Rejection of Aristotelian Identity Law: A = A

[nothing]

A = A (?)

Take breathing.
Is breathing essential to life? +Yes/-no.
How can A take the identity of any breathing body?
It must be implicitly granted
the intrinsic capacity to breathe (!):

"...the root of any breathing body is in the capacity (or not)
of the same to breathe: thus, the sustained reciprocation
of the breathing motion(s):
to breath in, to breath out,
is intrinsic to the nature of the body..."

Let √1 be the root of any breathing body
whose breathing in/out (+/-) is captured *variably by √1:

√1 = +1, -1
√A = +A, -A

+A (in)
-A (out)

Let A be any breathing body
whose vital √root is
the capacity to breathe:

√A = +A, -A
A = +A, -A
∴ A ≠ A (!)*catastrophic

In what universe, less a motionless one,
could Aristotle's A = A possibly be describing, less A = A
be describing his own presently motionlessness (ie. 'dead') state?
The logic of Aristotle, along with his own person, are equally dead.

Let v be any motioning body.
Let s be space.
Let t be time.

v = s/t

Let *A be any universal breathing body.

*A = s/t

Let 1/1 be unity over itself (light, less boundary) as c.

*A = s/t
*A → c = s/+1, +1/t
*A → -c = s/-1, -1/t

Let s/+1 be (+) particular (dis)placement(s) under unity concerning unity c as 'all'.
Let s/-1 be (-) particular placement(s) over unity concerning c as 'not'.
Let +1/t be (+) particular (dis)placement(s) over unity concerning c as 'to cause'.
Let -1/t be (-) particular placement(s) under unity concerning unity c as 'to cease'.

√*A = (s/+1, s/-1), (+1/t, -1/t)
*A = √(+all, -not), √(+to cause, -to cease)
√*A = (+alpha, -omega), (+beginning, -end)

viz. grants *A intrinsic capacity to choose.

v = s/t
*A = s/t
*A → c = s/+1, +1/t
*A → -c = s/-1, -1/t
√*A = (s/+1, s/-1), (+1/t, -1/t)
*A = √(+all, -not), √(+to cause, -to cease)
√*A = (+alpha, -omega), (+beginning, -end)

____________________________________
____________________________________

[Skepdick]

There's a much easier way to do what you are doing. Redefine the meaning of the "equals" sign.

Nobody really knows what it means to compare a thing to itself, so here is a high-order logic which allows for A=A => False

https://repl.it/repls/FrostyDependentCopycat

Code: Select all

class Human():
  # Redefining the meaning of "equality"
  def __eq__(self, other):
    return False

A = Human()

print (A == A)

[Skepdick]

Or... if you are into HHGTTG https://repl.it/repls/AngelicSelfassuredInstitutes

[nothing]

There's a much easier way to do what you are doing. Redefine the meaning of the "equals" sign.

Nobody really knows what it means to compare a thing to itself, so here is a high-order logic which allows for A=A => False

https://repl.it/repls/FrostyDependentCopycat

Code: Select all

class Human():
  # Redefining the meaning of "equality"
  def __eq__(self, other):
    return False

A = Human()

print (A == A)

There's a much easier way to do what you are doing. Redefine the meaning of the "equals" sign.

Do you know what I am doing?

Who am I to redefine "...is equivalent to..." to anything else: "equivalence"?
There is nothing wrong with it, insofar as I can see. The problem begins
with the identity of A. It can not be A, as:

Nobody really knows what it means to compare a thing to itself, so here is a high-order logic which allows for A=A => False

...is a problem. Nobody really knows what it means to compare a thing to itself? Really?

One can not compare a breathing bodies' own breathing +in, to breathing -out? Thus, +alive, or -dead?
How can we know from simply 'A' if it is a +breathing body, or a -dead body?

Propositional? Trying the inverse of proposition, searching for inverted properties?
+A: Religion i is a religion of 'peace'.
-A: Religion i is a religion of 'perpetual conflict'.
__________________________________________
which is more and/or less true?

The problem is concerning the identity of A for having no intrinsic capacity to reciprocate itself: +A and -A, hence the OP.
Because this property of reciprocation is both natural, and of essential nature, A must be given the same, thus √A
is this intrinsic capacity to reciprocate between breathing in and out as +A and -A.

This property of intrinsic reciprocity is actually a universal phenomenon (ie. applies to space and time) but not essential to the OP.

[Skepdick]

Do you know what I am doing?

Yes, I do. You are rejecting the law of identity. it says so in the subject line.

Who am I to redefine "...is equivalent to..." to anything else: "equivalence"?

You are the person USING language. You are the person who decides what the symbols you are using mean.

You are the person who decides what "sameness" and "equality" means.

There is nothing wrong with it, insofar as I can see.

There is nothing right with it either. It's just notation - it lacks a semantic.

In so far as I can tell Skepdick = Skepdick ( I am the same as myself) is a meaningless sentence.

...is a problem. Nobody really knows what it means to compare a thing to itself? Really?

One can not compare a breathing bodies' own breathing +in, to breathing -out?

You can compare breathing in to breathing out. You can't compare breathing in to breathing in.

Thus, +alive, or -dead?

You can compare dead to alive. You can't compare alive to alive. Or dead to dead.

How can we know from simply 'A' if it is a +breathing body, or a -dead body?

In English? You can't. That information isn't encoded in the word "body".

In Logic? You can. That information can be encoded in the object A/B.

https://repl.it/repls/DodgerbluePortlyOmnipage

Code: Select all

class Body():
  def __init__(self, a, b):
    self.a = a
    self.b = b

  def dead(self):
    return self.a
  
  def breathing(self):
    return self.b

A = Body(True, False)
B = Body(False, True)

print (A.dead()) # => True
print (B.breathing()) # False

The problem is concerning the identity of A for having no intrinsic capacity to reciprocate itself: +A and -A, hence the OP.

Again. That's a problem with the English language. Logic (interpreted from the lens of structuralism) doesn't have this issue.

[nothing]

Yes, I do. You are rejecting the law of identity. it says so in the subject line.

Correct, but incomplete: do you know why? You indicated you knew what I was trying to do,
so I wasn't sure if you knew where I was coming from and where I am going with it.

You are the person USING language. You are the person who decides what the symbols you are using mean.

You are the person who decides what "sameness" and "equality" means.

Why should I decide they mean anything? I take the = sign to be universal equivalence
which relies on what the substance(s) of the rationalization(s) are, thus = being intrinsically null.

There is nothing right with it either. It's just notation - it lacks a semantic.

In so far as I can tell Skepdick = Skepdick ( I am the same as myself) is a meaningless sentence.

It lacks universality: the notation becomes more universal as it adapts to the universe.
S is either +alive or -dead, thus S = S is a simple binary query/return argument
that already has a reciprocate implied: yes/no.

The same property of reciprocation needs to be constructed into S such that S can exist: √S = +S, -S
wherein one's own √root is their capacity to breathe. If no breathe, no life, thus +S and -S is mandated.

You can compare breathing in to breathing out.

Thus the need for A to breathe, as A can be a breathing body, else is not a universal (ie. "real") variable.

In English? You can't. That information isn't encoded in the word "body".

In Logic? You can. That information can be encoded in the object A/B.

Why the need for a B? Does Logic not allow variables to have their own conjugate denial as with A and -A?

Again. That's a problem with the English language. Logic (interpreted from the lens of structuralism) doesn't have this issue.

Can it do it without introducing a new variable?

[Skepdick]

Correct, but incomplete: do you know why? You indicated you knew what I was trying to do,
so I wasn't sure if you knew where I was coming from and where I am going with it.

Is the "why?" important, or is the "what?" sufficient?

Why should I decide they mean anything?

Because symbols could be interpreted in many different ways and ambiguity harms communication?

I take the = sign to be universal equivalence
which relies on what the substance of the rationalization(s) are, being intrinsically null.

I have no idea what that means.

If Skepdick = Skepdick, communicate to me (using whatever means you think best) what the implication would be of me being universally equivalent with myself.

It lacks universality: the notation becomes more universal as it adapts to the universe.
S is either +alive or -dead, thus S = S is a simple binary query/return argument
that already has a reciprocate implied: yes/no.

OK, but for every yes/no question you ask you need to take at least one measurement from the universe.

Is it 00:15 GMT right now ? Looks at clock (measurement) - yes!

Is the body dead? *check pulse*, *check breathing*, *shine light in pupils*.... Yes.

The same property of reciprocation needs to be constructed into S such that S can exist: √S = +S, -S

You can't even explain to me what Skepdick = Skepdick means, I don't think you can explain to me what √Skepdick means...

It predicts that all bodies have their respective anti-bodies in a state of potentiality.

There's many ways to say this, and there are many ways this has already been said.

S has an inverse.
Matter and anti-matter.

Why the need for a B?

There is no need for B - I was just giving it as an example.

Does Logic not allow variables to have their own conjugate denial as with A and -A?

Logic allows anything you tell it to allow - humans construct the rules of logic.

You can define the operator "-" much like you can define the operator "=" and "√"

What you write down as "x + y" can be re-written as "+ x y" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_notation

Or it can be re-written as a function: +(x, y)

+(2, 3) = 5

Can it do it without introducing a new variable?

Yes. Self-reference/recursion.

5 and -5 can be seen as "5" and "performing the operation - on 5"

[nothing]

Is the "why?" important, or is the "what?" sufficient?

Yes and variably yes.

Because symbols could mean many things and ambiguity harms communication?

Whence ambiguity if/when assuming no special meaning otherwise implied by the symbol itself?

I have no idea what that means.

If Skepdick = Skepdick, communicate to me (using whatever means you think best) what the implication would be of me being universally equivalent with myself.

You are motioning, thus breathing, thus living and thus exist. Would Skepdick = Skepdick be true if the variable itself did not exist? -Skepdick is an implicit variable.

OK, but for every yes/no question you ask you need to take at least one measurement from the universe.

Is it 00:15 GMT right now ? Looks at clock (measurement) - yes!

Is the body dead? *check pulse*, *check breathing*, *shine light in pupils*.... Yes.

Time is not a universal phenomena - it is a human construct. The first "universal" measurement is whether the body is alive or dead. If yes, then a time is chosen as a measure. If no, then time is irrelevant given the body being alive.

You can't even explain to me what Skepdick = Skepdick means, I don't think you can explain to me what √Skepdick means...

I don't know - it is your own rendering. I don't follow the logic anymore than I follow A = A.

There's many ways to say this, and there are many ways this has already been said.

S has an inverse.
Matter and anti-matter.

Aristotle did not say it with A = A, hence the OP.

Logic allows anything you tell it to allow - humans construct the rules of logic.

Humans ought to construct the rules of logic based on the rules of the universe. A = A was/is ignorant of.
You can not re-define the relationships operators have with one another:

Let c be the speed of light.
Let n/1 concern c wherein:
{!under unity = n /1\ n = over unity!}
n^1 additive-negative
n^2 multiplicative-divisive
n^3 exponential-antagonistic
etc.

Whereas the symbols of the operators themselves are just that, symbols, their relation to one another reflect universal phenomena. Thus, logic should be rooted in the same, and just as a breathing body is rooted with two roots: to breathe (or not), to live (or not), to learn (or not) etc. the being must employ the same level of logic afforded to them by the universe: to be, or not to be. These are the universal operators of alpha and omega, hence the derivation in the OP.

What you write down as "x + y" can be re-written as "+ x y" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_notation

Or it can be re-written as a function: +(x, y)

+(2, 3) = 5

I understand notation is arbitrary and only valid insofar as it's own root(s). Hence the need for better logic than A = A.

Yes. Self-reference/recursion.

5 and -5 can be seen as "5" and "performing the operation - on 5"

So 5 performs the operation of - on itself?

[Skepdick]

Whence ambiguity if/when assuming no special meaning otherwise implied by the symbol itself?

The symbol doesn't imply anything - it has no meaning on its own.

It has a number of possible uses: https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/equality

You are motioning, thus breathing, thus living and thus exist.

My existence would be implied simply by the sentence "Skepdick is". Or "I am". Skepdick=Skepdick says nothing interesting about me.

Would Skepdick = Skepdick be true if the variable itself did not exist?

If you reject the law of identity then it can be false also. But just as well Skepdick != Skepdick could be true.

And that's still meaningless.

Time is not a universal phenomena - it is a human construct.

The only "universal phenomenon" is the universe itself. All logical descriptions of the universe are human constructions.

The first "universal" measurement is whether the body is alive or dead.

You are going to have to define the meaning of "alive" and "dead". Somebody whose body is alive, could still be brain dead.
There are many ways to draw the distinction...

If yes, then a time is chosen as a measure. If no, then time is irrelevant given the body being alive.

What is "it" that you are measuring with time?

I don't know - it is your own rendering. I don't follow the logic anymore than I follow A = A.

OK, but by your rejection of A = A, I assume you mean A = A is false.
Which could just as well be re-written in the notation A != A is true.

Let A stand for Skepeick. Then A != A is the same thing as Skepdick != Skepdick.

What does Skepdick != Skepdick mean?

Aristotle did not say it with A = A, hence the OP.

He could've said it with B = B; or Skepdick = Skepdick.

It still brings us no closer to what that means.

Humans ought to construct the rules of logic based on the rules of the universe.

Well, you are assuming that the universe has rules which can be logically expressed. What if it doesn't?

And if it does, then you still need to cut up the universe into parts. Because Universe = Universe isn't very useful either.

A = A was/is ignorant of.
You can not re-define the relationships operators have with one another:

Let c be the speed of light.
Let n/1 concern c wherein:
{!under unity = n /1\ n = over unity!}
n^1 additive-negative
n^2 multiplicative-divisive
n^3 exponential-antagonistic
etc.

OK. That's a lot of assignments. And then...?

Whereas the symbols of the operators themselves are just that, symbols, their relation to one another reflect universal phenomena.

Assuming that there's only one relationship between two phenomena...

There are very many "operations" I can perform on car.

Thus, logic should be rooted in the same, and just as a breathing body is rooted with two roots: to breathe (or not), to live (or not), to learn (or not) etc. the being must employ the same level of logic afforded to them by the universe: to be, or not to be. These are the universal operators of alpha and omega, hence the derivation in the OP.

Logic is language - it has limits. The limits of logic may prevent you from doing whatever it is that you are trying to do with logic.

Do you know what it is that you are trying to do with logic/language?

I understand notation is arbitrary and only valid insofar as it's own root(s). Hence the need for better logic than A = A.

There are very many alternatives... temporal logic. Linear logic. But you are going to end up in the same place every time - structuralism. You are defining relationships between things.

That's not always sufficient, because each relationship may represent a million different interactions. You have a relationship to your mother - I can represent that relationship with an arrow. That doesn't come even close to describing the complexity of the interaction between you.

So 5 performs the operation of - on itself?

Yes. Much in the same way that you can change you own underpants, a computer program can change itself.
Computer programs are logical/mathematical things, so perhaps "5" itself can't do anything, but a more sophisticated logical object certainly can.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflectio ... ogramming)

[nothing]

My existence would be implied simply by the sentence "Skepdick is". Or "I am". Skepdick=Skepdick says nothing interesting about me.

That you exist is interesting enough, just as your ceasing to exist would be.
That "I am" is found in/of "I am that I am" is also interesting.

The only "universal phenomenon" is the universe itself. All logical descriptions of the universe are human constructions.

The "universe itself" is a universe of motion.
Thus, whatever is intrinsic to motion, is intrinsic to the universe.
Motionlessness is the antithesis of motion, hence undefined in a universe of motion.

You are going to have to define the meaning of "alive" and "dead". Somebody whose body is alive, could still be brain dead.
There are many ways to draw the distinction...

Capacity (or not) to breathe.

What is "it" that you are measuring with time?

Any motioning body indiscriminate, including breathing bodies.
Dead bodies do not have the capacity to motion beyond natural decay.

OK, but by your rejection of A = A, I assume you mean A = A is false.
Which could just as well be re-written in the notation A != A is true.

Not false, just not necessarily true. A can be A, and invariably is (to a certain degree(s)), but none universal.
Allowing A to intrinsically reciprocate between +A and -A designates A as a dynamic, motioning body, consistent with
a universe of motion.

Let A stand for Skepeick. Then A != A is the same thing as Skepdick != Skepdick.

What does Skepdick != Skepdick mean?

I don't know - 'Skepdick' is undefined under the parameters "Let A stand for Skepeick" as subsequent use is 'Skepdick'.
If typo, A ! = A is equivalent to A = A, thus redundant (!)

He could've said it with B = B; or Skepdick = Skepdick.

It still brings us no closer to what that means.

I am not confused as to the meaning.

Well, you are assuming that the universe has rules which can be logically expressed. What if it doesn't?

What if it does?

And if it does, then you still need to cut up the universe into parts. Because Universe = Universe isn't very useful either.

No I don't: the universe is simply motion. Space and time are multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion, thus all is subject to the same multiplicative reciprocal nature as being intrinsic to/in/of nature.

OK. That's a lot of assignments. And then...?

...and then you have a universe of motion
whose (not-a-lot-of) parameters being time and space
are but aspects of motion: as with yang and yin,
thus invariant harmonized, thus all bodies within
are calculable displacement(s) therefrom.

Logic is language - it has limits. The limits of logic may prevent you from doing whatever it is that you are trying to do with logic.

Do you know what it is that you are trying to do with logic/language?

Yes - I am working on deriving a universal logic which satisfies the observable universe as: motion. Therefor, the logic that derives must grant itself as in motion, else it is not universal logic. By granting A an intrinsic reciprocity (A-∞+A) such that it can reciprocate, it satisfies the needed first distinction of in/out needed to capture the reciprocate universal motion(s) of centrifugal (ie. "out from A") and centripetal (ie. "in to A"). Therefor I have derived a "torulogical" framework which gives A its own local roots and operators:


*A as any motioning body
(-A↔+A) as operators
(√-A↔√+A) as roots

There are very many alternatives... temporal logic. Linear logic. But you are going to end up in the same place every time - structuralism. You are defining relationships between things.

That's not always sufficient, because each relationship may represent a million different interactions. You have a relationship to your mother - I can represent that relationship with an arrow. That doesn't come even close to describing the complexity of the interaction between you.

I only want universal logic. I know the universe is in motion, thus any identity must have a capacity for the same: motion.

Yes. Much in the same way that you can change you own underpants, a computer program can change itself.
Computer programs are logical/mathematical things, so perhaps "5" itself can't do anything, but a more sophisticated logical object certainly can.

Okay, apply that logic to mine:
A can perform (-) on itself.

Let *A suffer belief-based ignorance(s) causing suffering.
Let +A be any particular belief(s) of *A
Let √+A be the root(s) of the suffering of *A
Let √-A be the root(s) of the inverse of suffering of *A
Let -A be any particular knowledge(s) counter-part(s) to +A

The logic can be used to solve for knowledge -A→√-A
being the inverse of the belief-based ignorance(s) +A→√+A
given any variable *A, who is any breathing body.

Hypothesis: all knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum
until a being knows all: not to believe, insofar as it serves to cease their own suffering.

I am designing this to resolve the "believer vs. unbeliever" conflict(s), as this logic
can identify the root of human suffering as 'static' absolution of belief(s)
thus can be used to relatively infer the inverse 'dynamic' absolution of knowledge(s)
that, if/when consciously attained to,
negates all belief-based ignorance(s), thus all suffering(s) associated,
as needed, on an individual and/or 'state' basis. This is part of the 'why'.

[Skepdick]

The "universe itself" is a universe of motion.
Thus, whatever is intrinsic to motion, is intrinsic to the universe.
Motionlessness is the antithesis of motion, hence undefined in a universe of motion.

Motion is change. Change is about change over time. In a timeless universe there is no motion. No change.

Begs the question: Logically speaking what is time/change/motion? And you will arrive at calculus (or perhaps you have better ideas).

Capacity (or not) to breathe.

Then dead = (+ breathing) and alive = (- breathing). But that's incomplete. I could be holding my breath?

Any motioning body indiscriminate, including breathing bodies.
Dead bodies do not have the capacity to motion beyond natural decay.

But you are now discriminating on different kinds of motion. Decay is still change (over time).

Not false, just not necessarily true. A can be A, and invariably is (to a certain degree(s)), but none universal.
Allowing A to intrinsically reciprocate between +A and -A designates A as a dynamic, motioning body, consistent with
a universe of motion.

OK, then lets go back to Polish notation for this. Lets rewrite A = A as =(A, A).

You are saying it's not false. And it's not necessarily true. I'll ask a different question.

What possible values could the function =(A, A) produce?

If typo, A ! = A is equivalent to A = A, thus redundant (!)

It's not equivalent. It's the inverse. Again in Polish notation.

= A A is true.
!= A A is false

if you rewrite it like this it becomes even more obvious why: != A A -> ! ( = A A).

We know that "= A A" is true (from above), so... ! ( = A A) -> ! ( true ).

Or inversely....

= A A is false
!= A A -> ! (= A A) -> ! ( false ).

True = -False
-True = False

It's all just term replacement/rewriting.

I am not confused as to the meaning.

I am.

What if it does?

Then you could consider yourself a supporter of MUH

No I don't: the universe is simply motion.

Potato, potatoh.

Motion = Motion.

Space and time are multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion, thus all is subject to the same multiplicative reciprocal nature as being intrinsic to/in/of nature.

Spacetime are abstract Mathematical concepts. Spaces are geometries, time is a vector. We use Mathematics to describe reality. But Mathematics is still a language. And languages have limits...

Another perspective on motion (change over time) and space-time is Computer Science which takes keen interest in space-time complexity.

...and then you have a universe of motion
whose (not-a-lot-of) parameters being time and space

Indeed. This is a very simplistic computational view of the universe. It's the same thing as the MUH hypothesis.

Yes - I am working on deriving a universal logic which satisfies the observable universe as: motion.

We have that already. Lambda calculus/Turing machines. The problem isn't the logic - the problem is the grammar. The inference rules of your logic.

Therefor, the logic that derives must grant itself as in motion, else it is not universal logic.

Indeed. The "calculus" in Lambda calculus is motion/change. Transformations.

By granting A an intrinsic reciprocity (A-∞+A) such that it can reciprocate, it satisfies the needed first distinction of in/out needed to capture the reciprocate universal motion(s) of centrifugal (ie. "out from A") and centripetal (ie. "in to A"). Therefor I have derived a "torulogical" framework which gives A its own local roots and operators

This is trivially captured by the name/value distinction. You have the mathematical/logical object A, and then you have the value of A.

I only want universal logic. I know the universe is in motion, thus any identity must have a capacity for the same: motion.

Then you have it.

If you have preference for declarative formal languages then Lambda calculus.
If you have a preference for imperative formal languages then Turing Machines.

But they are functionally equivalent.

Okay, apply that logic to mine:
A can perform (-) on itself.

Let *A suffer belief-based ignorance(s) causing suffering.
Let +A be any particular belief(s) of *A
Let √+A be the root(s) of the suffering of *A
Let √-A be the root(s) of the inverse of suffering of *A
Let -A be any particular knowledge(s) counter-part(s) to +A

The logic can be used to solve for knowledge -A→√-A
being the inverse of the belief-based ignorance(s) +A→√+A
given any variable *A, who is any breathing body.

In object oriented programming (-, *, √ etc.) would all be class methods.

By invoking the instruction A.*, or A.+, or A.√.+ there would be a sequence of changes/internal mutations that A performs on itself.
But you still need to define/model the meaning of those operators.

You still need a state transition diagram.

I am designing this to resolve the "believer vs. unbeliever" conflict(s), as this logic
can identify the root of human suffering as 'static' absolution of belief(s)
thus can be used to relatively infer the inverse 'dynamic' absolution of knowledge(s)
that, if/when consciously attained to,
negates all belief-based ignorance(s), thus all suffering(s) associated,
as needed, on an individual and/or 'state' basis. This is part of the 'why'.

I have no idea what this means, but I am guessing (gut feel here) that IF you were to formalise it you are going to end up with logical/mathematical structures that humanity is well-familiar with...

[nothing]

Motion is change. Change is about change over time. In a timeless universe there is no motion. No change.

Begs the question: Logically speaking what is time/change/motion? And you will arrive at calculus (or perhaps you have better ideas).

Time and space are reciprocal aspects of motion, which can either be in a state of change (ie. dynamic) or unchanged (ie. static).

3d space / 1d time
{reciprocates into}
1d space / 3d time

Thus:
solar day (24 hours) = t^1 as 1d time wherein space is immediate and 3d
solar year (365 days) = t^2 as 2d time wherein space is only relevantly 2d
great year *(25 920 years) = t^3 as 3d time wherein space is only relevantly 1d
___________________________________________________________________
*latter calculated by Plato viz. 360 days/degrees x 72, actual may vary

Thus time is merely a construct of abstraction, change is merely acceleration/scalar/deceleration given any arbitrary time, motion is the multiplicative reciprocity of time and space as the constituency(s) of the universe.

Then dead = (+ breathing) and alive = (- breathing). But that's incomplete. I could be holding my breath?

Sounds logical to me - I arrived at the same.
You are still breathing internally viz. heart is pumping.
If grounding breath into the breathing of the heart, the being can hold their breath without being "dead".

But you are now discriminating on different kinds of motion. Decay is still change (over time).

...dead/alive as (+/-)A resp. as in the logic above.

OK, then lets go back to Polish notation for this. Lets rewrite A = A as =(A, A).

You are saying it's not false. And it's not necessarily true. I'll ask a different question.

What possible values could the function =(A, A) produce?

I don't know what you actually mean by "values" but at best status is being indicated: unchanged, which is a valid premise, thus true.
However, it is not necessarily true because A mandates its own reciprocate -A, which is also a valid premise: changed. The most fundamental √root of A is their own vitality, hence breathing (if even of the heart). Now look at this logic:

Let's say *A (granted natural capacity to be both/either (-/+))
is in space over time, denoted simply A = s/t.

*A = s/t
thus granting *A simultaneously to be +A and/or -A
________________________
+A = +s/+t (+relatively static)
-A = -(s/t), -s/t, s/-t (-relatively dynamic)

wherein:
+A is (relatively static) one-dimensional time t, and
-A is (relatively dynamic) three-dimensional space s, thus
*A is simultaneously subject to/of the (e)motional aspect(s) of
space, s, and time, t.
_________________________________________________________________
s, as 3d space: for practical purposes of (meta)physical "orientation", and
t, as 1d time: for purposes of (meta)physical "science(s)", and
*A is locally relative to s/t according to its own potential/actual (-)impetuses and (+)impedance(s)

A thus mandates the capacity to reciprocate. For example, our lungs have a relationship to the trees on the planet: what we exhale, they inhale etc. Therefor, breathing bodies such as ours mandates reciprocation, thus A, if a valid universal variable, must be granted what the universal naturally grants such bodies what is known to be essential: reciprocity of in/out. In as much, =(A, A) is simply a status, thus true in that context, however also false if it excludes -A as intrinsic to the identity.

It's not equivalent. It's the inverse. Again in Polish notation...It's all just term replacement/rewriting.

I don't follow the notation, nor the logic.

Then you could consider yourself a supporter of MUH

I don't agree that the universe is mathematics, rather mathematics is a language can be used as a projective means to model/describe the universe, which is of motion. If given space and time, the rest is relationship(s) relating to motion(s).

Spacetime are abstract Mathematical concepts. Spaces are geometries, time is a vector. We use Mathematics to describe reality. But Mathematics is still a language. And languages have limits...

Another perspective on motion (change over time) and space-time is Computer Science which takes keen interest in space-time complexity.

Being abstract, they can not bend, hence GTOR is nonsense. If taken as abstractions, they can be seen as aspects of motion: yin (space) and yang (time) wherein each body has their own local impetus.

The inference rules of your logic.

What is this referring to?

You still need a state transition diagram.

I already have it - they are universal roots and operators intrinsically assigned to *A.

*A = √(+all, -not), √(+to cause, -to cease)

A has the universal root(s) whence all are subset:
causation of: (all / not) = to be, or
cessation of: (all / not) = not to be
wherein the universal root of their relative spacial-temporal impetus/impedance is their own will.

A can now transition according to will in any space-time-invariant context once given a choice.

[Skepdick]

Time and space are reciprocal aspects of motion, which can either be in a state of change (ie. dynamic) or unchanged (ie. static).

If it's static then you aren't talking about space or time. An object that's static in space is always moving through time.

Thus time is merely a construct of abstraction, change is merely acceleration/scalar/deceleration given any arbitrary time, motion is the multiplicative reciprocity of time and space as the constituency(s) of the universe.

Time may well be an abstraction, but we experience motion/change and so we measure it.

You are still breathing internally viz. heart is pumping.

The dictionary definition of breathing corresponds to inhalation/exhalation.

breathing noun the process of taking air into and expelling it from the lungs.

Sounds like you are using the word "breathing" to mean "oxygenation" perhaps? Oxygenation continues for a while even if your heart is not beating.

...dead/alive as (+/-)A resp. as in the logic above.

I think you are wasting your time... Wittgenstein pointed out that, given any particular conceptual category (such as dead, or alive) it's practically impossible to define the epistemic criterions for necessity of sufficiency for either of them. You will always end up with false positives and false negatives irrespective of your classification rules.

Language (and ergo - thought) is broken like that.

I don't know what you actually mean by "values" but at best status is being indicated: unchanged, which is a valid premise, thus true.

I am saying: you are examining a body A. What possible states (assertions? judgments?) could you make about said body?

It's dead or alive. Healthy or unhealthy. Heavy/light. Tall/short. Fat/skinny. It's a very long list of distinctions. Very many conceptual axes across which you could classify any particular thing.

I don't agree that the universe is mathematics, rather mathematics is a language can be used as a projective means to model/describe the universe, which is of motion. If given space and time, the rest is relationship(s) relating to motion(s).

This goes without saying. But do you not see that any and all models/descriptions of the universe are linguistic?

The description of motion (change with respect to time) is linguistic. Temporal logic.

Logic is a language and language is about expression of concepts.

Being abstract, they can not bend, hence GTOR is nonsense. If taken as abstractions, they can be seen as aspects of motion: yin (space) and yang (time) wherein each body has their own local impetus.

However you see them, any description you produce is..... a language.

A can now transition according to will in any space-time-invariant context once given a choice.

So how is this any different to a UTM, or a Kripke structure, or a Category

What you've (re)discovered/(re)invented is Logic. A -> B.

But you have invented your own grammar/notation to describe it. Under scrutiny you will find that it's probably functionally equivalent to many of the logic-systems we already have.

People keep doing that so we keep ending up with different names and different notations for the same damn thing. Here's some common ones....

Type theory ( Per Martin-Löf )
Category Theory ( Samuel Eilenberg )
Natural deduction ( Gerhard Gentzen )
Lambda calculus (Alonzo Church)
Turing machines ( Alan Turing )
Logic, Mathemtics, Computation (everyone)

And my own views on this: they are multiple languages for describing the same thing. What is "the thing" all of those different things are describing?

Epistemology. Reductive categorical thinking. The human mind's ability to abstract.

[nothing]

If it's static then you aren't talking about space or time. An object that's static in space is always moving through time.

There is no such thing as a static object - if it exists, it has a motion(s) associated with it.
Relative to the concerned motioning object, time is moving as a 'static' circle: around-and-around.

Time may well be an abstraction, but we experience motion/change and so we measure it.

Because we can not control time, it is 'static' relative to our interaction with it. It moves "forward" whether we like it or not.

The dictionary definition of breathing corresponds to inhalation/exhalation.

breathing noun the process of taking air into and expelling it from the lungs.

Sounds like you are using the word "breathing" to mean "oxygenation" perhaps? Oxygenation continues for a while even if your heart is not beating.

Sustained oxygenation can not happen less by way of breathing - either independent or supported. A must be capable of breathing.

Give A a range capacity:
A+ ↔ A ↔ -A
5 ↔ A ↔ -5
If we take a "snapshot" of A breathing, say +2,
we know the capacity but not which way it was coming from:
+1→+2←+3
thus it is impossible to tell which direction A is breathing.
This same measurement problem exists in quantum physics
and the logic I am using/deriving allows both to be measured simultaneously.

I think you are wasting your time... Wittgenstein pointed out that, given any particular conceptual category (such as dead, or alive) it's practically impossible to define the epistemic criterions for necessity of sufficiency for either of them. You will always end up with false positives and false negatives irrespective of your classification rules.

Language (and ergo - thought) is broken like that.

Thus worth fixing.

I am saying: you are examining a body A. What possible states (assertions? judgments?) could you make about said body?

It's dead or alive. Healthy or unhealthy. Heavy/light. Tall/short. Fat/skinny. It's a very long list of distinctions. Very many conceptual axes across which you could classify any particular thing.

All of which can be handled by a simple axis (1-↔A↔+1) after all, we have two hands, two legs, two hemispheres of the brain, two eyes, two... of other stuff. Why not two orientations intrinsic to our nature? It should be mandated, but is not in Aristotle's A = A, hence the need to correct for.

This goes without saying. But do you not see that any and all models/descriptions of the universe are linguistic?

The description of motion (change with respect to time) is linguistic. Temporal logic.

Logic is a language and language is about expression of concepts.

The description of motion is the same description of the universe: change with respect to time, thus it is intrinsically linguistic. It is temporal, but time also has three dimensions despite our relatively being bound to one of them - their manifestation is three dimensions of space over one amalgamated coincidental time. Temporal logic would allow time to have three dimensions because the universe is temporally structured this way.

However you see them, any description you produce is..... a language.

It is fine if it is universal ie. never returns a bad result.

So how is this any different to a UTM, or a Kripke structure, or a Category

What you've (re)discovered/(re)invented is Logic. A -> B.

But you have invented your own grammar/notation to describe it. Under scrutiny you will find that it's probably functionally equivalent to many of the logic-systems we already have.

People keep doing that so we keep ending up with different names and different notations for the same damn thing. Here's some common ones....

Type theory ( Per Martin-Löf )
Category Theory ( Samuel Eilenberg )
Natural deduction ( Gerhard Gentzen )
Lambda calculus (Alonzo Church)
Turing machines ( Alan Turing )
Logic, Mathemtics, Computation (everyone)

And my own views on this: they are multiple languages for describing the same thing. What is "the thing" all of those different things are describing?

Epistemology. Reductive categorical thinking. The human mind's ability to abstract.

A -> B would be meaningless under a logic system I am describing beyond, again, "static" dead bodies. However 'category theory' is inevitably a component: due to space and time sharing the multiplicative reciprocal relationship of 3dSpace/1dTime ↔ 1dSpace/3dTime, by setting the speed of light c to 1/1, there is mandated a need for any/every identity to have intrinsic capacity for a conduit 2D orientation, if even abstractly. For example: in/out is mandated by the construct of the universe itself having two possible directions with which to approach c: either from/to under, or from/to over.

One can thus derive the alpha/omega/beginning/end quadrad which universally encircles A.

[Skepdick]

There is no such thing as a static object - if it exists, it has a motion(s) associated with it.

Fine. Capture this motion in language.

My coffee machine broke today. Capture the motion of my decaffeinated mood-swings in logic.

Relative to the concerned motioning object, time is moving as a 'static' circle: around-and-around.

The process of measuring any particular property about any particular object at any point in time is called sampling.

Because we can not control time, it is 'static' relative to our interaction with it. It moves "forward" whether we like it or not.

Which is precisely why we model time-evolving systems using Linear logic.

Once we construct such a logical system within it we do in fact control time. It's what's called the "system clock" of your CPU.

Sustained oxygenation can not happen less by way of breathing - either independent or supported. A must be capable of breathing.

Sustained oxygenation can happen by way of an Artificial lung. So there is no need for A to be capable of breathing.

Give A a range capacity:
A+ ↔ A ↔ -A
5 ↔ A ↔ -5
If we take a "snapshot" of A breathing, say +2,
we know the capacity but not which way it was coming from:
+1→+2←+3
thus it is impossible to tell which direction A is breathing.
This same measurement problem exists in quantum physics
and the logic I am using/deriving allows both to be measured simultaneously.

I have no idea how to parse this. Translate it into some other language. Python. Mathematics. LISP - whatever.

Thus worth fixing.

You can't fix the limits of language with a new language.

All of which can be handled by a simple axis (1-↔A↔+1) after all, we have two hands, two legs, two hemispheres of the brain, two eyes, two... of other stuff.

You need one axis for every pair of things you want to capture - for every feature you want to encode. How many axes do you need to capture everything there's to capture about the human body?

Why not two orientations intrinsic to our nature? It should be mandated, but is not in Aristotle's A = A, hence the need to correct for.

It's already corrected in non-classical (constructive) high-order logics. You are free to model A as you see fit for your particular use-case.

You can use object-oriented (imperative) programming, or functional (declarative) programming. It doesn't really matter - in the end they do the same thing.

The description of motion is the same description of the universe: change with respect to time, thus it is intrinsically linguistic. It is temporal, but time also has three dimensions despite our relatively being bound to one of them - their manifestation is three dimensions of space over one amalgamated coincidental time. Temporal logic would allow time to have three dimensions because the universe is temporally structured this way.

Then use linear logic instead. It doesn't prescribe the number of time-dimensions. You can have N of them. One way or another you will soon bump into concurrency issues....

It is fine if it is universal ie. never returns a bad result.

You have no idea what a "bad result" is. Formally speaking. You can't formalize "badness".

A result is a result.

A -> B would be meaningless under a logic system I am describing beyond

That's a separate concern entirely. If you subscribe to Mathematical (denotational) semantics A -> B is not meaningless. All the symbols have some meaning.

If you subscribe to some other semantic (operational semantics) A -> B merely represents some structure of sorts. It means whatever you modeled it to mean.

A causes B.
A becomes B.
A sees B
A tells B
A likes B

Is just an arrow.

For example: in/out is mandated by the construct of the universe itself having two possible directions with which to approach c: either from/to under, or from/to over.

I have no idea what it means to approach c (the speed of light) from "over". Nothing travels faster than light.

One can thus derive the alpha/omega/beginning/end quadrad which universally encircles A.

Gibberish.