Counting as grounded in Assumption of Void

[Skepdick]

How can I? If antifoundationalism is an absence of foundation, it cannot be defined as this definition is a foundation...its a mu statement.

I don't know what a mu statement is. It's your private language. It's incoherent to me.

Google it...it is not private language.

I did. The first 8 links are all pointing at "Micron Technology Inc. (MU)" and their financial statements.
https://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=MU

Now, if I am to go on a limb here and reach into the depths of my Principle of Charity, I would guess that you are talking about the MIU formal system contrived in one of the chapters of Gödel, Escher, Bach.

If that is indeed what you are referring to, then a MU-statement means exactly the same thing as a Theorem where M, I and U are Axioms.

If my statement is a MU-statement (e,g a theorem), then you are necessarily claiming that it follows from some axioms. What axioms do you think it follows from?

[Eodnhoj7]

I don't know what a mu statement is. It's your private language. It's incoherent to me.

Google it...it is not private language.

I did. The first 8 links are all pointing at "Micron Technology Inc. (MU)" and their financial statements.
https://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=MU

Now, if I am to go on a limb here and reach into the depths of my Principle of Charity, I would guess that you are talking about the MIU formal system contrived in one of the chapters of Gödel, Escher, Bach.

If that is indeed what you are referring to, then a MU-statement means exactly the same thing as a Theorem where M, I and U are Axioms.

If my statement is a MU-statement (e,g a theorem), then you are necessarily claiming that it follows from some axioms. What axioms do you think it follows from?

Hofstadter, in GEB, got MU from an Asian word:

MU meaning (urban dictionary google): where the answer can neither be write or wrong or both right and wrong because of wrong context of assumptions.

Example

1. Have I stopped beating my wife?

The answer is yes because I would never beat her.
The answer is also no because I have no wife.

[Eodnhoj7]

Google it...it is not private language.

I did. The first 8 links are all pointing at "Micron Technology Inc. (MU)" and their financial statements.
https://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=MU

Now, if I am to go on a limb here and reach into the depths of my Principle of Charity, I would guess that you are talking about the MIU formal system contrived in one of the chapters of Gödel, Escher, Bach.

If that is indeed what you are referring to, then a MU-statement means exactly the same thing as a Theorem where M, I and U are Axioms.

If my statement is a MU-statement (e,g a theorem), then you are necessarily claiming that it follows from some axioms. What axioms do you think it follows from?

Hofstadter, in GEB, got MU from an Asian word:

MU meaning (urban dictionary google): where the answer can neither be write or wrong or both right and wrong because of wrong context of assumptions.

Example

1. Have I stopped beating my wife?

The answer is yes because I would never beat her.
The answer is also no because I have no wife.

Antifoundationalism is a foundation.

[Skepdick]

MU meaning (urban dictionary google): where the answer can neither be write or wrong or both right and wrong because of wrong context of assumptions.

Example

1. Have I stopped beating my wife?

The answer is yes because I would never beat her.
The answer is also no because I have no wife.

That isn't the meaning in GEB though.

The particular meaning in GEB asks: Given a particular set of axioms and a particular set of inference rules - can you determine if MU is a theorem. e.g does MU follow from the premises? Is it a valid deduction?

Obviously, before you tackle the problem the answer is yes OR no, or yes AND no. Either way - you are uncertain.

[Eodnhoj7]

MU meaning (urban dictionary google): where the answer can neither be write or wrong or both right and wrong because of wrong context of assumptions.

Example

1. Have I stopped beating my wife?

The answer is yes because I would never beat her.
The answer is also no because I have no wife.

That isn't the meaning in GEB though.

The particular meaning in GEB asks: Given a particular set of axioms and a particular set of inference rules - can you determine if MU is a theorem. e.g does MU follow from the premises? Is it a valid deduction?

Obviously, before you tackle the problem the answer is yes OR no, or yes AND no. Either way - you are uncertain.

Yeah I read the book multiple times, it is about mu and is mu....that is the whole point of the book and its obsessions with spirals. The book is about form as proof and proof as form.

The particular "meaning" is just a reflection of the observer from the core premise of "mu"...even his formulas observe reflections of mu in the name as well as the basic premise of spirals which alludes to the Munchauseen trillema. So while it is a reflection of the author, and hofstadter admits to not knowing anything, any outside interpretation of the observer is a reflection of the reader him/her seld....thus it acts like a zen koan for the reader...and it is a zen koan.

We see this in multiple scriptures, such as the Bible where the reader comes back and sees something different each time they read...however this applies to all great works of literature precisely because they are so "empty" that they fundamentally necessitate "meaning".

That is why it is brilliant...its the form of the writing that is a function of psychic surgery.

The meaning of the question is mu considering you are assuming "set" of assumptions as a context, this paradoxically necessitates some "rule" where the set of assumptions is an assumption itself. What determines a set of assumptions, as a rule with using a set of assumptions to determine the rule?

We are left with inversion of one assumption into another and the recursion of one assumption then another...but a problem occurs:

The only rule of assumption is "void" as assumption is empty context, but this assumption of assumptions or "voiding of void" necessates:

Isomorphism where the voiding of void Inverts to form, where all isomorphism is void with this repeating the nature of assumption as void. This assumption and isomorphism are both void and 1.

This isomorphism as "void voiding itself into form" further voids the form presented.

The form is fundamentally infinite (ie a 1d line, a circle as the 0d point voiding itself in all directions as 1 infinite set of lines or a 1d point) considering the voiding of voiding is infinite as void is nothing...thus has no beginning or end. Thus form can only be inverted to many forms continually where form effectively encapsulates void itself.

Assumption is thus empty context with all context being form that in itself is nothing.

[Skepdick]

The book is about form as proof and proof as form.

Yes. Which is exactly the same idea as the dualism of code and data, unified by the concept of homoiconicity.

It's also the same idea as: Atman is brahman
It's also the same idea as: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

Meaning is truth and truth is meaning. The power of language and all that.

[Eodnhoj7]

The book is about form as proof and proof as form.

Yes. Which is exactly the same idea as the dualism of code and data, unified by the concept of homoiconicity.

It's also the same idea as: Atman is brahman
It's also the same idea as: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

Meaning is truth and truth is meaning. The power of language and all that.

Yes and they are all contexts leaving us to a circularity conducive to basic platonic forms...which where most likely hijacked from the Egyptians which where further hijacked from some prior philosophy/religion.

The circularity and linearity is the underlying "form" of all reason. Reason is it's own proof, with proof being definition, definition being foundation and foundation being infinite.

[Arising_uk]

Well apart from the fact that you can't divide a point in half I'd have said that the foundation of counting is pattern matching or comparison or set matching if you like. As the way the innumerate counted was by matching fingers then using objects to stand for multiples of fingers, no abstract natural number line at all, hence the invention of the Abacus.

[Eodnhoj7]

Well apart from the fact that you can't divide a point in half I'd have said that the foundation of counting is pattern matching or comparison or set matching if you like. As the way the innumerate counted was by matching fingers then using objects to stand for multiples of fingers, no abstract natural number line at all, hence the invention of the Abacus.

•
Then
•---•

2 points as effectively 1 point considering "a point is a point is a point..." or rather it is it's own context.

It can divide itself by negating itself.

Thus (1(0) ---> 1(0)) --->2(0)

However in negation itself it, as formless, projects as form.

• then •--->•

Where 0 negating 0 results in 1 direction. This one direction is divisive by nature of it's own being. Form divides formlessness, thus 1 is dynamic consistency...1 is a function of itself through the voiding of 0 through 0. Function is form.


Or, • then ⊙ where the point projects itself in all directions simultaneously as one infinite set.


So (1(0) ---> 1(0)) ---> ((n-->inf)(0))

Where zero negating zero results in (1n--->infinity)

In the first example 1 is dynamic constant. 1 is a form.

In the second example 1 is constantly dynamic. 1 is a function.

(1n ---> infinity) observes 1 then 2 then 362 then 947264 then ..... this number is always changing but it exists through 1. However as changing 1 is empty in itself.

[Arising_uk]

•
Then
•---•

2 points as effectively 1 point considering "a point is a point is a point..." or rather it is it's own context. ...

No, what you've got there are presumably two points and three dashes or lines if you prefer.

It can divide itself by negating itself.

Thus (1(0) ---> 1(0)) --->2(0)

Is this suppose to mean something?

However in negation itself it, as formless, projects as form. ...

And this?

• then •--->•

Or this?

Where 0 negating 0 results in 1 direction. This one direction is divisive by nature of it's own being. Form divides formlessness, thus 1 is dynamic consistency...1 is a function of itself through the voiding of 0 through 0. Function is form. ...

Not a scoobie-doo what you are on about?

Or, • then ⊙ where the point projects itself in all directions simultaneously as one infinite set. ..

What do you mean by "point projects itself"?

So (1(0) ---> 1(0)) ---> ((n-->inf)(0))

Where zero negating zero results in (1n--->infinity) ...

What does "zero negating zero " mean?

In the first example 1 is dynamic constant. 1 is a form.

I'd have thought it a number?

In the second example 1 is constantly dynamic. 1 is a function. ...

No idea what you are talking about, are you talking about the successor function?

(1n ---> infinity) observes 1 then 2 then 362 then 947264 then ..... this number is always changing but it exists through 1. However as changing 1 is empty in itself.

Null is not empty or at least that is what comes to mind as really I have no idea what you are trying to say?

[Eodnhoj7]

•
Then
•---•

2 points as effectively 1 point considering "a point is a point is a point..." or rather it is it's own context. ...

No, what you've got there are presumably two points and three dashes or lines if you prefer.
The point voiding itself to another point necessitates form. No different than the 0d point projecting to another 0d point through 1 line on the number line.

It can divide itself by negating itself.

Thus (1(0) ---> 1(0)) --->2(0)

Is this suppose to mean something?

Quantifying each point. 1 point projects as another point as 2 points. Each point as void is quantifiable as 1. We see this in quantifying points of an argument, or even quantifying the points on a number line as 1, 2, 3...etc., even though the number lines are quantifiable in themselves as well.

However in negation itself it, as formless, projects as form. ...

And this?

Void is Voided as Form

• then •--->•

Or this?

One point projecting itself to another point as a 1 directional line.

Where 0 negating 0 results in 1 direction. This one direction is divisive by nature of it's own being. Form divides formlessness, thus 1 is dynamic consistency...1 is a function of itself through the voiding of 0 through 0. Function is form. ...

Not a scoobie-doo what you are on about?

Void is nothing. Void voids itself as form. Form is this being exists as function considering it divides Nothingness through it's own nature. Nothingness can only be observed through multiplicity and not a thing in and itself as nothing is not there, just multiple forms. Thus 1 form effectively exists as it's own function. It changes itself through void.

You will not understand this, it is over the head of a loon, your are stuck with aristotelian identity "assumptions" and fail to see they are inherently empty.

Or, • then ⊙ where the point projects itself in all directions simultaneously as one infinite set. ..

What do you mean by "point projects itself"?

It Inverts itself into form.

So (1(0) ---> 1(0)) ---> ((n-->inf)(0))

Where zero negating zero results in (1n--->infinity) ...

What does "zero negating zero " mean?
Zero zeros zero as 1. Zero is nothing and nothing voids nothing as it is nothing.
The voiding of nothing is being as the opposition of nothing.

In the first example 1 is dynamic constant. 1 is a form.

I'd have thought it a number?

And what is a number. Can you separate +1 from +1+1= +2? Or "-" from -1 in -1+1=0?

In the second example 1 is constantly dynamic. 1 is a function. ...

No idea what you are talking about, are you talking about the successor function?
See above.

(1n ---> infinity) observes 1 then 2 then 362 then 947264 then ..... this number is always changing but it exists through 1. However as changing 1 is empty in itself.

Null is not empty or at least that is what comes to mind as really I have no idea what you are trying to say?

There is no idea, that is what I am trying to say, the numbers are inherently empty contexts by nature you cannot even call them tools unless you want to call an empty assumption a tool...but this is an empty assumption as well.

It goes in a loop, which is a context of self referencing, that again is empty of itself as it is assumed.

[Eodnhoj7]

•
Then
•---•

2 points as effectively 1 point considering "a point is a point is a point..." or rather it is it's own context. ...

No, what you've got there are presumably two points and three dashes or lines if you prefer.

It can divide itself by negating itself.

Thus (1(0) ---> 1(0)) --->2(0)

Is this suppose to mean something?

However in negation itself it, as formless, projects as form. ...

And this?

• then •--->•

Or this?

Where 0 negating 0 results in 1 direction. This one direction is divisive by nature of it's own being. Form divides formlessness, thus 1 is dynamic consistency...1 is a function of itself through the voiding of 0 through 0. Function is form. ...

Not a scoobie-doo what you are on about?

Or, • then ⊙ where the point projects itself in all directions simultaneously as one infinite set. ..

What do you mean by "point projects itself"?

So (1(0) ---> 1(0)) ---> ((n-->inf)(0))

Where zero negating zero results in (1n--->infinity) ...

What does "zero negating zero " mean?

In the first example 1 is dynamic constant. 1 is a form.

I'd have thought it a number?

In the second example 1 is constantly dynamic. 1 is a function. ...

No idea what you are talking about, are you talking about the successor function?

(1n ---> infinity) observes 1 then 2 then 362 then 947264 then ..... this number is always changing but it exists through 1. However as changing 1 is empty in itself.

Null is not empty or at least that is what comes to mind as really I have no idea what you are trying to say?

View it this way...you know why wittgenstein's tractus was considered deep? Because is was pure bullshit and he knew it was bullshit...that is what he pointed to, the number/symbols are not right because they are not even wrong, they are just empty contexts.

I mean look at it this way, we get numbers through counting.

We count material objects.

Those material objects are made of atoms.

Those atoms are 99.999... percent empty. The non empty part? No one knows because then they would have to say it was just "form"...and we are stuck with a holographic universe the platonists and Hindus and Christian's have been saying for millenia. Experimentation to prove a holographic universe is in itself a holograph...

Even the book of 24 philosophers observes God as a sphere encapsulating nothing through pure opposition of nothing (void..voiding voiding) as being...

How does that differ from a basic empty atom as a sphere? The particular is a general and the general is a particular. "As above so below". Even the munchausseen trillema observes our rationality as a form of an empty circle. And the Buddhists use this empty circle as a symbol for enlightenment.

See the empty context repeating itself yet as an empty context?

We are literally dividing empty space into forms when we count, and these number themselves are empty contexts.

Even the line itself, the foundation of all form strictly as a movement from point a to point B, is composed of infinite lines and those are composed of infinite lines...

So when you quantify a line (or line segment) as 1 your are quantifying and infinity and infinity is indefinite. 1 is both odd and even and is indefinite.

In quantifying a form as 1, by default, your are observing one infinity. It is a paradox and math cannot deal with paradoxes because it necessitates that math has not foundations but empty assumptions.

Math is empty context and so is logic.

Take for example the beginning of the Assumptive Logic thread, it mapped out some transitive states where one symbol went to another symbol. These transitive states are subject to themselves and eachother thus are generalities within generalites... you want a particular? How can you without making a new generality?

So each symbol, as a generality, is a transitive state composed of other transitive states as transitive states. So if I deduce reality to some unbreakable point...I get a point that underlies everything.

You cannot continual deduce without ending back in a generality again.

It effectively is both meaningful as ever presently repeated and meaningless as it is nothing itself as it is formless by nature.

So assuming reality is the most general case for existence and when broken down we are left with assumption again.

It is the paradox of one (generality) and many (particulars as generalities) with this loop being an empty circle.


Math and logic are just a means of pulling a rabbit out of a hat when reality a hat was pulled off a rabbit.

That is why you do not understand, nor does wtf...there is "no-thing" to understand considering to understand is to assume and all assumptions are void.


Ta-da!....Magic....

[Dontaskme]

A ''sense of identity'' is like the dot inside a circle.

The dot is the point of reference that can only refer to itself. The dot represents ''self-identity'' which cannot cross over the circumfrence to meet with itself because there isn't one. For the ''sense of identity'' is forever trapped within it's own net.

Hermes Trismegistus, “thrice-great Hermes” “God is an infinite sphere, the center of which is everywhere, the circumference nowhere.”

.

[Dontaskme]

Null is not empty or at least that is what comes to mind

Any description of a doughnut hole has to be about the doughnut. In describing the hole the doughnut stands in it's way. Yet, both are needed to define the other.

Both the 'doughnut' and the 'nothing' are not the 'no thing' in which they appear. They are both 'objects' (of seeing/knowing).

The no thing that sees/knows this is not.

That which is objectively known can know nothing of it's knower, that would be like trying to describe silence by filling it up with words, or light trying to shine on itself.

Knower knowing known are are ONE



.

[Eodnhoj7]

A ''sense of identity'' is like the dot inside a circle.

The dot is the point of reference that can only refer to itself. The dot represents ''self-identity'' which cannot cross over the circumfrence to meet with itself because there isn't one. For the ''sense of identity'' is forever trapped within it's own net.

Hermes Trismegistus, “thrice-great Hermes” “God is an infinite sphere, the center of which is everywhere, the circumference nowhere.”

.

Book of 24 philosophers is the source, the source of the book is obscure.

The book can have a book written about it.