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

[TimeSeeker]

The principle here is;
-focus on the next question [good or bad] not the answers [good or bad].
this attitude will prevent dogmatism and bigotry like those of the theists on the answer -"God did it" as final and absolute.

I am not in the habit of asking questions that can't be answered. Only fools play such silly, endless games.

This happens to be the "testability" criterion in science. Hypotheses non fingo!

[Eodnhoj7]

Why?
Whatever you state above [axiom or otherwise] is subjected to more questioning, that is the basis of philosophy.

It is how deduction works.

All men are mortal. You are a man. You are mortal. "All men are mortal" is the axiom of the argument.

Your definition of "philosophy" is the axiom of yours.

All axioms are original, in the laws.

[Eodnhoj7]

Why?
Whatever you state above [axiom or otherwise] is subjected to more questioning, that is the basis of philosophy.

It is how deduction works.

All men are mortal. You are a man. You are mortal. "All men are mortal" is the axiom of the argument.

Your definition of "philosophy" is the axiom of yours.

My definition of philosophy is based on induction from experience.
It is like
'change is the only constant' as observed and inferred from experience.

All axioms dissolve into further axioms, through a continuum, hence this argument must dissolve.

[Eodnhoj7]

My definition of philosophy is based on induction from experience.
It is like
'change is the only constant' as observed and inferred from experience.

Then it follows that without one who observers and infers, there is no constant.

Solipsism.

That is a constant, observed through the continuity of axioms as points of origin, linear definition and circularity resulting in constants.

Addressed in laws.

[TimeSeeker]

It is how deduction works.

All men are mortal. You are a man. You are mortal. "All men are mortal" is the axiom of the argument.

Your definition of "philosophy" is the axiom of yours.

My definition of philosophy is based on induction from experience.
It is like
'change is the only constant' as observed and inferred from experience.

All axioms dissolve into further axioms, through a continuum, hence this argument must dissolve.

The name of this process is "reduction": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_(complexity)
The same idea which systems theorists call analysis/decomposition.
The same idea that post-modern philosophers like Derida used for Deconstruction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

[Eodnhoj7]

That Russell's quote was from early-Russell, not later-Russell where his concentration was on Mathematics.

Later Russel was also wrong. There is a skill more important than asking questions. Knowing which questions are NOT decidable.
So you don't waste any of your time trying to answer them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic) which is Turing's halting problem.

It is in the land of the undecidable questions where Philosophers love to play.

You are lost again.

I stated the heavily argued quote was from early-Russell. I am not bothered with later-Russell whether he was right or wrong.

The principle here is;
-focus on the next question [good or bad] not the answers [good or bad].
this attitude will prevent dogmatism and bigotry like those of the theists on the answer -"God did it" as final and absolute.

These axioms are laws, which progress in definition to axiomatic definitions of dogma, as observed by these axioms.

[TimeSeeker]

These axioms are laws, which progress in definition to axiomatic definitions of dogma, as observed by these axioms.

One way to think about physics is that it is an attempt to ground our axioms which are currently made up ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... m_of_Units ). The kilogram and the second are both invented not discovered.

Physics is attempting to figure out what lies right at the "bottom".

Closely related to symbol-grounding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem

[Eodnhoj7]

My definition of philosophy is based on induction from experience.
It is like
'change is the only constant' as observed and inferred from experience.

All axioms dissolve into further axioms, through a continuum, hence this argument must dissolve.

The name of this process is "reduction": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_(complexity)

But this circulates and is maintained as a constant; hence acts as a means of definition of axioms.

The axioms as progressive in nature through a continual separation of axioms in turn observes this argument progressing towards reduction as adefintion of these laws; hence an axiom extended from them.

This is covered in the laws.

[Eodnhoj7]

These axioms are laws, which progress in definition to axiomatic definitions of dogma, as observed by these axioms.

One way to think about physics is that it is an attempt to ground our axioms which are currently made up ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... m_of_Units ). The kilogram and the second are both invented not discovered.

Physics is attempting to figure out what lies right at the "bottom".

Closely related to symbol-grounding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem

All axioms are points of origin which are nothing in themselves except through the progression of further axioms.

Already in law.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Later Russel was also wrong. There is a skill more important than asking questions. Knowing which questions are NOT decidable.
So you don't waste any of your time trying to answer them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic) which is Turing's halting problem.

It is in the land of the undecidable questions where Philosophers love to play.

You are lost again.

I stated the heavily argued quote was from early-Russell. I am not bothered with later-Russell whether he was right or wrong.

The principle here is;
-focus on the next question [good or bad] not the answers [good or bad].
this attitude will prevent dogmatism and bigotry like those of the theists on the answer -"God did it" as final and absolute.

These axioms are laws, which progress in definition to axiomatic definitions of dogma, as observed by these axioms.

I don't see any relevance in your point at all.

[TimeSeeker]

These axioms are laws, which progress in definition to axiomatic definitions of dogma, as observed by these axioms.

One way to think about physics is that it is an attempt to ground our axioms which are currently made up ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... m_of_Units ). The kilogram and the second are both invented not discovered.

Physics is attempting to figure out what lies right at the "bottom".

Closely related to symbol-grounding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem

All axioms are points of origin which are nothing in themselves except through the progression of further axioms.

Already in law.

To call it a law is to claim it is a limit imposed on us by reality (the only authority).

A coherent framework maybe?

[Eodnhoj7]

You are lost again.

I stated the heavily argued quote was from early-Russell. I am not bothered with later-Russell whether he was right or wrong.

The principle here is;
-focus on the next question [good or bad] not the answers [good or bad].
this attitude will prevent dogmatism and bigotry like those of the theists on the answer -"God did it" as final and absolute.

These axioms are laws, which progress in definition to axiomatic definitions of dogma, as observed by these axioms.

I don't see any relevance in your point at all.

All axioms are void, hence your argument is void and all axioms are extensions of other axioms; hence have meaning.

Addressed in laws.

[Eodnhoj7]

One way to think about physics is that it is an attempt to ground our axioms which are currently made up ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... m_of_Units ). The kilogram and the second are both invented not discovered.

Physics is attempting to figure out what lies right at the "bottom".

Closely related to symbol-grounding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem

All axioms are points of origin which are nothing in themselves except through the progression of further axioms.

Already in law.

To call it a law is to claim it is a limit imposed on us by reality (the only authority).

A coherent framework maybe?

All axioms are continuums existing through the Linearism and circularity as axioms.

These axioms are laws, all axioms are extensions of these axiom as law; hence are laws.

All axioms as laws must progress to further laws, hence all laws are void in themselves.

Addressed in laws.

[TimeSeeker]

For example: I operate in the paradigm of information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

The axiom is: everything is information.

Which conveniently aligns with the limitations of human cognition: If you can't draw a distinction - there is no difference.
Drawing distinctions is how we extract information.

And even in this realm dualism appears. Because "information" is meaningless without "entropy". Information emerges FROM entropy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_( ... on_theory) )

It's the order&chaos metaphor.

This is a framework grounded in probability theory.

Because you are drawing distinctions between circles and lines - they cannot be fundamental in my framework. What are circles and lines made of?
Points. What are points made of?

Everything crashes&burns when you ask the ontological question.

[Eodnhoj7]

For example: I operate in the paradigm of information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

The axiom is: everything is information.

Which conveniently aligns with the limitations of human cognition: If you can't draw a distinction - there is no difference.
Drawing distinctions is how we extract information.

And even in this realm dualism appears. Because "information" is meaningless without "entropy". Information emerges FROM entropy.

It's the order&chaos metaphor.

This is a framework grounded in probability theory.

Because you are drawing distinctions between circles and lines - they cannot be fundamental in my framework. What are circles and lines made of?

All circles and lines as axioms are defined through further axioms which in turn are formed through circular and linear reasoning through a premise axiom which is void.

All axioms existing as extensions of other axioms exist as is.

This is covered in the laws.