is actually circular, as the progression away from an origin is the progression towards an origin; hence self maintained as 1.

### Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:02 pm
I am using the Pythagorean Monad, Hindu Bindhu, Lieniz's Monads, Plotinus's Monad/One, as well as the atomist schools as the foundation and synthesizing them in accords with the Hegelian Dialectic while observing base axioms in Euclidian and Non-Euclidian Geometry...and a variety of other sources.

They all exist as extensions of eachother, according to both there reasoning, and the laws themselves.

### Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:51 pm
An axiom is any observation that is self-evident truth to the observer.

1. The axiom may be an empirical phenomenon such as a spoon, a duck, or human individual.

2. The axiom may be an abstract phenomenon such as an equation, poem or platonic type form.

3. The axiom may be both and abstract phenomenon, or neither where self-evidence exists as a state of awareness.