|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 12, 2020 2:38:10 GMT
(P=P) v (P =/= -P) observes the law of excluded middle applied to the laws of logic where the laws of logic are propositions given they are assertions. Either the law of identity is false, in which case P=-P, or the law of non contradiction is false, in which case P=-P.
Either way P=-P and P=/=-P simultaneously. The same can be observed where 1=1 but 1 may equal a horse or a jet. 1=1 and 1=/=1 simultaneously.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 12, 2020 8:49:44 GMT
(p has R, or p hasn't R) = true let R be "_=_" placing p to R we get: If (p=p.v.p=\=p)=dfP, then P=true If (jet J = jet J).v.(jet J =\= jet J)=dfP, then either jet J = jet J, or jet J =\= jet J (Either jet J = jet J, or jet J =\= jet J) = P = true
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 13, 2020 16:01:39 GMT
(p has R, or p hasn't R) = true let R be "_=_" placing p to R we get: If (p=p.v.p=\=p)=dfP, then P=true If (jet J = jet J).v.(jet J =\= jet J)=dfP, then either jet J = jet J, or jet J =\= jet J (Either jet J = jet J, or jet J =\= jet J) = P = true If P=P is false then P=-P given the law of identity is false and P can equivocate to anything. If P=/=-P is false then P=-P given the law of non contradiction is false and P can equivocate to -P as well as P. P is true either way yet what P equivocates to is -P given both the law of identity and the law of non contradiction depend on eachother for identity.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 13, 2020 18:48:57 GMT
(p has R, or p hasn't R) = true let R be "_=_" placing p to R we get: If (p=p.v.p=\=p)=dfP, then P=true If (jet J = jet J).v.(jet J =\= jet J)=dfP, then either jet J = jet J, or jet J =\= jet J (Either jet J = jet J, or jet J =\= jet J) = P = true If P=P is false then P=-P given the law of identity is false and P can equivocate to anything. If P=/=-P is false then P=-P given the law of non contradiction is false and P can equivocate to -P as well as P. P is true either way yet what P equivocates to is -P given both the law of identity and the law of non contradiction depend on eachother for identity. If p=p is false, then it must be clear that p=/=p is true (not saying the rest of what is true, is no good) If p=~p by the "screwed" law of identity is true as soon as p=/=p can be replaced with either p=~p, or ~p=p. The last is seen better when ~p is taken as "`". So, if p=p is false, then p=/=p is true, and p=p`. Definitely, p is not the same as p`. As soon as p=p is false it can't be clearly seen if this "screwed" identity law formula says something about symmetry or not. Maybe it prohibits symmetrical view, or not: 1) ~(p=p) = (p=~p) and ~(~p=p) 2) ~(p=p) = ~(p=~p) and (~p=p) So, that's why while p=~p can be false, ~p=p can be true.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 14, 2020 3:16:47 GMT
If P=P is false then P=-P given the law of identity is false and P can equivocate to anything. If P=/=-P is false then P=-P given the law of non contradiction is false and P can equivocate to -P as well as P. P is true either way yet what P equivocates to is -P given both the law of identity and the law of non contradiction depend on eachother for identity. If p=p is false, then it must be clear that p=/=p is true (not saying the rest of what is true, is no good) If p=~p by the "screwed" law of identity is true as soon as p=/=p can be replaced with either p=~p, or ~p=p. The last is seen better when ~p is taken as "`". So, if p=p is false, then p=/=p is true, and p=p`. Definitely, p is not the same as p`. As soon as p=p is false it can't be clearly seen if this "screwed" identity law formula says something about symmetry or not. Maybe it prohibits symmetrical view, or not: 1) ~(p=p) = (p=~p) and ~(~p=p) 2) ~(p=p) = ~(p=~p) and (~p=p) So, that's why while p=~p can be false, ~p=p can be true. P=P' is just another way of saying P=-P where 'P is -P. -P=P and P=-P are the same thing. P=/=P necessitates that P can equal just about anything therefore (P=-P)=(P=P').
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 14, 2020 18:09:44 GMT
If p=p is false, then it must be clear that p=/=p is true (not saying the rest of what is true, is no good) If p=~p by the "screwed" law of identity is true as soon as p=/=p can be replaced with either p=~p, or ~p=p. The last is seen better when ~p is taken as "`". So, if p=p is false, then p=/=p is true, and p=p`. Definitely, p is not the same as p`. As soon as p=p is false it can't be clearly seen if this "screwed" identity law formula says something about symmetry or not. Maybe it prohibits symmetrical view, or not: 1) ~(p=p) = (p=~p) and ~(~p=p) 2) ~(p=p) = ~(p=~p) and (~p=p) So, that's why while p=~p can be false, ~p=p can be true. P=P' is just another way of saying P=-P where 'P is -P. -P=P and P=-P are the same thing. P=/=P necessitates that P can equal just about anything therefore (P=-P)=(P=P'). By saying that there's no difference between ~p=p and p=~p is saying that (~p=p) equal to (p=~p), so hence q=q (q=df(~p=p)or(p=~p)).
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 15, 2020 2:47:05 GMT
P=P' is just another way of saying P=-P where 'P is -P. -P=P and P=-P are the same thing. P=/=P necessitates that P can equal just about anything therefore (P=-P)=(P=P'). By saying that there's no difference between ~p=p and p=~p is saying that (~p=p) equal to (p=~p), so hence q=q (q=df(~p=p)or(p=~p)). Equality can occur through difference. A simple example of this would be a standard equation of 1+2=3. 1+2 is 3 expressed in a different way. Dually two seemingly different phenomenon can equivocate through a middle term. A jet may equal a horse in the respect both have portals (eyes for horse and windows for jet) a frame (bones for horse and metal bars for jet) and tubing (veins for horse and metal pipes and wires for jet). Thirdly two equivocable states of being may differ due to positions in time and space. Myself at the age of 20 and myself at the age of 30 are two equivocable states expressed differently in time and space with these positions in time and space making two seemingly equal states simultaneously unequal in different respects.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 15, 2020 3:41:46 GMT
By saying that there's no difference between ~p=p and p=~p is saying that (~p=p) equal to (p=~p), so hence q=q (q=df(~p=p)or(p=~p)). Equality can occur through difference. A simple example of this would be a standard equation of 1+2=3. 1+2 is 3 expressed in a different way. Dually two seemingly different phenomenon can equivocate through a middle term. A jet may equal a horse in the respect both have portals (eyes for horse and windows for jet) a frame (bones for horse and metal bars for jet) and tubing (veins for horse and metal pipes and wires for jet). Thirdly two equivocable states of being may differ due to positions in time and space. Myself at the age of 20 and myself at the age of 30 are two equivocable states expressed differently in time and space with these positions in time and space making two seemingly equal states simultaneously unequal in different respects. I don't understand what is the middle term you're referring to?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 15, 2020 15:53:42 GMT
Equality can occur through difference. A simple example of this would be a standard equation of 1+2=3. 1+2 is 3 expressed in a different way. Dually two seemingly different phenomenon can equivocate through a middle term. A jet may equal a horse in the respect both have portals (eyes for horse and windows for jet) a frame (bones for horse and metal bars for jet) and tubing (veins for horse and metal pipes and wires for jet). Thirdly two equivocable states of being may differ due to positions in time and space. Myself at the age of 20 and myself at the age of 30 are two equivocable states expressed differently in time and space with these positions in time and space making two seemingly equal states simultaneously unequal Dually two seemingly different phenomenon can equivocate through a middle term. A jet may equal a horse in the respect both have portals (eyes for horse and windows for jet) a frame (bones for horse and metal bars for jet) and tubing (veins for horse and metal pipes and wires for jet).eferring to?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 15, 2020 21:17:29 GMT
The irony was if ~(p=p), then either there are no middle terms, or the are innumerable quantity of them. Yes, differences can happen like in the marvelous surrealistic example you've brought. They can't happen when ~(p=p) is true, or a jet and a horse seem to have common portals, yet the don't share an electrone. As a matter of fact, no common things happen if ~(p=p).
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 16, 2020 2:37:09 GMT
The irony was if ~(p=p), then either there are no middle terms, or the are innumerable quantity of them. Yes, differences can happen like in the marvelous surrealistic example you've brought. They can't happen when ~(p=p) is true, or a jet and a horse seem to have common portals, yet the don't share an electrone. As a matter of fact, no common things happen if ~(p=p). The horse and the jet are both composed of electrons. Relative to -(P=P) the identity of the phenomenon would just be P and as just P would be a middle term along any string of phenomenon such as O --> P --> Q. The identity of P=P would just be P and P would be defined by whatever variables it relates to. This relation is where one phenomenon changes into another phenomenon thus resulting in a string much in the same manner O --> P --> Q is expressed. Each phenomenon is a center point of change for another phenomenon. While P=P would be false it would exist as true through recursion where recursion is the replication of any assertion necessary for symmetry to occur. All being exists through symmetry, symmetry is the repitition of some sub element of that very same being. For example a horse exists because of the replication of a single hair, legs, eyes, etc. A square exists because of the replication of lines and corners. This replication is a loop considering P=P has both the same beginning and end points. In another respect it is a loop considering that which repeats has the same beginning point as end point. What is evident is the loop and the loop exists strictly as is much in the same manner only P exists. P=P is simultaneously true and false, thus P=P and P=/=P.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 17, 2020 21:20:42 GMT
xxxxxxxxx - It should be "...of different particles". Because "an electron =/= an electron". - If this is just a process (maybe permanent and all-the-way-flow), then technically or in details p=/=p is true, however, - in general - it's false. So, it depends on either it was taken at its foundations (elemental level), or more complex. - Oh, no. There's more likely to be no symmetry at all. Everything is different from everything. But as a process continuously is gonna try to repeat itself through itself. Why? - Because it pushes itself. It's a conception of the primum movens.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 17, 2020 22:26:40 GMT
xxxxxxxxx - It should be "...of different particles". Because "an electron =/= an electron". - If this is just a process (maybe permanent and all-the-way-flow), then technically or in details p=/=p is true, however, - in general - it's false. So, it depends on either it was taken at its foundations (elemental level), or more complex. - Oh, no. There's more likely to be no symmetry at all. Everything is different from everything. But as a process continuously is gonna try to repeat itself through itself. Why? - Because it pushes itself. It's a conception of the primum movens. 1a. No two electrons are the same because their positions necessitate them as composing entirely different things. 2a. All electrons are the same because they share the same symmetry in energy. 3a. Electrons are both the same and different thus a paradox occurs with this paradox being the foundation of all observations given things are observed dualistically. As dualistic each phenomenon is trifold given there is a thetical observation, an antithetical observation, and a synthetic observation. 1b. Each phenomenon as a center point between phenomenon is both the convergence and divergence of phenomenon. All different phenomenon meet and join at a center point and simultaneously diverge from this center point. For example two deer may converge in the medial context of a field. They, however, diverge or leave eachother from this very same field. The middle context, that of the field, acts as the means of convergence and divergence of phenomenon (in this case deer) thus is synthetic in nature.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 18, 2020 16:01:19 GMT
xxxxxxxxx - It should be "...of different particles". Because "an electron =/= an electron". - If this is just a process (maybe permanent and all-the-way-flow), then technically or in details p=/=p is true, however, - in general - it's false. So, it depends on either it was taken at its foundations (elemental level), or more complex. - Oh, no. There's more likely to be no symmetry at all. Everything is different from everything. But as a process continuously is gonna try to repeat itself through itself. Why? - Because it pushes itself. It's a conception of the primum movens. 1a. No two electrons are the same because their positions necessitate them as composing entirely different things. 2a. All electrons are the same because they share the same symmetry in energy. 3a. Electrons are both the same and different thus a paradox occurs with this paradox being the foundation of all observations given things are observed dualistically. As dualistic each phenomenon is trifold given there is a thetical observation, an antithetical observation, and a synthetic observation. 1b. Each phenomenon as a center point between phenomenon is both the convergence and divergence of phenomenon. All different phenomenon meet and join at a center point and simultaneously diverge from this center point. For example two deer may converge in the medial context of a field. They, however, diverge or leave eachother from this very same field. The middle context, that of the field, acts as the means of convergence and divergence of phenomenon (in this case deer) thus is synthetic in nature. I don't know for sure, Karl could help us here, because he knows QM much more better. I think that 1a is not completed. Even one electron can't place one place. I mean if e is an electron's location, then e=/=e. 2a. I don't think such a view is paradoxal (why?). Look, I think relations can be really different, just check this out: A) complex thing T = a rhino is eating now B) complex thing T = a rhino is not eating now C) complex thing T = a cigarette is being smoked now D) complex thing T = a cigarette is not being smoked now A) complex thing S = a cigarette is being eaten now B) complex thing S = a cigarette is not being eaten now C) complex thing S = a rhino is being smoked now D) complex thing S = a rhino is not being smoked now A) complex thing Q = a rhino is being eaten now B) complex thing Q = a rhino is not being eaten now C) complex thing Q = a cigarette is smoking now D) complex thing Q = a cigarette is not smoking now E) A, B, C, and D occurs simultaneously for a person-observer P F) A, B, C, and D doesn't occur simultaneously, because there are no person-observers G) P is the same as (equivalent to) T, S, and Q H) All the above premises are true. And H is indeed true. And this is not paradox. It's because of there is True and False. And we don't know to which exactly moment, and exactly place (we don't know coordinates) we can place them to say that "whenever what is going on in a dot [1;-1] is True. It's impossible. As Archimedes said: "Give me a stable point, and I'll turn upside down the Earth".
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 19, 2020 15:57:50 GMT
1a. No two electrons are the same because their positions necessitate them as composing entirely different things. 2a. All electrons are the same because they share the same symmetry in energy. 3a. Electrons are both the same and different thus a paradox occurs with this paradox being the foundation of all observations given things are observed dualistically. As dualistic each phenomenon is trifold given there is a thetical observation, an antithetical observation, and a synthetic observation. 1b. Each phenomenon as a center point between phenomenon is both the convergence and divergence of phenomenon. All different phenomenon meet and join at a center point and simultaneously diverge from this center point. For example two deer may converge in the medial context of a field. They, however, diverge or leave eachother from this very same field. The middle context, that of the field, acts as the means of convergence and divergence of phenomenon (in this case deer) thus is synthetic in nature. I don't know for sure, Karl could help us here, because he knows QM much more better. I think that 1a is not completed. Even one electron can't place one place. I mean if e is an electron's location, then e=/=e. Each position of the electron necessitates each electron as different given how they relate. The electrons which compose the horse have different relations than that which compose a jet.2a. I don't think such a view is paradoxal (why?). Look, I think relations can be really different, just check this out: A) complex thing T = a rhino is eating now B) complex thing T = a rhino is not eating now C) complex thing T = a cigarette is being smoked now D) complex thing T = a cigarette is not being smoked now A) complex thing S = a cigarette is being eaten now B) complex thing S = a cigarette is not being eaten now C) complex thing S = a rhino is being smoked now D) complex thing S = a rhino is not being smoked now A) complex thing Q = a rhino is being eaten now B) complex thing Q = a rhino is not being eaten now C) complex thing Q = a cigarette is smoking now D) complex thing Q = a cigarette is not smoking now E) A, B, C, and D occurs simultaneously for a person-observer P F) A, B, C, and D doesn't occur simultaneously, because there are no person-observers G) P is the same as (equivalent to) T, S, and Q H) All the above premises are true. All the above premises are true or false given the context in which they are represented. "The cigarette being smoked now" vs "the cigarette not being smoked now" necessitate "now" as the middle point in which both assertions diverge.
"Now" is a middle context which determines how these further contexts (that of smoking) occur. In each case "now" represents a series of other variables through which the context of smoking occurs (such as standing on a street corner vs not standing on a street corner).
This manifests each "now" as fundamentally different in one respect yet same in the respect another underlying context unites them. For instance "standing" occurs across all contexts whether it being smoking on the street corner or not smoking off of the street corner.
A middle context is always present that unites seemingly different contexts. All contexts simultaneously converge and diverge from a middle context thus necessitating a context as having truth and false values simultaneously. And H is indeed true. And this is not paradox. It's because of there is True and False. And we don't know to which exactly moment, and exactly place (we don't know coordinates) we can place them to say that "whenever what is going on in a dot [1;-1] is True. It's impossible. As Archimedes said: "Give me a stable point, and I'll turn upside down the Earth".
|
|