## Primitive Logic

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Primitive Logic

PRIMITIVE LOGIC

It is this nature of regression of context to context that a primative underlying logic occurs. Cycling back to the question of syntax in determining the validity of rules behind logic we are left with contexts as loops. All truth, as both existing and "existence as is", is context.

In determining a syntax for the rules of a logical system derived from context alone leaves us with a very general logic which can mean just about anything as it underlies everything. A logic describing everything would paradoxically mean just about nothing...at least almost nothing, as it still models the most basic nature of logic, that of description.

So in forming this basic logic, considering the nature of truth is subject to context, the primary symbols would be:

"( )" for "context"
"{ }" for "context of contexts"
"[ ]" for "transitional context"
"/" "modality of context"
"-->" for "transition of one context to another"
"•" as the "fundamental variable"

A simple statement such as "The cat eats cat food therefore we bought cat food" would be expressed as:

{(Cat) [eats-->](Food/Cat)} --> {(We)[Bought-->](Food/Cat)}

Or "The sky is blue"
(Sky)[is-->](Blue) or (Sky/Blue)

Or for math

1+2=3
{+1-->(+1-->+1)}-->+3

4÷2=2
(+4/+2) --> +2

All inference and implication shows a probabilistic nature. This is considering inference and implication shows what may occur therefore it would be expressed as modalities. All modalities are fractions and fractals. A modality, as descriptive, is a fractal by nature considering what is expressed is one context existing as a part of another as an extension of it.

"The cat eating the food implies the cat is hungry"
{(C/E)(F)}/(C/H)

The logic is primitive yet represents the underlying form of all propositions. It cannot seem to break down to any deeper basics unless viewing it from a perspective of Geometry.

This geometry can be expressed through the nature of time where all logical assertions are ratios of time. "The cat ate the bird in January" observes each assertion, that forms the proposition, as a context within a context as a series of contexts that act like a line within a line:

(C)[[A-->]J]

It is in breaking down any definitive statement into a geometry where the rules become so general they can mean just about anything. Cycling back to the paradox of definition priorly stated, with the increase in definition in one respect comes the complete absence of it in another.

Certain things can be shown but not said, but in showing them we put boundaries on them and effectively cause a contradiction to occur. I can say "dog" but this does not necessarily exist as a full truth as to what "dog" is or is not. The word or symbol for "dog" is the repetition of "dog" into a newer form as the symbol or word.

The same applies to any formal system of logic, it is contradictory by it's own nature of description but the formal system still exists. Thus all logical systems are by default paradoxical and are simultaneously true and false.

The mapping of any formal system, through symbols, is grounded in the base symbols which underlie all assumed axioms of logic and logic by default. Form acts as the binding glue of logic, and reality by default.

The highest most universal abstraction, with highest meaning an underlying centerpoint from which all things stem, is a contextual loop. It can be subject to language but not limited to it. Any higher language would have to underlie all possible languages, in which case we are left with a loop between the languages and we ironically go back to a language emphasizing context again.

In trying to escape language we use a series of symbols to emphasize it. The pointing of one phenomenon to another is the primary rule of symbol attachment. Symbols are directional by nature. As directional they represent the projection of one point of view to another point of view, one phenomenon connecting to another.

Context cannot seem to be escaped from without creating an ultimate context. If all being is composed of a loop, then the highest abstraction is the monad as a symbol ⊙ with all abstract and empirical phenomenon being a variation of it. This contextual form arranges what is finite and temporal by summiting it all under one symbol.

From a perspective of temporality all movement in time is dependent upon a form which exists above time. For example a car driving in a circle requires the circle, as the summation of the car's movements within a given time zone, to literally glue the car's movements together. Form is space which binds reality.

This applies to the foundation of logic as well considering the inference of one assertion to another is a basic point of awareness progressing from itself to form a loop.

Form is the glue of being derived from point space, all phenomenon are the expansion and contraction of a point with the point representing the height of pure form in one respect, pure formlessness in another. The point is the underlying median which holds reality together. Relative to logic this point is best represented through the "assumption" as a point of view.

The pointing of one phenomenon to another is the primary rule of symbol attachment. Symbols are directional by nature. As directional they represent the projection of one point of view to another point of view, one phenomenon connecting to another.

AEIOU, progresses from one symbol to another as evidenced by the sounds they make. AE, EE, IE, OE, YOO shows the inversion of one sound into another sound where each one observes a fluid type of movement changing into another fluid movement. One tone is flat and is following by a rising and falling of the tone.

The same occurs for progressive counting in Roman numbers:
I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII.

The origin of all symbols begins with a point: •

This point progresses to form the line: ----

From which curves are derived.

The origins of symbols progress from a single formless point to a flat or curved base both physically, as in the expression of the symbol itself, as well as the flat to rising and falling tones the symbol makes verbally. The basic expression of symbols, graphically or verbally as tones, is lines and curves.

Now this next argument will be completely absurd and most will not understand how absurd it really is.

If we are to look at the nature of any logical or mathematical system, it is grounded in assumed axioms. "Assumption" is the grounding of logic and math, but thus necessitates a paradox where this is a foundation.

Thus the only logical foundation we can assume without contradiction is assumption as a form where the argument can only be defined as assumable if it has a given form, "given form" is a key wording. This giving of pure form can be expressed as:

Assumption = •
Progression of assumptions = --->
Cycling of assumptions = ⊙
Assumption as Context= ( )

1. •
2. • ---> •
3. •⊙•
4. (•)•
5. (• ---> •)• ---> (•⊙•)•
6. (• ---> •)• ⊙ (•⊙•)•
7. ((•)•)•
8. (--->)•
9. ((--->)• ---> (--->)•)•
10. (⊙)•
11. ((⊙)• ⊙ (⊙)•)•
12. •

1. This is an assumption.

2. This assumption progresses to another assumption.

3. The progression of the original assumption, as a new assumption, is the assumption cycling itself.

4. This is an assumption of assumption.

5. This progression of one assumption to another is an assumption, this progresses to the assumption that all assumptions cycle.

6. The progression of one assumption to another is an assumption, this cycles to the assumption that all assumptions cycle.

7. This is progressive assumption.

8. Multiple assumptions are progressive, this progress is assumed.

9. Multiple assumptions as progressive progress to multiple assumptions that are progressive.

10. This assumption of multiple progression is circular and is assumed.

11. The assumption of circularity circulates with the assumption of circularity as an assumption.

12. This argument is assumed and defined as self referential but open to expansion. It is both complete and incomplete as assumed.

In mapping logic at it most basic form, logic becomes indefinite as it equates to a series of variables which can mean just about anything, with this meaning being grounded in form alone.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest