Assumptive Logic

[Age]

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.

But NOT 'all' are assumptions. The fact that this is True is impossible for you to accept. This is because of your already strongly held BELIEFS, which you are desperately holding onto and trying to maintain.

You can NOT see that NOT 'all are assumptions', and therefore you do NOT understand this, BECAUSE you BELIEVE the very opposite is the actual and real Truth of things.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

So what it is obscure and clear at the same time...

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]

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.

But NOT 'all' are assumptions. The fact that this is True is impossible for you to accept. This is because of your already strongly held BELIEFS, which you are desperately holding onto and trying to maintain.

You can NOT see that NOT 'all are assumptions', and therefore you do NOT understand this, BECAUSE you BELIEVE the very opposite is the actual and real Truth of things.

All is form as assumed. Form and assumption are inseperable. How is "all is assumed" a belief when I am by fault assuming this?

Show me a formal system that does not build itself upon assumed axioms....

The real truth of things is that all is assumed as well as proof, and that assumptions exist as form, through form with from being assumptive itself. It is all recursive and isomorphic patterns.

[Age]

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

So what it is obscure and clear at the same time...

It is certainly NOT that to me. But, if that is what you assume and BELIEVE it is, then that is exactly what "it is", to you obviously.

[Age]

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.

But NOT 'all' are assumptions. The fact that this is True is impossible for you to accept. This is because of your already strongly held BELIEFS, which you are desperately holding onto and trying to maintain.

You can NOT see that NOT 'all are assumptions', and therefore you do NOT understand this, BECAUSE you BELIEVE the very opposite is the actual and real Truth of things.

All is form as assumed. Form and assumption are inseperable.

How are 'you' defining the words 'form' and 'assumption' here?

To me, the words 'form' AND 'assumption' can be separated by the separate and different definitions that they have been assigned.

How is "all is assumed" a belief when I am by fault assuming this?

Any thing can be assumed AND be believed as well. The choice is yours alone.

If you are only assuming what you are saying is true, right, and correct, and not believing it is true, right, and correct, then this is a great example of and very clear evidence of how strongly just assuming some thing can prevent a person from seeing the real and actual Truth of things.

Show me a formal system that does not build itself upon assumed axioms....

Any formal system, which is based upon known actual facts, would suffice in showing you a formal system that does not build itself upon assumed axioms.

But obviously, to you, there is NO such system exiting within the Universe, Itself. This is because if you could see one, then you would not be assuming and believing what you do now.

Obviously you can NOT see the actual and real Truth of things if you assume and believe the opposite. I have already explained that a human brain is incapable of seeing 'that', which is opposite of what is being assumed and believed to be True.

The real truth of things is that all is assumed as well as proof, and that assumptions exist as form, through form with from being assumptive itself. It is all recursive and isomorphic patterns.

If that is "the real truth of things" to you, that it IS "what it IS", to you.

Why is it so important to you that "others" KNOW that, to you, 'all is assumed'?

[Eodnhoj7]

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

So what it is obscure and clear at the same time...

It is certainly NOT that to me. But, if that is what you assume and BELIEVE it is, then that is exactly what "it is", to you obviously.

It is not that way from the angle of awareness in which you assume reality.

[Eodnhoj7]

But NOT 'all' are assumptions. The fact that this is True is impossible for you to accept. This is because of your already strongly held BELIEFS, which you are desperately holding onto and trying to maintain.

You can NOT see that NOT 'all are assumptions', and therefore you do NOT understand this, BECAUSE you BELIEVE the very opposite is the actual and real Truth of things.

All is form as assumed. Form and assumption are inseperable.

How are 'you' defining the words 'form' and 'assumption' here?

To me, the words 'form' AND 'assumption' can be separated by the separate and different definitions that they have been assigned.

How is "all is assumed" a belief when I am by fault assuming this?

Any thing can be assumed AND be believed as well. The choice is yours alone.

If you are only assuming what you are saying is true, right, and correct, and not believing it is true, right, and correct, then this is a great example of and very clear evidence of how strongly just assuming some thing can prevent a person from seeing the real and actual Truth of things.

Show me a formal system that does not build itself upon assumed axioms....

Any formal system, which is based upon known actual facts, would suffice in showing you a formal system that does not build itself upon assumed axioms.

But obviously, to you, there is NO such system exiting within the Universe, Itself. This is because if you could see one, then you would not be assuming and believing what you do now.

Obviously you can NOT see the actual and real Truth of things if you assume and believe the opposite. I have already explained that a human brain is incapable of seeing 'that', which is opposite of what is being assumed and believed to be True.

The real truth of things is that all is assumed as well as proof, and that assumptions exist as form, through form with from being assumptive itself. It is all recursive and isomorphic patterns.

If that is "the real truth of things" to you, that it IS "what it IS", to you.

Why is it so important to you that "others" KNOW that, to you, 'all is assumed'?

Sipping coffee...

[Age]

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

It is certainly NOT that to me. But, if that is what you assume and BELIEVE it is, then that is exactly what "it is", to you obviously.

It is not that way from the angle of awareness in which you assume reality.

You can word any thing in any way you like, so that things align with your already held assumptions and beliefs, but that is all you are doing here.

You can not equally successfully propose that you KNOW the truth of things but also be saying at the same that you really do NOT know the truth of things because really you are only just assuming it.

[Age]

All is form as assumed. Form and assumption are inseperable.

How are 'you' defining the words 'form' and 'assumption' here?

To me, the words 'form' AND 'assumption' can be separated by the separate and different definitions that they have been assigned.

How is "all is assumed" a belief when I am by fault assuming this?

Any thing can be assumed AND be believed as well. The choice is yours alone.

If you are only assuming what you are saying is true, right, and correct, and not believing it is true, right, and correct, then this is a great example of and very clear evidence of how strongly just assuming some thing can prevent a person from seeing the real and actual Truth of things.

Show me a formal system that does not build itself upon assumed axioms....

Any formal system, which is based upon known actual facts, would suffice in showing you a formal system that does not build itself upon assumed axioms.

But obviously, to you, there is NO such system exiting within the Universe, Itself. This is because if you could see one, then you would not be assuming and believing what you do now.

Obviously you can NOT see the actual and real Truth of things if you assume and believe the opposite. I have already explained that a human brain is incapable of seeing 'that', which is opposite of what is being assumed and believed to be True.

The real truth of things is that all is assumed as well as proof, and that assumptions exist as form, through form with from being assumptive itself. It is all recursive and isomorphic patterns.

If that is "the real truth of things" to you, that it IS "what it IS", to you.

Why is it so important to you that "others" KNOW that, to you, 'all is assumed'?

Sipping coffee...

WHY when I propose some thing, like what I observe and/or do, you will respond and tell me that it is false or that it is not what I do, but then when I ask you clarifying questions in regards to what you say, then you start "sipping coffee" and refusing to clarify yourself.

It appears, to me, you can only really tell "others" what you believe is the truth of things, but completely incapable of explaining your self in any way.

[Eodnhoj7]

It is certainly NOT that to me. But, if that is what you assume and BELIEVE it is, then that is exactly what "it is", to you obviously.

It is not that way from the angle of awareness in which you assume reality.

You can word any thing in any way you like, so that things align with your already held assumptions and beliefs, but that is all you are doing here.

You can not equally successfully propose that you KNOW the truth of things but also be saying at the same that you really do NOT know the truth of things because really you are only just assuming it.

Sipping coffee...

[Eodnhoj7]

How are 'you' defining the words 'form' and 'assumption' here?

To me, the words 'form' AND 'assumption' can be separated by the separate and different definitions that they have been assigned.



Any thing can be assumed AND be believed as well. The choice is yours alone.

If you are only assuming what you are saying is true, right, and correct, and not believing it is true, right, and correct, then this is a great example of and very clear evidence of how strongly just assuming some thing can prevent a person from seeing the real and actual Truth of things.



Any formal system, which is based upon known actual facts, would suffice in showing you a formal system that does not build itself upon assumed axioms.

But obviously, to you, there is NO such system exiting within the Universe, Itself. This is because if you could see one, then you would not be assuming and believing what you do now.

Obviously you can NOT see the actual and real Truth of things if you assume and believe the opposite. I have already explained that a human brain is incapable of seeing 'that', which is opposite of what is being assumed and believed to be True.



If that is "the real truth of things" to you, that it IS "what it IS", to you.

Why is it so important to you that "others" KNOW that, to you, 'all is assumed'?

Sipping coffee...

WHY when I propose some thing, like what I observe and/or do, you will respond and tell me that it is false or that it is not what I do, but then when I ask you clarifying questions in regards to what you say, then you start "sipping coffee" and refusing to clarify yourself.

It appears, to me, you can only really tell "others" what you believe is the truth of things, but completely incapable of explaining your self in any way.

Sipping coffee...

[surreptitious57]

When the evidence for something is sufficiently rigorous then it becomes a fact and from that point on stops being an assumption
Assumptions with regard to axioms are rather different because they use logic rather than evidence but the principle is the same

This is because mathematics is a sub set of logic and so therefore needs logic in order to justify all of its axioms
Also because mathematics is primarily a deductive discipline that deals with definitive truth not probable truth

And yet some axioms within mathematics are very arbitrary indeed

For example the axiom that states a circle has to have 360 degrees when could actually have as few or as many degrees as possible
The only absolute rules would be that each degree would have to equidistant from each other and there would have to be universal
consensus on this especially where there were real world consequences if such consensus was absent such as navigation for example

So if the universal consensus was that there were 60 or 720 or 8000 or 90000 degrees instead it would make precisely zero difference

And 360 is very useful because it has so many divisors [ I 2 3 4 5 6 9 I0 I2 I5 I8 20 24 36 72 90 I20 I80 360 ]
Other numbers have as many and even more but only one was required so that was the one decided upon

[wtf]

This is because mathematics is a sub set of logic and so therefore needs logic in order to justify all of its axioms

I haven't followed this thread but this sentence caught my eye. Didn't Gödel definitively prove that math isn't a subset of logic? Math transcends logic. Gödel's work destroyed the hopes of the logicists, who did believe math could be derived from logic.

Also it is not the case that logic is required to justify the axioms. Math depends on SOME logic, but it could be classical first order predicate logic (the usual default) or it could be intuitionistic logic or some other form of logic. When you say logic you have to say which logic you mean.

Finally the axioms are never justified by logic. Why certain axioms are chosen is a long story, but it boils down to usefulness, having a richer rather than a more restrictive mathematical universe, and various historical trends. But I can't think of any axiom (of set theory, say) that's there for some reason purely pertaining to logic.

The example of the circle being 360 degrees is not a great example IMO. It's just a convention. We could have said 100 degrees or 439 degrees. 360 was chosen by the Babylonians because it's easy to work with, it has a lot of divisors. And it's close to the number of days in the year. But it's not an axiom, just a convention.

An axiom is more like something like the axiom of infinity, which says there's an infinite set. There's no reason to think it's true about the world. And there's no logical reason it should be true or false. It's assumed in modern math simply because it provides a richer mathematical universe.

[surreptitious57]

I think Godel demonstrated through his Incompleteness Thereom that not all mathematical questions have answers to them
But it does not falsify the notion that mathematics is a sub set of logic which is a statement of fact not a matter of opinion

Mathematics is primarily a deductive discipline and so by default it has to be grounded in logic and specifically first order classical
Before Godel mathematics may have been thought of as absolute but his discovery of its limitations does not falsify its use of logic

[Skepdick]

But it does not falsify the notion that mathematics is a sub set of logic which is a statement of fact not a matter of opinion

It's kinda difficult to test/answer this question unless you have some clear conception of what logic is.

If your conception/definition of logic is anything like a formal system, then it's yet another axiomatic system - it's the same as Mathematics, and your ability to quantitatively decide the "equivalence" of any two axiomatic/formal systems stops at Turing completeness.