|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 20, 2022 21:13:52 GMT
1. (P=P) is the law of identity.
2. (-P=-P) is the law of identity.
3. ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is the law of identity equal to the law of identity.
4. (P=P)=P and (-P=-P)= -P is the law of identity as equal to a singular expression; (P=P) is reducible to P, (-P=-P) is reducible to -P.
5. ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is reducible to (P=-P).
6. P=-P cannot exist due to the law of non-contradiction however ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is valid.
7. The law of non-contradiction does not exist if (P=P) exists as (P=P) necessitates ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) which is (P=-P); (P=P) does not exist if the law of non-contradiction exists as (P=/=-P) but (P=P) necessitates ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) which is (P=-P).
8. Either the law of non contradiction exists or the law of identity exists, if not then both exist meaning neither exists.
Logical descriptions are rooted in reality. As rooted in reality they are a part, or rather an expression, of reality thus maintain a degree of autonomous as they are expressions that are distinct (ie they exist for what they are).
(P=P) observes P as a container for -P thus in arguing for (P=P) it contains (-P=-P). -P as a container within a container contains -P as (--P=--P) thus (-P=-P) contains (P=P). Both P=P and -P=-P are containers for each other and are effectively united and equivalent.
As equivalent ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) occurs with this being reducible to P=-P.
Dually both (P=P) and (-P=-P) equate as both expressions of the law of identity; to say ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is to say the law of identity is equivalent to itself.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 24, 2022 8:33:08 GMT
Absence exists, we see it in the relationships of objects such as a 0d point between two lines. Your answer isn't the answer. But my question wasn't a question either since "0 is true" or kinda couldn't be questions. By your misleading of the answer – I never mentioned any absence there – you have demonstrated: there are no "answers" to those "questions". Asking something like: &? doesn't have any suggestions or suppositions there, that's why there are no chance the answer matches the question. If one asks "which type of color this phone is?" the one takes by granted that there are types of colors. Imagine a question "which hype of color this phone is?" – there would be no answer until someone would explain what that "hype of color" meant.
|
|
|
P=-P II
Jan 24, 2022 23:26:18 GMT
via mobile
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 24, 2022 23:26:18 GMT
Absence exists, we see it in the relationships of objects such as a 0d point between two lines. Your answer isn't the answer. But my question wasn't a question either since "0 is true" or kinda couldn't be questions. By your misleading of the answer – I never mentioned any absence there – you have demonstrated: there are no "answers" to those "questions". Asking something like: &? doesn't have any suggestions or suppositions there, that's why there are no chance the answer matches the question. If one asks "which type of color this phone is?" the one takes by granted that there are types of colors. Imagine a question "which hype of color this phone is?" – there would be no answer until someone would explain what that "hype of color" meant. If it exists it contains a value a truth as truth and existence equate...absences exist as they point to relationships. To say "&?" is to ask who,what,when,where,how,why of &. It is to ask what & means.each other. P is an expression of P=P and viceversa, both point to the other thus equivocate.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 25, 2022 16:43:00 GMT
Your answer isn't the answer. But my question wasn't a question either since "0 is true" or kinda couldn't be questions. By your misleading of the answer – I never mentioned any absence there – you have demonstrated: there are no "answers" to those "questions". Asking something like: &? doesn't have any suggestions or suppositions there, that's why there are no chance the answer matches the question. If one asks "which type of color this phone is?" the one takes by granted that there are types of colors. Imagine a question "which hype of color this phone is?" – there would be no answer until someone would explain what that "hype of color" meant. If it exists it contains a value a truth as truth and existence equate...absences exist as they point to relationships. To say "&?" is to ask who,what,when,where,how,why of &. It is to ask what & means.each other. P is an expression of P=P and viceversa, both point to the other thus equivocate. I can't say your arguments have no ground. I would believe you; many others would not. It's okay if one sees something like that O? Because it might be a question. However, it's seen so weakly that the one can spot it being enough aware what does it mean here. In other words, &? has plenty of plenty references, while &=& has less number of references. And 2=2 has the less number of references as the previous one, and "2+2=4" has just few references, and so forth. Surely, it means – all those references are working here & now among humans. But why this happens? Why? Because there are no forms or ideas! If they were the number or references would be equal in any case.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 27, 2022 23:52:05 GMT
If it exists it contains a value a truth as truth and existence equate...absences exist as they point to relationships. To say "&?" is to ask who,what,when,where,how,why of &. It is to ask what & means.each other. P is an expression of P=P and viceversa, both point to the other thus equivocate. I can't say your arguments have no ground. I would believe you; many others would not. It's okay if one sees something like that O? Because it might be a question. However, it's seen so weakly that the one can spot it being enough aware what does it mean here. In other words, &? has plenty of plenty references, while &=& has less number of references. And 2=2 has the less number of references as the previous one, and "2+2=4" has just few references, and so forth. Surely, it means – all those references are working here & now among humans. But why this happens? Why? Because there are no forms or ideas! If they were the number or references would be equal in any case. P=-P Examples: 1. "Judas hanged at x time" and "Judas did not hang at x time"; if Judas was standing on a stool with his toes planted while a rope hung around his neck holding up most of his weight he both hanged and not-hanged. 2. One road goes both ways. 3. A square peg equates to a square hole as both are squares. 4. Things exist through change thus the potential state of something must exist within the actual. 5. "We step and do not step into the same rivers; we are and we are not" Heraclitus 6. If all exists as one then opposites must equate to eachother; there is a totality of being thus being is one therefore opposites are one.
|
|
|
P=-P II
Jan 28, 2022 9:10:11 GMT
via mobile
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 28, 2022 9:10:11 GMT
I can't say your arguments have no ground. I would believe you; many others would not. It's okay if one sees something like that O? Because it might be a question. However, it's seen so weakly that the one can spot it being enough aware what does it mean here. In other words, &? has plenty of plenty references, while &=& has less number of references. And 2=2 has the less number of references as the previous one, and "2+2=4" has just few references, and so forth. Surely, it means – all those references are working here & now among humans. But why this happens? Why? Because there are no forms or ideas! If they were the number or references would be equal in any case. P=-P Examples: 1. "Judas hanged at x time" and "Judas did not hang at x time"; if Judas was standing on a stool with his toes planted while a rope hung around his neck holding up most of his weight he both hanged and not-hanged. 2. One road goes both ways. 3. A square peg equates to a square hole as both are squares. 4. Things exist through change thus the potential state of something must exist within the actual. 5. "We step and do not step into the same rivers; we are and we are not" Heraclitus 6. If all exists as one then opposites must equate to eachother; there is a totality of being thus being is one therefore opposites are one. The first is seemed like an example from dialectic. Berkeley objected to Samuel Johnson saying an apple is tasty for some, and yacky for some others at the same time. A play is wow for some and ew for some others... Might be.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Feb 2, 2022 21:33:29 GMT
P=-P Examples: 1. "Judas hanged at x time" and "Judas did not hang at x time"; if Judas was standing on a stool with his toes planted while a rope hung around his neck holding up most of his weight he both hanged and not-hanged. 2. One road goes both ways. 3. A square peg equates to a square hole as both are squares. 4. Things exist through change thus the potential state of something must exist within the actual. 5. "We step and do not step into the same rivers; we are and we are not" Heraclitus 6. If all exists as one then opposites must equate to eachother; there is a totality of being thus being is one therefore opposites are one. The first is seemed like an example from dialectic. Berkeley objected to Samuel Johnson saying an apple is tasty for some, and yacky for some others at the same time. A play is wow for some and ew for some others... Might be. If Berkely objected to Johnson, and Johnson as well as others accepted this proof, then the proof is both accepted and rejected at the same time under the same context.
|
|