|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 19, 2020 23:37:11 GMT
All inference and implication shows a probabilistic nature. This is considering inference and implication shows what may occur therefore it would be expressed as modalities. That which may occur is that which defines the phenomenon under a potential state considering that which may occur is a description of said phenomenon through a potentiality. All modalities are fractions and fractals of the said phenomenon being described and share this same nature to that of implication in that both are descriptive.
A modality, as descriptive, is a fractal by nature considering what is expressed is one context existing as part of another as an extension of it. For example the modality of "Britain" in the sentence "The ship exists in Britain" shows the position of the ship as a defining factor of the ship which exists as part of the ship itself. That which defines exists as a part of, as an extension of, that which is being defined therefore is a reflection of the original phenomenon itself. The act of inference and implication dually show the potentially of a phenomenon therefore defining what is actual by what is potential. "It may rain later because of the clouds in the sky" defines the day through the clouds with the clouds being connected to a further phenomenon of rain. The day is defined by its potential relationship to the rain.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 20, 2020 4:04:59 GMT
Do I understand correctly: since the modalities are fractions, they are fractals? (Or they acquire the properties of fractals?)
Because if you do statements uttering them with implications your modal aspect in a particular sense has similar properties to the fraction of its thought. "As above so below" – seems like this ancient principle lays down in implication rules.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 20, 2020 4:08:47 GMT
An example with the ship is indeed true: without spatial/time description existence of the described thing won't seem truly.
|
|