The Munchauseen Trilemma and Aristotelian Identity Laws Result in 3 New Identity Laws

[Eodnhoj7]

Laws of identity are unavoidable in philosophy as an assumed context is constant, this assumed context is identity itself.

The nature of tautologies are expressed as points of awareness, a continual regress of assertions, and circularly self referencing. This triad is called the Munchausseen Trilemma. However the original Aristotelian laws of identity are contradictory if applied under the Munchauseen Trilemma:

(P=P) is subject to circularity as P is both the premise and conclusion.

(P=/=-P) is subject to infinite regress as -P equates to (R,S,T,...) as variables which are not P

(Pv-P) is subject to assumed assertions as P and -P are strictly taken without proof.

(P=P)v(P=/=-P) necessitates that under the law of excluded middle either the law of identity exists or the law of non contradiction.

Dually the laws are contradictory if applied to themselves in a circular self referential manner:

((P=P)v(-P=-P)) necessitates under the law of excluded middle one principle of identity exists or the other thus negating the principle of identity into existing in seperate states of either one identity or the other.

(P=P)v(P=/=-P) necessitates that under the law of excluded middle either the law of identity exists or the law of non contradiction.

((P=P)=(-P=-P)) necessitates under the law of identity that two opposing values are equal through the law of identity thus negating the law of excluded middle where P cannot equal not P.

((P=P)=/=(-P=-P)) necessitates under the law of non-contradiction that two principles equal through the law of identity are not equal thus the law of identity is not equal to itself.


The law of identity is grounded under assertions thus assumptions. All assumptions are assumed. This shows the isomorphism of one identity into another, as well as the recursion of one identity across multiple states. This results in a triad of identity properties.



1. Assumption of Inherent Middle ( • )


All assumptions as recursive necessitate a necessary common bond amidst assumptions through the underlying assumption which repeats. All assumptions exist as variations of eachother through a recursive state, thus all assumptions exist as a center point to further assumptions within the continuum of assumptions. All assumptions as having common underlying assumption necessitates an inherent middle assumption. All assumptions, as recursive, are inherently circular and act as a middle term: (P-->P)




2. Assumption of Inherent Void {( )}


All assumptions as inverting to another assumption necessitate an inherent emptiness of the assumption. All assumptions as intrinsically empty necessitate an inherent isomorphism where one assumption inverts to many tautological assumptions. All assumptions are void in themselves unless they continue to further assumption, thus each assumption as void voids itself into another assumption. An assumption as void negates to an assumption as existing, one axiom inverts to many.

Everytime a assumption progresses to another assumption, the new assumption contains elements of the old (through recursion) but the new assumption is not the old context and contains what the prior assumption is not. Thus the new assumption always contains an absence of the old assumption in one respect, due to newness of the assumption, while it contains elements of the old assumption at the same time. This is isomorphism and isomorphism breaks down to three different degrees as a triad of dualisms.


1. Nothing into Being: (• --> P)

2. Thetical Being into Antithetical Being: (P --> -P)

3. "Nothing into Being" into "Thetical Being into Antithetical Being": (• --> P) --> (P --> -P)

All assumptions, as inversive, are inherently linear and progressive: {P --> (Q <--> -P)}





3. Assumption of Inherent Context {( • )}


All assumptions as recursive and void necessitates all assumptions as contexts that have both one and many meanings: one meaning as underlying many assumptions, many meanings as inverting from one assumption to another.

Assumptions as inherent middles necessitate a symmetry where each assumption as a center point observes each assumption as circular through recursion.

Assumptions as inherently void necessitates all assumptions as progressive linear functions where a function, as that which changes one form to another, is fundamentally formless.

All assumptions are generalized state of things that are composed of particulars that are not being observed, each assumption is thus a variable. Each variable as a generality, is composed of particular which are empty of definition, thus each variable is strictly empty in and of itself as a context. In simpler terms each generality is composed of particulars, which as undefined, leave the general context as empty.

All assumptions as variables are therefore contexts. All assumptions, as contexts, are inherently empty self referential loops inverting to other empty self-referential loops, existing through the point of view of the observer:

{{(P-->P) --> (Q --> -P)} --> {(P-->P) --> (Q --> -P)}}

[Eodnhoj7]

These identity properties are not limited to Aristotelian identity laws alone, but the fallacies of logic. These fallacies act as negative limits. Further more the fallacies which act as negative limits to philosophy are identity properties, isomorphically, as referenced to assumptive law 2. They are identity properties by representing what a logical assertion is not.


All fallacies can be applied to all fallacies thus negating the fallacy.

For example the fallacy of authority is an authority statement thus negated. All assertions are authoritative, within certain degrees, by nature. Another example the fallacy of circularity can be expressed as: (Circularity is a fallacy because circularity is a fallacy) = Fallacy of Circularity

In a second respect it equivocates the fallacy to a series of negative limits that define an argument by what it is not. For example the fallacy of circularity defines a philosophical argument by what it is not, linear, while the fallacy of authority defines an argument by it hinging on authority at the expense of logic.

Fallacies are isomorphisms of truth values when applied to themselves. The fallacy of circularity exists because of the fallacy of circularity, but it simultaneously does not exist for this very same reason as this circularity is a fallacy. Thus the fallacy both exists and does not exist.


1. All fallacies can be applied to other fallacies thus negating the fallacy. For example, the fallacy of circularity is circular thus negating the fallacy of circularity.

2. All fallacies as negated necessitate all fallacies as truth values. For example the fallacy of circularity negated necessitates circularity as fundamental.

3. All fallacies as continuously redefined, through the fallacies of regression and slippery slope, necessitates the fallacy as still existing. The fallacy exists as what a logical argument is not. For example circularity ceases to exist as a fallacy, yet circularity necessitates what an argument is not (linear), thus the logical argument is defined thetically and antithetical through the fallacy. a circular argument is valid because it is circular, but it is limited by its circularity. Fallacies simultaneously exist and not exist at the same time.

4. The thetical and antithetical nature of the fallacy, as defining an argument necessitates the fallacy as isomorphic. Isomorphism, again, is the inversion of one state into a symmetrical opposite state. The definition of any argument, through the fallacy, requires isomorphism as a key principle. The repitition of the thesis In many different states necessitates recursion as it becomes an underlying middle term.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The heading alone deserves some kind of award.

[RCSaunders]

All fallacies can be applied to all fallacies thus negating the fallacy.

Please explain how the fallacies of reification and hypostatization can be negated.

[Eodnhoj7]

All fallacies can be applied to all fallacies thus negating the fallacy.

Please explain how the fallacies of reification and hypostatization can be negated.

Reification is taken as a concrete model of what defines a fallacy and what does not. The fallacy is confusing an abstraction of what is truth for what is true.

Yet the fallacy is only an abstraction, seperate from empirical reality.

As an abstraction it cannot make any definitive statement about a distinction between abstract and concrete without being itself distinct from concreteness causing of regressive loop where the fallacy falls deeper and deeper into abstraction.

As distinct from a concrete reality, it cannot defined concreteness, but it requires to define abstraction by what abstraction is not, concrete.

[RCSaunders]

All fallacies can be applied to all fallacies thus negating the fallacy.

Please explain how the fallacies of reification and hypostatization can be negated.

Reification is taken as a concrete model of what defines a fallacy and what does not.

There is no need to examine the rest of what you said since you begin with a wrong premise.

"Reification," is a concept for an epistemological or psychological process (reason), a mental action with no physical attributes. Since "abstract and concrete are classifications that denote whether the object that a term describes has physical referents. Abstract objects have no physical referents, whereas concrete objects do," [from here] and reification is a non-concrete concept which identifies a non-concrete phenomena, it is not a, "model," of anything.

If every fallacy is a fallacy, then saying anything is a fallacy is a fallacy, which is tantamount to saying it is untrue that anything is untrue, which means everything is true. Your hypothesis, that every fallacy is a fallacy is just a variety of a double negative, a semantic mistake.

[Eodnhoj7]

Please explain how the fallacies of reification and hypostatization can be negated.

Reification is taken as a concrete model of what defines a fallacy and what does not.

There is no need to examine the rest of what you said since you begin with a wrong premise.

"Reification," is a concept for an epistemological or psychological process (reason), a mental action with no physical attributes. Since "abstract and concrete are classifications that denote whether the object that a term describes has physical referents. Abstract objects have no physical referents, whereas concrete objects do," [from here] and reification is a non-concrete concept which identifies a non-concrete phenomena, it is not a, "model," of anything.

If every fallacy is a fallacy, then saying anything is a fallacy is a fallacy, which is tantamount to saying it is untrue that anything is untrue, which means everything is true. Your hypothesis, that every fallacy is a fallacy is just a variety of a double negative, a semantic mistake.

It is both a double negative and double positive and as such are following basic rules of logic. There is no semantic mistake as there are no semantic rules to define it as a mistake.

The fallacies can be applied both to themselves and eachother thus leaving us with:

The fallacies both exist and do not exist simultaneously.

The fallacy of circularity is circular thus it is negated into circularity being a true value. Simultaneously the fallacy is subject to infinite regress and slippery slope, thus it always exists under a new definition.

The fallacies are isomorphisms of both true and false statements. As self applied, they negate. As subject to continual redefinition they are always valid.


As to reification a mental action without physical attributes is fallacious as the mental action is subject to physical attributes due to there connection to physical attributes. A mental concept of a number exists because of counting physical objects, reification exists because of the mental concepts being tied to a posteriori phenomenon. Reification is an abstraction about abstractions and as such cannot negate the connection between a mental abstraction and empirical object precisely because it needs a concrete model of what a physical phenomenon is.

Reification needs a definition as to what abstraction is, and by proxy a physical model as to what it is not.

In order to define what a mental action is, it must defined apophatically what a mental action is not, thus requiring a concrete model.

The problem between distinguishing abstract and physical is that in both, a mental action and a physical model, a form is present. Both abstractions and concrete phenomena are both tied by forms, thus contradicting reification as it must be an abstraction yet cannot be.

Reification falls under the other fallacies anyhow:

1. Reification is x because reification is x is circular.
2. It is x because authorities say it is x.
3. It is x because a group agrees it is x.
4. It is subject to an assumed point of view, as any mental action cannot abstractly be proven as objective only subjective.
5. It is subject to continual redefinition.
6. It is a strawman as mental action and concreteness are over simplified terms.
7. It is a false dilemma as mental action and physical action are tied by the common point of forms grounding both.
8. Mental action and physical concrete properties are generalizations.
....

[RCSaunders]

In order to define what a mental action is, it must defined apophatically what a mental action is not, thus requiring a concrete model.

Do you just make up your own epistemological rules or do you have some Bible of epistemology you consult. There is no necessity to define what a mental action is not in order to define what mental action is.

Now, I don't care if you want to believe that nonsense, but in case there are some young sane minds that might read this, they need to know, a definition only has to isolate and identify the existents it refers to. Nothing can be defined by specifying what it is not, because there are an infinite number of things anything that exists is not.

[RCSaunders]

The heading alone deserves some kind of award.

May I suggest, "The Excellence in Academic Jargon of Esoteric Nonsense," award. Only because that is what it is.

[Eodnhoj7]

In order to define what a mental action is, it must defined apophatically what a mental action is not, thus requiring a concrete model.

Do you just make up your own epistemological rules or do you have some Bible of epistemology you consult. There is no necessity to define what a mental action is not in order to define what mental action

Apophatic reasoning in theology, proof of what something is by what it is not (reflects into philosophy) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology

Nagarjuna:

All things (dharma) exist: affirmation of being, negation of non-being
All things (dharma) do not exist: affirmation of non-being, negation of being
All things (dharma) both exist and do not exist: both affirmation and negation
All things (dharma) neither exist nor do not exist: neither affirmation nor negation [34]


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna

/color]

Now, I don't care if you want to believe that nonsense, but in case there are some young sane minds that might read this, they need to know, a definition only has to isolate and identify the existents it refers to. This leads to an infinite regress in analysis where any part is defined by another part by another part. If the regress is stop, it leaves the definition at a general state composed of either undefined or ill defined facts.


Nothing can be defined by specifying what it is not, because there are an infinite number of things anything that exists is not.

Actually a fallacy defines a logical argument by what it is not.

For example an argument of authority proves an argument as logical upto the point where the authority takes place of logic....the argument is logical but the authority acts as a negative limit as to where the argument is not logical.

The argument exists up to what it is not, what it is not proves what it is as a "limit" to it.

Another example a pond is defined by what it contains, water, depth, etc. It is defined by what it is not: dirt, sky, road, etc.

Proofs are both positive, what something is, and negative, what it is not. Both what an argument is and is not are required to fully define it,

[RCSaunders]

In order to define what a mental action is, it must defined apophatically what a mental action is not, thus requiring a concrete model.

Do you just make up your own epistemological rules or do you have some Bible of epistemology you consult. There is no necessity to define what a mental action is not in order to define what mental action ...

Proofs are both positive, what something is, and negative, what it is not. Both what an argument is and is not are required to fully define it,

When you've decided whether is, "definitions," we are talking about, or, "proofs," I'll come back, if you're interested. They are not the same thing.

[Eodnhoj7]

Do you just make up your own epistemological rules or do you have some Bible of epistemology you consult. There is no necessity to define what a mental action is not in order to define what mental action ...

Proofs are both positive, what something is, and negative, what it is not. Both what an argument is and is not are required to fully define it,

When you've decided whether is, "definitions," we are talking about, or, "proofs," I'll come back, if you're interested. They are not the same thing.

I provided source examples.

Proofs are the linking together of assertions to form a definition as to what something is or is not. The absence of connection is the absence of proof, hence definition.

For example the proof 1+2=3 is a definition of the relations between 1, 2 and 3. 1+2=4 shows an absence of connection between 1+2 and 4 as contexts, hence a lack of proof therefore a lack of definition.

Definition and proof are synonymous, you can try drawing all the distinctions you want but it will end up in a regress to some core undefined assertion.


Logic, at best, deals with descriptions.

[commonsense]

Logic, at best, deals with descriptions.

Logic deals with truth values and inferential relationships.

[Eodnhoj7]

Logic, at best, deals with descriptions.

Logic deals with truth values and inferential relationships.

Truth is the connection of assertions, inference is the direction of one assertion to another. Logic at best is descriptive.

[Eodnhoj7]

To get the thread back on track.

1. All assertions contain underlying assertions from which they are derived, thus necessitating an underlying assertion which forms it. This results in all assertions, as deduced from another assertion, as being an inherent middle assertion.

2. All assertions invert from one assertion into another, thus necessitating an inherent emptiness to each individual assertion. This results in all assertions, as directing from one assertion to another, as being an inherently void assertion.

3. All assertions as repeating through other assertions and inherently empty, mandate the assertion as a contextual loop. All assertions, as both repetitive and empty, are a loop where each variable is an inherent contextual assertion.