Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:11 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:14 am
1. Completion cannot occur in a linear progressive system.
2. Completion can occur in self referencing.
What I mean by completeness is thus: Recursion is meaningful, but I am not sure if that is all there is to meaning.
This is similar to the logical property of completeness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completeness_(logic)
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:14 am
5. The solution is synthesis as progression through looping. This is observed in the solution to the munchausen trillema thread.
This is a skip and a jump from logic to epistemology.
Logical systems are tools. They land themselves to objective analysis and they exhibit properties/phenomena/behaviours.
How one uses logic and what one uses logic for is entirely up to the user. I don't believe the trillema is solvable. For if you solve the trillema, you have necessarily solved the Halting problem.
1. Every property derived using that system, still necessitates recursion of the axioms which form that system both through the axioms and the proofs which occur through it.
If an axiom is justified as complete by the framework which extends from it, then all phenomena (and not just logic or math) are complete in themselves and yet ironically are effectively "nothing".
"Completeness" is just point 0 under these terms.
2. Epistemology is justified by the logical systems which form it as all of epistemology is justified by logic. Logic in turn is justified by axioms justified by epistemology, and the "categories" of logic and epistemology reference a form of completeness through there circularity.
3. "Logic systems are tools" is an epitstomelogical statement justified by logic through logic as logic. This references point 2.
4. Meaning is equilibrium, all equilibrium exists through continuity considering what does not continue...does not mean anything as it ceases to exist.
5. The Halting Problem references a problem of "end point" vs. "Continuity" with this end point being determined by the problem of the programmer. The programmer determines the program. For the program to effectively to choose it's own end point it would need a dual opposing program, symmetrical to it, where both programs effectively observe simultaneous loops.
It sets up a foundation for choice within the program, so when an outside variable is introduce (a problem, seperate program, etc.) The variable acts as a foundation for super positioning of one of the programs.
The correlative symmetry between the variable and program effectively allows one of the programs to continue in a different state, while allowing the seperate dual program to keep running. Hence continuity is maintained while giving an end point.
Choice in the program becomes an adaptation to variables by providing a series if programs which act as an effective "shield" for a core program that keeps other programs in a perpetual loop cycle through them.