GENIUS FORUMS

And both Dan and james have the "all seeing eye" in their avatars....hmmm

I really learnt alot here.

But you're right. I am wasting my time here.#frustrated

Diebert

Are you aware of any good philosophy forums that i can try?

Putting philosophy and logic as terms into equations is the result of insane thought patterns and a weak grip on any fundamental Surely beleiving that the simplest logical system "propositional logic" has anything to do with equations is the definition of " insane thought parterns an...

Russel Lets do philosophy... start with logic Propositional logic p = philosophy m= math L= logic i'm going to use what your link said math <logic<philosophy this in propositional logic means philosophy-->logic logic--->math ============ 1)P ................................ lets assume it since it ...

An unary relation doesn't need to be binary as it is needed by your axiom. this is awesome. All relations are a subset of a cartesian product..perhaps you say that a single set is a cartesian product of some sort but that still involves the binary cartesian product between that set and the universa...

Negation isn't a binary relation it is unary. A function is an order of ordered pairs, a relation doesn't need to be it. A function has to have only one output for every input (1,2) (2,3), a relation doesn't need it ( tomato, vegetable, fruit). Nice Negation is unary but the relation between the co...

D

A theorem is a restatement of the axioms.

Inconsistency is really a runaway of *choice* and is related to the base of the natural log "e".

chikoka wrote: We just need to scrap this idea that minds exist. Isnt that another idea. If you keep thinking destructively , that is, denying the simple assertion of the axiom, then everything becomes indeed highly doubtful. But in a way you're proving the point to yourself that you cannot have an...

How would you prove the axion "is not consistent"? It's the consistency which is a given The word given means an axiom.You need see that axioms are not consistent of themselves. There is actualy an axiom that is implied to be the consistency giver. thats how you go about choosing axioms.y...

Another link from that website: Logic Math exists in the realm of logic. Note the first sentence from that link. The law of identity is the axis (axiom) upon which logic can be performed. Law of identity = solid foundation, math = walls. No solid foundation, no walls. No Law of identity, no math. D...

This haha trick realy is cheap :) We just need to scrap this idea that minds exist. Isnt that another idea. its not because once we have scrapped minds other ideas have nowhere to exist. What if its the same idea? Then it must be related to itself--->infinite regress so it cannot be the same idea. I...

The abstract realm consist of idealized reality where the normal flux of reality is artificially suspended The abstract realm can never be totally suspended, because the concept of suspension involves a viscious infinite regress. That might be so but it's just as easy to say that the abstract realm...

This is why the only consistency that counts is the consistency with the axioms. But the axioms are not consistent ..thats what i'm saying. For the AOI to be the AOI there must be ,included in the "process", a viscous infinite regress. But if we do not allow for that arent we admititing t...

LOl.. The relation between; going through russels left ear and out his other ; must be an equivalence relation. It goes thru unchanged or processed. #just_kidding But seriously tho dont you wonder how everyone else is beyond the first line of the OP that mentions "order" and is onto the me...

That's what I was trying to express ,an ordered pair is in some sense lesser or stronger than relationship, or yet relationship is more expressive, even when you define something like an ordered pair you would assume a relation between the things and verify if it is the case of it having the relati...

Take related-to-itself, no-relation and relation=>no-relation to mean the same thing, to say that it is a viscous relation is saying relation=>no-relation. It is not an strict relation as it also is a no-relation. When you define a strict relation you have it as a consequence of more relations. Und...

If we assume that something has a relation and show it to have no-relation we could define the relation: relation=>no-relation. Of course a relation with NO-relation wouldn't possibly be a relation, that's why we assume it to be a relation too. There are two assumptions that things can have this re...

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The abstract realm consist of idealized reality where the normal flux of reality is artificially suspended

The abstract realm can never be totally suspended, because the concept of suspension involves a viscious infinite regress.

Obviously if you'd stop asserting the axion (hold it as true) a logical system will not function. That's why it's called axiom! So are you trying to prove a logical system does not function without its axioms to be true? I never said anything about "truth". I mentioned consistency.I am fu...

I see you replied :)

A dog is a dog because it is identified as a dog. If you think this is a literally a math equation, then there's nothing else I can tell you, other than: you've really got to work on your understanding on the basics of philosophy. Wow!!...you really at the lowest level of abstraction there. The OP ...

Let's look at difference and call it a relation: A != B In this case "A" is different than "B", someone might object saying that they are both letters: A != not-a-letter You might say that "not-a-letter" is just a bunch of letters, it is not clear what not-a-letter wou...

I see you're fascinated by math, chikoka, and so am I at times. I enjoy learning about sacred geometry, fractal patterns in nature, and so on. Math does indeed have deep implications when it comes to the structure of reality. But the truth is, math doesn't have anything to do with the law of identi...

Just some notes on where i think you dont see what i mean Russel . The word compare implies the number 2. If you compare a (1) thing to (2) itself. you also impy 2. The number 2 has parts , namely 1 and 1. These cannot be the same 1 otherwise the number 2 would be equal to 1. I dont want to confuse ...