## Assumptive Logic

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5373
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Assumptive Logic

This argument will be completely absurd and most will not understand how absurd it really is...

So save the insults and adhominums...this argument is about losing sanity...not gaining it.

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.

Considering there are infinite forms in which an argument may exist, to map this leads to a contradiction, but this contradiction is necessary as axioms are necessary. It is thus logical, by form alone, that logic formalizations will diverge from this assumed form thereby necessitating contradiction as rational through an isomorphic dualism.

All foundations are an assumed point of observation, this is the foundation.
Coherency is assumed.
Infinity is assumed.

All coherency is circular, this is coherent.
Foundations are circular.
Infinity is circular.

All infinitism is linear, this is infinite.
Foundations are infinite.
Coherency is infinite.

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 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.

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

Each point exists in a pair, thus the number are only for demarcation and are not limited to a linear format:

1 and 11
2 and 10
3 and 9
4 and 8
5 and 7

6 progresses to all points respectively in the same manner 1 progresses to 11 and 11 progresses to 1, it pairs off with its respective polarities:

1 and 6 and 6 and 11.
2 and 5 and 7 and 10.
3 and 4 and 8 and 9.

This again pairs off where any demarcated point can lead to another in any variation of order and still lead back to the original beginning point.

1. •
2. • ---> • ***** (1. ---> 2.). •<: (1. <--- 2.). :>•
3. •⊙• ***** (3a. <--- (1.⊙ 2.)). □
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.

These assumptions necessitate inherent laws that are inevitable within the nature of assumption.

1. Assumptive Law of Recursive Middle:

All assumptions exist as variations of eachother through a recursive state, thus all assumptions exist as a center point within the continuum of assumptions.

2. Assumptive Law of Isomorphic Void:

All assumptions are void in themselves unless they continue to further axioms, thus each axiom as void voids itself into another axiom. And axiom as void negates to an axiom as existing, one axiom inverts to many.

3. Assumptive Law of Form and Function.

Axioms as inherent middles necessitate a symmetry where each axiom as a center point observes each axiom as circular through recursion. Axioms as inherently void necessitates all axioms as functions where a function, as that which changes one form to another, is fundamentally formless.
All assumptions are both form and function.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:40 pm, edited 11 times in total.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3810
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Assumptive Logic

Eodnhoj wrote:
This argument is assumed and defined as self referential but open to expansion
Is a self referential argument the same as a circular one
Would it not be invalid because circular reasoning is a logical fallacy

Is there any significance to the number of assumptions referenced here
Would the same reasoning not apply regardless of how many there were

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5373
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Assumptive Logic

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:40 am
Eodnhoj wrote:
This argument is assumed and defined as self referential but open to expansion
Is a self referential argument the same as a circular one
Would it not be invalid because circular reasoning is a logical fallacy

Is there any significance to the number of assumptions referenced here
Would the same reasoning not apply regardless of how many there were
Good questions.

Circular reasoning as a fallacy is assumed, thus the fallacy circles on itself (double negation) resulting in no fallacy. The double negation of intuitionist logic is observed here as well as the standard "--->" symbol as an assumption.

***repetition is circularity.

The number of assumptions listed is only valuable if one assumes they have value, this in turn observes itself (as an assumption) as part of the "argument".

The reasoning, as assumptive, assumes by nature all non finite numbers as well.

Like I said, this argument can only have an assumed truth value because it is beyond absurd. The problem occurs in that logic is grounded in assumption as foundations, thus the only non contemptible foundation for logic quite literally is assumptions.

Do you see how absurd this argument is?
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3810
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Assumptive Logic

Eodnhoj wrote:
logic is grounded in assumption as foundations thus the only non contemptible foundation for logic quite literally is assumptions
A priori reasoning is more rigorous than unfalsified assumptions and so that should be the foundation for all logical arguments

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5373
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Assumptive Logic

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:09 am
Eodnhoj wrote:
logic is grounded in assumption as foundations thus the only non contemptible foundation for logic quite literally is assumptions
A priori reasoning is more rigorous than unfalsified assumptions and so that should be the foundation for all logical arguments
A priori is assumption, as knowledge prior to sense experience results in a blank slate that is purely assumptive in nature. This is assuming knowledge exists prior to sense experience as empirical senses may dually give rise to reason as well.

A boundless plane is the purest assumption there is as well as the grounding for all further assumptions based upon the socratic blank slate or zen beginners mind.

Rigorousness is also assumed as it is purely the projection of one axiom to another, as observed in the above argument. There is no universal grounding for rigor and not rigor other than assumed form of argument.

Truth and falsity are also assumed values.

The truth is all logic is grounded in assumed axioms and these axioms are given credence as proof if they can be connected with these connections also being assumed.

There are no universal axioms except "that which is assumed".

wtf
Posts: 897
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

### Re: Assumptive Logic

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:22 am
..this argument is about losing sanity...not gaining it.
Don't you first have to have some sanity to lose?

surreptitious57
Posts: 3810
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Assumptive Logic

Eodnhoj wrote:
A priori is assumption as knowledge prior to sense experience results in a blank slate that is purely assumptive in nature
This is assuming knowledge exists prior to sense experience as empirical senses may dually give rise to reason as well
Some statements are rigorous enough to be accepted as a priori where no assumptions are being made

For example the statement that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori because this is the actual definition of the word
It is also the only one so there is no possibility of ambiguity that can happen with words with more than one definition

And whether a priori came before a posteriori or vice versa is probably something that will never be known
I dont think there is a specific order as they are two entirely different and independent types of knowledge

Age
Posts: 3949
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

### Re: Assumptive Logic

Truth Logic.

If we are to look at the nature of any sound and valid argument, it is grounded in true premises.

This type of argument is completely reasonable, sensible and naturally very easy to understand. Most will understand how logically simple this really is.

So, no need for insults and adhominums anywhere. This type of argument is about gaining sanity back, and not losing sanity at all.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3810
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Assumptive Logic

Age wrote:
If we are to look at the nature of any sound and valid argument it is grounded in true premises

This type of argument will is completely reasonable sensible and naturally easy to understand
This is true but arguments that are only valid and not sound do not have to possess true premises
They just have to be logically consistent within themselves but the premises can actually be false

Arguments can sometimes be hard to understand because of the specific subject matter or the number of premises they have or both
So while they may be sound and valid and reasonable and sensible this does not automatically guarantee that they will be easy as well

Skepdick
Posts: 2597
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: Assumptive Logic

So, it seems to me you have invented an alphabet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet_ ... languages)
And you have defined a bunch of inference rules for how to manipulate your alphabet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_sy ... entailment
And it seems that in certain places you choose to replace some symbols with other symbols: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rewriting
And your symbols evolve over time in accordance with your rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton

This is common sense to most formalists/computer scientists/mathematicians (or whatever label they assign to themselves) it's just the verboseness from 1 to 11 is not necessary once you have the technical terms at your disposal.

If you go on to build a system which can interpret your formal rules ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hosting_(compilers) ) then you are on your way of having created a coherent formal language. Which (despite the Munchhausen Trillema) is actually pulling itself up by its own bootstraps.

And so if your system works, then it can be said that you have invented a meaningful language. At which point you have arrived at the Anti-foundationalist perspective: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-foundationalism

Skepdick
Posts: 2597
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: Assumptive Logic

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 6:44 am
A priori is assumption.
And from where I am looking, this statement is an axiom. You cannot "win" the perspectivim/relativism battle.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 6:44 am
There are no universal axioms except "that which is assumed".
Then abandon foundationalism entirely and ask a different question. Are there universal theorems?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mathematics

Then you can think of physics as the "The Art of formalising intuition.". Which is what physics equations are.
And you can think of Mathematics as philosophy of language. Poetry.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5373
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Assumptive Logic

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:34 am
Eodnhoj wrote:
A priori is assumption as knowledge prior to sense experience results in a blank slate that is purely assumptive in nature
This is assuming knowledge exists prior to sense experience as empirical senses may dually give rise to reason as well
Some statements are rigorous enough to be accepted as a priori where no assumptions are being made

That is the problem, bachelor is assumed in definition (not all people know what a bachelor is...ie a child, a foreigner, different sub culture, as well if you ask for a definition not all will say unmarried, some will say single others, single man, others young single man, etc.) with each definition being assumed (ie what means "single"...some unmarried, or not dating, or not in open relationship) with each of these definitions assumed.

You cannot begin with an a priori statement that is not assumed strictly because a prior demands that which appears prior to the senses (not that we dont assume what we sense) can be relegated fundamentally to space according to kant. We are left with thr axiom of space which is assumed, but it is this very nature of space in platonic forms in which these assumptions are "mapped".

But the problem occurs in that the geometric nature in which assumptions are observed inevitably leads to an infinite number of axioms.

For example the statement that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori because this is the actual definition of the word
It is also the only one so there is no possibility of ambiguity that can happen with words with more than one definition

Not really, see above example...or just ask "age" what a bachelor is...rofl.

And whether a priori came before a posteriori or vice versa is probably something that will never be known
I dont think there is a specific order as they are two entirely different and independent types of knowledge

Not really considering both are mediated as knowledge and viewed, in some respects, as a temporal (or from a position of either outside of time or outside a timezone).

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5373
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Assumptive Logic

wtf wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:30 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:22 am
..this argument is about losing sanity...not gaining it.
Don't you first have to have some sanity to lose?
Tell me an agreed upon rigorous and valid definition of math that used quantities alone.

And for the record the premise argument above...it makes me more uncomfortable than it does you...
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5373
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Assumptive Logic

Age wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:31 am
Truth Logic.

If we are to look at the nature of any sound and valid argument, it is grounded in true premises.

This type of argument is completely reasonable, sensible and naturally very easy to understand. Most will understand how logically simple this really is.

So, no need for insults and adhominums anywhere. This type of argument is about gaining sanity back, and not losing sanity at all.
And the premises are true is the proof stemming from them observes a connection. Thus all assumptions as leading to further assumptions is a true premise.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5373
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Assumptive Logic

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:55 pm
Age wrote:
If we are to look at the nature of any sound and valid argument it is grounded in true premises

This type of argument will is completely reasonable sensible and naturally easy to understand
This is true but arguments that are only valid and not sound do not have to possess true premises
They just have to be logically consistent within themselves but the premises can actually be false

Arguments can sometimes be hard to understand because of the specific subject matter or the number of premises they have or both
So while they may be sound and valid and reasonable and sensible this does not automatically guarantee that they will be easy as well
We are still left with defining soundness and validity based upon specific assumptions and even in "mapping" the definition of both we refer to the absurd argument I presented.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest