Assumptive Logic

[Skepdick]

A dimension is grounded in linear direction, hence is space itself...space is pure movement and as such is the grounded for all of reality...even thought itself.

Are you saying 'change is the only constant' or are you quoting from http://wisdomofchopra.com/ ?

[Eodnhoj7]

A dimension is grounded in linear direction, hence is space itself...space is pure movement and as such is the grounded for all of reality...even thought itself.

Are you saying 'change is the only constant' or are you quoting from http://wisdomofchopra.com/ ?

What I am saying is that asking how many dimensions space has, when a dimension is a spatial axiom is like asking how many axioms compose and axiom...one and many.

I looked at the website by the way, those random generated statements aren't random. You can make a list of them on some thread and I can translate them into less ambiguous English. We had some "clever guy" about a year ago trying to make philosophical statements using what he thought was random wording...and it utterly failed and back fired on him.

Contradictions fail in the long run as they are founded on rational variables. A contradiction is just disconnected axioms, but this does not negate these axioms as having forms in and of themselves.

[Eodnhoj7]

A dimension is grounded in linear direction, hence is space itself...space is pure movement and as such is the grounded for all of reality...even thought itself.

Are you saying 'change is the only constant' or are you quoting from http://wisdomofchopra.com/ ?

What you fail to realize is that choice theory necessitates all computation as fundamentally random.

Computation is reflected in the chaotic nature of the world in which we live.

It quite literally is just made up choosing axioms, with choice being no different than assumption.

[Skepdick]

a dimension is a spatial axiom

That's one definition of a dimensionality. There are others.

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

[Skepdick]

Computation is reflected in the chaotic nature of the world in which we live.

It quite literally is just made up choosing axioms, with choice being no different than assumption.

It necessitates no axioms whatsoever. You get to choose those.

Then you get to compute their consequences.

A system without axioms still computes. It just computes no consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_loop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOP_(code)

[Eodnhoj7]

a dimension is a spatial axiom

That's one definition of a dimensionality. There are others.

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

And that definition is an assumption following the above OP logic. One assumption leading to another assumption effectively results in the point existing as its own fractal, where fractals are just continuums.

All assumptions are localized points of reality through the observer as a point of awareness (quite literally) because of blanck slate/beginners mind as being formless.

[Eodnhoj7]

Computation is reflected in the chaotic nature of the world in which we live.

It quite literally is just made up choosing axioms, with choice being no different than assumption.

It necessitates no axioms whatsoever. You get to choose those.

Then you get to compute their consequences.

A system without axioms still computes. It just computes no consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_loop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOP_(code)

Assumption is self evident, hence is an axiom.

Choice as the grounding for what axioms are used and not used, is an axiom.

Axioms are inevitable because the assumption of assumption is self referential, hence self evidential, by nature.

[Skepdick]

Assumption is self evident, hence is an axiom.

That's one way to define an axiom - sure.

I am pointing out that if you are practicing phenomenology and directly examining the structure of conscious experience e.g purely observing, then there are no axioms. There are only phenomena.

Choice as the grounding for what axioms are used and not used, is an axiom.

Duh! That's why it's called the axiom of choice. That's why you have

But it is no less true that axioms emerge only after phenomenological bracketing.
After you aim your intention at a particular sub-set of your awareness.

After individuate an object or an experience from the surroundings.

If anything is assumed, functions are! Not axioms. You need choice-functions.

If you want to say that 'functions are assumed'. Well OK. That's what all logic says. A -> B

[Eodnhoj7]

Assumption is self evident, hence is an axiom.

That's one way to define an axiom - sure.

I am pointing out that if you are practicing phenomenology and directly examining the structure of conscious experience e.g purely observing, then there are no axioms. There are only phenomena.

which are assumed thus observing assumption itself as a phenomena

Choice as the grounding for what axioms are used and not used, is an axiom.

Duh! That's why it's called the axiom of choice. That's why you have

But it is no less true that axioms emerge only after phenomenological bracketing.
After you aim your intention at a particular sub-set of your awareness.

After individuate an object or an experience from the surroundings.

If anything is assumed, functions are! Not axioms. You need choice-functions.

Functions are axioms....the basic axioms of arithmetic observe this.


I mean face it, I will be the first to admit how absurd and ugly the OP "logic" is, but it still is inevitable...we only know assumptions and this is assumed on form alone.

Any universal "logic" must have axioms which are irrefutable...the problem is that assumption is irrefutable as any argument against it is strictly one assumption inverting to many further assumptions.

[Skepdick]

Functions are axioms....the basic axioms of arithmetic observe this.

OK, if you insist on re-defining the commonly understood meaning of axiom, but in the conceptual space functions 'exist' BEFORE axioms 'exist'.

The axioms of arithmetic are defined recursively. WITH functions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms#Addition

Phenomenological bracketing is a function.

[Eodnhoj7]

Functions are axioms....the basic axioms of arithmetic observe this.

OK, if you insist on re-defining the commonly understood meaning of axiom, but in the conceptual space functions 'exist' BEFORE axioms 'exist'.

the commonly held meaning of axiom is self evident truth. The blanck slate /beginners mind as formless assuming itself gives rise to form. Assumption and space are inseperable, this necessitates assumption as both form and function.

I addressed this a while ago in the monadic calculus where +1 is both a form and function. You cannot have a positive number without it in fact being a function. The best you can do is created a function observing the recursion of form/functions through further form/functions but this function itself is also a form.

It is like saying is a line a form or a function?

It is a form in the respect it is the negation of void (point as formless negated through line), but the line is also a function as it is composed of x to infinite points. A simple line composed of 4 lines can be observed simultaneously as 1/4, 4/1, +1, +4, 5(0), 1/0, 4/0, etc.

Thus the line of 1 observes 4 as a function where 4 is a function and form of .25. Numbers are functions.

If you do the which came first, the function or the form you end up in a relativistic loop where either one applied first results in a different axiomization to begin with.

If you observe each as function and form, then each phenomenon is inherently void in and of itself as it exists through an inversion into another axiom, while dually being a perpetual middle.

For example:

(1(0)->1(0)) = 1 and 2(0)


Zero negates itself into one, but effectively is localized into 1 entity when it does so thus resulting into to points that effectively in themselves are nothing. This can be observed where the -> = 1

(2(0)->1(0)) = 1/2, 3(0)

-> is thus equal to 2.

(1(0)->2(0)) = 2/1, 3(0)

-> is thus equal to 1.

In each respect 1 exists as a form and 0 as a means of inversion of one form to another is a function. 1(0) observes form and function.

Etc.



The axioms of arithmetic are defined recursively. WITH functions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms#Addition

Phenomenological bracketing is a function.

bracketing is also a form.

[Skepdick]

the commonly held meaning of axiom is self evident truth. The blanck slate /beginners mind as formless assuming itself gives rise to form.

Does the 'blank slate' assume its own existence? How does a 'blank slate' formalise a blank slate?

[Eodnhoj7]

the commonly held meaning of axiom is self evident truth. The blanck slate /beginners mind as formless assuming itself gives rise to form.

Does the 'blank slate' assume its own existence? How does a 'blank slate' formalise a blank slate?

0 voiding 0 or mass negating itself into volume observes the same principle.

0 is nothing in itself, just like a blankness is nothing in itself.

It is self negating because...nothing is there, thus form is alway present. We observed void or emptiness only in the presence of multiple states. Much like a glass full 1/2 of water and half of gas. A line occurs which is effectively nothing in itself but a point of inversion from on phenomenon into another. On it's own it cannot be viewed as nothing is there.

So we observe nothingness through relations where one phenomenon Inverts to another.

So how does a void mind observe itself? It negates its blank state by the blank state alone where the assumption of blankness through blankness results in the projection of the blankness into a form.

This occurs naturally as when emptying the mind forms spontaneously arise. Negate one form and what it is connected to within the pscyhe arises (example negating an image of a duck, with all images existing through the relations of forms as a form in itself, what is connected to the duck occurs...this may be a conceptualization such as a bird or even a memory as an image or series of images).

The blank slate is thus a function. One form goes in and another comes out. However each form or image is composed of blank slate void as well considering they are assumed, thus in negating one void state through another void state and a form results.

So I observe a duck again. This is assumed by the blank slate of the mind. This image as assumed in turn is inverted to another form than another form then another form. Eventually these forms invert into so many forms that only commonalities are observed in form:

1. Duck
2. Bird
3. Head, wings, body.
4. Head and body as ovals wings as triangles
5. Ovals and triangles
6. Etc.

This process can be seen in reverse with any good painter, Davinci first and foremost comes to mind, where the painting begins with abstract shapes which progressively variate into further shapes, etc. Until the paint is formed quite literal through a process of fractals within fractals that are so small they form obscure points that imply a random flow.

But to get back track the blank slate observed itself is the blank slate negating itself into a form as a point of awareness this can be observed metaphorically under the term "the light or reason" or a mass of formless clouds producing definable lightning.

[Age]

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

Will you provide an example please?

Arguments can sometimes be hard to understand because of the specific subject matter or the number of premises they have or both

If you have any examples, then will you provide one of them.

I would like to see if it could be made much easier to understand. If it is a sound and valid argument, then making it much easier to understand should not be to hard to do at all.

So while they may be sound and valid and reasonable and sensible this does not automatically guarantee that they will be easy as well

This, I think, is because of how they are written, and not because of the argument itself.

If a supposedly "hard" sound and valid argument is just written in point form, then it would be much easier to follow.

[Age]

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.

A 'bachelor' IS what 'it' is defined as, obviously. Or, exactly how AND what surreptituous57 is explaining things, to you.

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).