-P requires the existence of P=P.

P=P requires P cannot equal -P considering "equal" and "not equal" are not defined except through there relations.

Considering "=" is defined in accords to (P,P) equality effectively is defined as "(=)P(=)" where it exists if and only of there is P.

"Equality" is not defined in the above axioms hence "non equality" through the principle of non contradiction is needed to prove the principle of identity.

Brian says they collaborate.

On second thought you can ignore the above if you wish and focus on the below:

"This statement is false" is a paradox. If the statement is false it must be continually argued as such, hence the argument exists as a continuum. The same is applied if it is true.

All standard logic leads to paradox, hence all logic as axiomatic is a continuum. It progresses or regresses with this progress/regress observing the axiom as directed movement through a linear form and function.

This progression of one axiom to another, past is origins, observes a state of seperation. The statement italicized above separates into a further statement and so on and so forth.

However considering the new statement, if premised as the beginning point of the argument is directed to the italicized one we can observe a different nature of progression.

If both statements are viewed as starting points we can observe them as circular.

Hence all axioms are linear and circular directed movement with the axiom as both a linear and circular directed movement existing as a point of origin.

What I am arguing is that all axioms exist as a point of origin, linear progression and circularity and the foundation of logic are founded in directed movement which exists in axioms of geometry. Axioms are premised in geometry, as all axioms are C ontinuums.

Logic, math, science, religion, psychology are all interconnected under key universal principles.

Actually Cleopatra you are really close.

All logic is subjective, but what determines logic as objective is the replication of subjectivity into both form and function. This is considering the subjective state is without form or function, it is inherently void.

Any thought or feeling I may have becomes objective when replicated. This replication is form and function. I may have x feeling. It becomes objective when that feeling replicates itself. It becomes further objective when a thought is connected through it where the thought replicates with it.

This in turn becomes more objective when a word or action is attached. Which becomes more objective when other people replicate this word or action...etc. Objectivity is the repitition of anything into a structure, where this structure is determined by symmetry as the replication of common limits.

This repitition of common limits observes a form of unity considering the limit as replicated is funda,mentally the same thing existing through itself. Objectivity as structure is unity.

Now all objective reality as in turn processed through a formless subjective nature that is essentially void. An example of the void nature of subjectivity can be observed in a self centered person referenced as "empty", "soulless", "hungry for more" etc, which in turn results in a selfish person generally causing chaos relative to the natural order.

This subjective nature, inherent within all of us, interprets an objective statement in a different manner from others. This causes a distortion in not just unity but objectivity. Hence the structure exists through a subjective interpretation with this subjective interpretation inverting it into a new one and causing a new objective phenomenon to take hold and exist.

So all logic has a dual subjective and objective nature under "self-evidence" with the word "axiom" being a singular word for these plural definitions. "Self" in turn cycles to an axiom as well as "evidence", and we see a progression of axioms from here.

All observable phenomenon are axioms, with non observable phenomena observed by there absence of observbility as axioms as well. Everything is an axiom.

Now, to shorten the overly long post, the nature of standard logic is dependent upon a strict linear form of reasoning. One thing is directed towards another then the next, etc.

If one fallacy is directed towards another fallacy then the fallacy cancels itself out. If the fallacy is applied to a law of logic, then the law of logic is canceled out.

The problem occurs that in canceling out the fallacies through fallacies we are left with truth statements. If I cancel out the fallacy of authority because of bandwagon, then "authority" is left as a truth statement and foundation for logic. So the fallacies negate themselves into truth statements and we are left with truths.

Now this changes when we apply these fallacies to the standard laws (Principle of Identity, etc.). They fall apart under these fallacies. However the question is do they fall apart on there own?

What I am arguing is that the standard laws, as directed through eachother lead to contradiction. P=P requires -P=-P to exist if P cannot equal -P. So -P exists through P=P and inherently defines it. The problem occurs is that while P and -P are defined, "=" is not and is subject to belief. Hence the argument above about the triadic nature of the law of identity. "=" is defined and not limited to strict belief.

If however they are to be taken on belief, then they are not really logical and set the premise for complete subjectivity. These laws failing to take in the subjective nature in turn lack objectivity considering these "objective" statements as observed above are interpreted subjectively.

"All statements are subjective" is both a subjective and objective statement where this dualism is unified under the word "axiom".

Now the question occurs as to the nature of these axioms, and the prime triadic laws of the axiom covers that.



In short terms I am arguing there logic is contradictory because it must progress, but if it progresses than the laws as foundations become void. They must be self-referential if they are to maintain themselves and they are not. The 3 Laws I argue are self referential and allow for the base laws of logic to exist. But the base laws contradict themselves on their own terms and can only exist if contained in a greater system.

It does not reject them, it rather observes these laws on there own terms contradict themselves outside this framework. The framework is self maintained and these laws exist as extensions of these 3 laws but the three laws are not limited to these laws of logic.

The frameworks fails on there own terms, however not relative to the above framework presented.

Fallacious to their own framework only. So the above represents a new framework.

I presented what the laws of logic really are above, read it, then pose the question again if you wish.

Yes I will have the last word, thank you, considering the nature of proof:

Proof?

Source and proof? I doubt it...

All philosophers adhere to the Prime Triadic Axioms whether they know it or not. They contradict themselves in not admitting to these axioms and further philosophical arguments occurs from these original arguments to further define them while resulting in a circularity between the schools of thoughts.

Where one argument fails another argument maintains it and defines it while seamingly antithetical, they synthesis new schools in the process.

You tell me...do all philosophers adhere to those laws?

You provided none that fits the requirements I set: They cannot be subject to circularity or equivocation.

Arguing contradiction is a logical conclusion is the fallacy which is being highlighted. That you can't realise that shows I should not waste any more time on you.

YOU WIN. — BrianW

Win what exactly? your position contradicts itself as well as the "irrational epistemology" you argue. The nature of the axiom is defined above.

Contradiction does not occurs in a triadic logic.

The Prime Triadic Nature of the Axiom:

Actually the premises I argue are original, progress to eachother and further axioms, while maintaining themselves as logical and structured through self-referencing.


1. All axioms are points of origin; hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. The point of origin progresses to another point of origin through point 2 and cycles back to itself through point 3 with this linear progression and circularity originating from themselves, through eachother and point 1.

Point 1 is original and exists through points 2 and 3 as points 2 and 3.

As original Points 1,2,3 are extension of eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously being nothing in themselves as points of origin that invert to further axioms respectively; hence originate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws

2. All axioms are progressive linear definition; point 1 and 3 progress to point 2 as respective points of origin observed in point 1 while this linear progression from one to another through alternation and exists as circulation between points 1 and 3 to point 2 and point 2 progressing to points 1 and 3.

Point 2 is definitive and defines points 1 and 3 with points 1 and 3 defining point 2.

As definitive Points 1,2,3 progress from one to another and are inherently seperate. As seperating one from another they are connected under a common function of "seperation"; hence are defined as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws.

3. All axioms are maintain through a circularity, as linear alternation through point 2, and points of origin as point 1, with point 1 and 2 circulating through each other as point three while circulating through themselves as each other. Point 3 maintains itself as circular and maintains points 1 and 2 as circular while points 1,2 and 3 circulating through eachother maintain eachother.

Point 3 is circular and exists through 1 and 2 as 1 and 2.

As circular Points 1,2,3 are maintained through eachother as eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously dissolving into further axioms as eachother; hence they circulate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws.

Taking it an authoritative statement is a fallacy according to the standard laws of logic.

Before I proceed to the law of non-contradiction, something you might want to understand:

3. Irrational Epistemology (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_Main.html)

Irrational Epistemology
Epistemology is the study of knowledge, and how we come to achieve it. A proper epistemology allows us to gain valid understanding of the world, and identify incorrect ideas. An epistemology based on reason is our means of successfully acquiring knowledge. An irrational epistemology, though, impairs the functioning of the mind. The more irrational it is, the less valid the knowledge one has is.

Since philosophy is a kind of knowledge, an irrational epistemology is the destroyer of a rational philosophy. It is makes it difficult or impossible to get other parts of the philosophy right, since it is prevents the proper functioning of the mind.

Like all misbegotten notions, most irrational epistemological theories or assumptions are not practiced consistently. The result would be an inability to deal with the world. Instead, an irrational epistemology is practiced inconsistently. It impairs the mind when it is used, but it is often ignored allowing limited real use of one's mind.

The following is a list of common epistemological mistakes or flawed systems. It is not an exhaustive list, since there are an infinite number of ways one can be wrong (and only one way to be right).

Faith
A Priori Knowledge
Philosopher's Deduction Fallacy
Subjectivism
Polylogism
Determinism
Fallacy of the Second Standard
Skepticism

=> In bold are your mistakes too.


The premised does not give a self-maintained definition of reason, hence is built on contradictory foundations as this "perspective"

is a statement of:

Faith
A Priori Knowledge
Philosopher's Deduction Fallacy
Subjectivism
Polylogism
Determinism
Fallacy of the Second Standard
Skepticism

4. On Contradictions (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Contradiction.html)
Contradiction

A contradiction arises when two ideas each make the other impossible. Contradictions don't exist in reality because reality simply is as it is and does not contradict itself. Only our evaluations of reality can contradict each other. If you think you have found a contradiction, then check your premises. Either you're mistaken about it being a contradiction or one of the contradicting concepts has been improperly formed.

If the content of your knowledge contains contradictions, then some of your knowledge is in error. Because in order to be successful in reality one must know reality, success requires correct knowledge. It is therefore important to continually search for and root out contradictions in your knowledge in order to make sure that your knowledge corresponds to reality. The two primary methods for doing this are logic, the art of non-contradictory identification, and integration.

con·tra·dic·tion
[ˌkäntrəˈdikSH(ə)n]
NOUN

a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that areopposed to one another.
"the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions"
a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
"the paradox of using force to overcome force is a real contradiction"
the statement of a position opposite to one already made.
"the second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first" · [more]
synonyms:
denial · refutation · rebuttal · countering · counterstatement · opposite · negation · gainsaying · confutation

http://www.bing.com/search?q=contradiction+definition&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=contradiction+definition&sc=8-24&sk=&cvid=C2C1F9EB4C8540CDB6CFC492CF5E2A6B

The multiplicity of sources leads to the definition of contradiction as subject to equivocation as each source must be defined by another source, etc.


All contradiction arises through a dualism leading to opposition between variables. The law of identity, because "=" is not defined, is subject to this dualism.

Address above. However the Law of Identity is fault being P=P would require "=" to be defined under the same law in which it is not. It is void of meaning, hence the law contradicts itself.

Point of Origin as unification of all axioms and all axioms as inversive, as an axiom. — eodnhoj7


1. Where and how have you arrived at this?

Linear Definition as connection and seperation of axioms, as an axiom. — eodnhoj7


2. Where and how have you arrived at this?

Circularity as maintenance and dissolution of axioms, as an axiom. — eodnhoj7


3. Where and how have you arrived at this?

Each law defines the other through collaboration according to Brian. — eodnhoj7


4. This only applied to those three laws of logic, not every law in existence. Dude, context, please!


archimedes constant (pi), euler's number, pythagoras constant, the golden ratio, etc; are a few common mathematical constants which represent certain mathematical relationships

Is it your testimony that they are all the same? If you think so, then b**s***. If not, then that's the point we've been trying to make. The word relationship does not equate unrelated circumstances.
4 minutes ago

1. All axioms are defined through further axioms, and as defined through further axioms they are connected to them where all axioms effectively exist as extensions of each other as one axiom. All axioms are a point of origin forth further axioms with all axioms in themselves being a center point of origin.

2. If one axiom, through definition progresses to another axiom (lets say one definition in a dictionary leads to another), this new axiom is relativistically seperate from the prior axiom in the respect it progresses past its point of origin as a point of origin in itself. In a seperate respect (and you can look at a dictionary again for this example) From a macroscopic view all axioms are defined by what they are connected too where one axiom is directed to another with this secondary axiom being directed back to its origins. They are directed towards eachother through eachother as eachother as 1 axiom observed through multiple connected parts.

Definition exists through seperation and connection.

3. All axioms circular back to their origins with this circularity being a constant. While this is deemed as a contradiction in western logic due to a lack of progressive defintion, the axiom is maintained through an oscillation where they are connected as one. This connection of the axioms through a circulation cause them to dissolve into a further axiom as one axiom in itself. For example 1+2 and 2+1 observe a circulation between the two where one is directed towards two and two directed towards 1 (through "+" as an active function) resulting in one defined the other and connected as "3" with 3 being the dissolution of +1 and +2 into a new axiom.


4. But the laws of logic must describe every law in existence other wise the laws are not logical.

If, and when, "P=P" is used to signify the law of identity, it signifies that P is the same as itself, because that's what the law of identity states. It does not signify that p is equal to P. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then "=" is not the same as anything and effectively is nothing but a point of inversion between one P and many P's. "=" is not identified except through P but under the law of identity it must have an identity hence the statement can be inverted to (=)P(=) causing P to have no identity unless referencing P=P. In these respects the law of identity necessitates a circularity.

But this circularity is a fallacy, hence the law of identity is strictly contradictory and a law of dualism.

However "P=P" and "(=)P(=)" are contradictory in the respect they are opposed to eachother as a dualism hence a third element must be synthesized where (P=) as both "P" and "=" where P as a form and "=" as a function of equivocation (connector) exist as one.

The law of idenity if it is to be logical must be:

1. P=P
2. (=)P(=)
3. (P=)

However because of equivocation "equals" "=" "is" etc. must be replaced by a universal variable as well that acts as a connective variable where the variable is not just a form but also a function.

Hence:

1. P(p)P
2. (p)P(p)
3. (Pp)

Sorry to be the one to inform you of this (though I know others such as brianw have already told you this): you appear to be incredibly, terribly, inept at interpretation. But I know your game, it's intentional, as deception. — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually you are confusing your ability for interpretation as memorization. I am simply following the fallacies of logic, unlike you...who is more logical?

A question about masturbation is masturbation.

Actually it does considering a length observes a connection between specific localized points, I may walk 30 feet from Point A to Point B, where that 30 feet is the connection in space and time with Point A and Point B.

Metaphysician, I would tell you to give it up...but you have no argument to give up.

P = P... it means that P is equal to itself...facepalm...

That is the point...equality observes a form of seperation, hence the law of identity observes (P,P) as 2 P's with the P being determined by it position in space/time or the argument itself.

The argument observes a form of repitition, where P is repeated and "=" acts as not just a connector between P and P but as a connector observes a seperation in the respect what is connected necessites a prior or future seperation.

1. All axioms are taken as self-evident, and as self-evident have a completely subjective nature where one person can see an axiom and see one thing, while another person can see another axiom and see another.

2. All axioms have an element of randomness to them where all axioms effectively mean nothing in themselves and are determined by the frameworks (equations, proofs, algorithms, number line, etc.) that determine them due to this subjective nature.

3. These frameworks, as axioms, are still subjective and in these respects contain an element of randomness in themselves based on point 1.

The law of identity states that a thing is the same as itself. It gives each thing its own identity, so P, as a particular thing, is the same as P, itself, that particular thing. This is quite clear, unambiguous, and not open to equivocation. Your examples of multiple interpretations, ambiguity, and equivocation simply reflects your misunderstanding of the law of identity.

Actually no, the law can be expressed in multiple ways.

How can something be equal to itself unless it is seperate from itself? If "I" am equal to "I" it necessitates some form of seperation of "I" which may be observed relative to localizations in time where "I" existing in space/time locality x is equivolent to "I" existing in space/time locality "y".

Unless "P=" where "P=" is a function of equivocation, which is possible "P=P" observes a seperation between P and P.

The evidence indicates that you either completely misunderstand the law of identity, or that you state it in an ambiguous way in order to deceive. I am beginning to think that perhaps your intent is deception.

And what evidence is that? What is evidence but a framework of interpretation? A framework has been presented and it maintains itself while being open to further progression without contradiction.


That's right, each of these fundamental laws has its own definition, what it means. One does not define the other. if that were the case, then it would be only one law. But there are three.

Pi is a relationship. It is not a line. — BrianW

A line is a relation between points, and all axioms are relations of other axioms. A length is a relationship between points as well, under these terms Pi as a relation is Pi as a length.

Each law defines the other through collaboration according to Brian.

Logic:

Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, translit. logikḗ[1]), originally meaning "the word" or "what is spoken", but coming to mean "thought" or "reason" is a subject concerned with the most general laws of truth,[2] and is now generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of valid inference. A valid inference is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the inference and its conclusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Logic is dependent upon axioms as:

Point of Origin as unification of all axioms and all axioms as inversive, as an axiom.

Linear Definition as connection and seperation of axioms, as an axiom.

Circularity as maintenance and dissolution of axioms, as an axiom.


What haven't I answered? To give me a source for all your arguments which is not subject to circularity or equivocation.

Logic is the realisation of the laws which govern phenomena...Quote source.

Also those phenomena, as logical, require logic to circle back on itself, leading to its own problems under its fallacy of circularity along with ad-hominum, authority, bandwagon relative to its self-referential nature through the observer as a phenomena.

You still have not given me what I ask for, I am getting the impression you are just make all of this up and pretending to be an authority.

So 1+1=2 will eventually be false?

All proof must be infinite, it it is to continue as an absolute truth statement, hence must exist as unlimited through this continuum.

Eastern philosophy allows for circularity, western logic does not.

All books are acts of perception: Neitzche's Perspectivism and much of oriental thought.

All description, as a limit occurs through no limit: Anaximander on the apeiron and much of oriential thought.

The law of logic, if they must progress as you have stated, are not currently fully understood hence known. Eastern philosophers have different laws of logic.

All western logic is contradictory in terms of eastern logic. Which is correct?

Sources that state that:

"Everything we perceive is an identity, form, influence, condition, activity, character, etc. There is no formless, causeless, nothing, etc recorded in history."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Sources please.

There are multiple logics, hence multiple interpretation of the same axioms. Do you want a list of the multitude of logics?

The three laws of logic, as are commonly known, are corollaries of each other:
1. The Law of Identity.
2. The Law of Non-contradiction.
3. The Law of Excluded Middle.

By corollary is meant, each law naturally inferences the other. — eodnhoj7

Here we go again, try to convince Brian of that.

Wow, for you to confirm? So you know more than everyone else? You are an authority of Greater Minds?

Provide me one source that is not circular and subject to equivocation, and I will provide you any source you wish for the above on any point you wish. You can pick anyone of them, but first provide me one source that is not subject to circularity and equivocation...just one.

Where are your sources for all of this?

I mean the whole argument is about why I am wrong, according to you, without quoting any source other than laws of logic which have multiple interpretations with the various sources hence are subject to a multitude of fallacies.

What argument have you produced claiming you right without falling to your own fallacies?

If I present an argument building off of the axioms, for example Pi can exist both as a ratio and a line (length) you claim I am wrong because I am ignoring your axioms. However I am saying the axioms are right, but they are wrong in the respect they are deficient in any self-maintain self-referentiality that does not lead to a Munchausheen trillema of continual "regress" rather than "progress".

I should thank you for organizing all those quotes for me, it saved me a lot of time :).

"If it is all subjective, then what are you trying to explain when you know your explanations to be subject to fallacies just like all laws, as you put it."

The reflection of a subjective state, as void of any definition, is the canceling of a subjective state as undefined, into a objective state as defined.

The 0d point cancels itself out into a line when progressing to another 0d point. Void cancels itself out into being considering void cannot be observed on its own terms.

Subjectivity cancels itself out when given objective form, with the subjective state being multiple objective forms.

Unlike your faulty explanations, the laws of logic are evident in their application to philosophy, mathematics, science and natural discourse.

These laws, as the foundation for reasoning end in paradox as observed in wittgenstien (philosophy), mathematics (Godel), science (m-theory) and natural discourse (you and metaphysician undercover are not on the same page).

You say it's a matter of agreement. Well, you should know that agreement means it is accepted as logical.

Actually it is not just me, but Neitzche as well and other philsophers such as protagoras. If agreement is the foundation of logic, then logic contradicts itself in accords to the bandwagon fallacy and your religion makes no sense. But considering you and Metaphysician undercover do not agree, then by default you are not right relative to eachother.

The logic you call subjective is very authoritative because of the validity imposed on them by men of knowledge. Fallacy of authority. The authorities, by there own logic, want to be overridden. I am just reflecting there logic.

Where is agreement of your premises?

All logic is a continuum existing as directed movement through linear progression as definition conducive to relative seperation/connection, circularity conducive to maintainance of the axiom or relative dissolution of axioms into further axioms which are maintained, and the axiom as a point of origin for all further axioms while simultaneously existing as nothing in itself as means of inversion where one axiom changes to many axioms and these many axioms change to one axiom in themselves.

All arguments exist as is as structures and are there own proofs.

My premises sustain themselves while being open to self-maintianed expansion where any contradiction is merely a deficiency in structure solved by progression which is necessitated by the argument itself and maintained by a circularity. They are logical and are a higher order logic.

Where is the agreement in your premises? Do you have any premises? I don't know what they are yet.

Stop with this nonsense, already! If a black-skinned person is a human and a white-skinned person is a human, does the black-skinned person become a white-skinned person because they're both humans?

Are you arguing white and black people are not equal? Considering the black skinned person and white skinned person exist if and only if they continue through further propogation, as a person does not exist in and of themselves without other people, they the white and dark eventually mix over time.

However if you are arguing for the individual, and considering they come from a common lineage then they already have elements of the other in them. The color is determined by the ratio of pigments but the pigments of both are present in one degree or another. So in many respects yes, a person of one color can be a person of another color due to the inherent pigments within them. The ratios are mere directions used to seperate them, however the ratio cannot exist without the other part.

@Metaphysician Undercover and I do not contradict each other. Your faulty interpretation is what misguides you.

Actually Metaphysician said:
No, P is not defined by not P.

And you said:

The three laws of logic, as are commonly known, are corollaries of each other:
1. The Law of Identity.
2. The Law of Non-contradiction.
3. The Law of Excluded Middle.

By corollary is meant, each law naturally inferences the other.

And inference means

1. to conclude (a state of affairs, supposition, etc) by reasoning from evidence; deduce
2. (tr) to have or lead to as a necessary or logical consequence; indicate
3. (tr) to hint or imply

with all definition:

3. The state of being clearly outlined:

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/definition

or I can use another source. However an inference is an act of definition considering all conclusions act as outlines. What is concluded is outlined, what is outlined is concluded, with both existing as "definition".



Even Einstein did not disagree with Netwonian mechanics though he found them limited. My advice to you is

Yes and I am saying the same thing about the laws of logic as being contradictory. All contradictions are premised in truth statements which are deficient in nature, but are truth statements none the less. The are contradictory because of there inherent lack of structure. Which modern logic entails due to its continual atomism and deductivity.

All logic exists as a continuum with this continuum being defined by its directive nature. All logic must progress.

Greater minds than yours have found them valid. Fallacy of authority, and ad-hominum, and an insult to yourself for feeling less than anyone intellectually. You are not objective about your subjectivity, hence the contradiction. Subjectivity cancels itself out eventually.

However, our human perspectives are limited and there will always be the probability of furthering them. I am following this logic? Are you? If greater mind are limited, and other's must progress past them...does that mean they are always wrong as what they say is never complete?


I get it that you are afraid of thinking outside your comfort zone, and like to stay in a flimsy box, leave exploring the unknown elements of logic to greater men who are willing to risk losing sanity. You don't have the strength or fortitude for it.

I will make my premise clear, relative to the fallacies.

All fallacies are invertedly true, as there self negation leads to a necessity of authority, equivocation, hominum, circularity, etc. as continuums.

All fallacies as false observe a dual negative progression where they are used as a means of seperation.

Where I am arguing with you, is that your system cannot maintain this, hence that is why you are deficient in reasoning.

Don't be blinded by ambition or obsession. There is a saying (chinese or japanese), "fixation/obsession is furthest from understanding." What ambition or obsession if I am strictly observing my premises maintain themselves in the face of "great thinkers" whose continual progression necessitates ambition and obsession.

Your axioms cannot maintain themselves. I am arguing all axioms can maintain themselves but this cannot be limited to the premises of prior thinkers as there laws lead to a munchasseen trillema at minimum and are subject to there own contradictions.

Instead of future explanations, please direct me to the source of your information. Perhaps that would more readily resolve this conflict.

Okay: BrianW, Metaphysician Undercover

I am trying to find the root of the disagreement between you too.

Considering the prior claim:


The three laws of logic, as are commonly known, are corollaries of each other:
1. The Law of Identity.
2. The Law of Non-contradiction.
3. The Law of Excluded Middle.

By corollary is meant, each law naturally inferences the other.

@Metaphysician Undercover is right -

P is not defined by not P. — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually the statement proves he is simultaneously wrong at the same time in a difference respect considering The law of identity is defined in accords with the law of non-contradiction as "collaries" of eachother and cannot be seperated. Because one law inferences another the law of identity, and hence "P", is defined by the law of Non-contradiction, hence -P. What you state is illogical and metaphysician undercover is wrong according to your own argument. You and him contradict eachother.


You are both sticking up for a system that contradicts itself, as you contradict eachother.

If Pi is a relationship, and the line is a relationship of other lines as line, then Pi as a relationship, and the line as a relationship, observes Pi as a line.

I already defined in above what "quantum" means in the above. If you did not see it, then that means you are arguing against an argument you have not read and are forming your own subjective intepretation and cannot quote any mathematical authorities in this case.

Being and non-being, when alternating between eachother produce a continuum no different quantitatively to 1010011100001...

Actually a line is not just a line and a point is not just a point if one must reference the other in defining them. Can a line exist without being between points? This goes against your axioms. Can a point be observed without a line? This also goes against your mathematical axioms.

Your laws of logic are subject to the other laws of fallacies which extend from them and resort to a munchauseen trillema. Your laws are strictly a dogma of religious beliefs which contradict themselves, like most religious beliefs.

If I "differ" from the prevailing laws of logic, and these laws are determined by agreeing authority figures, then simply defining me as "illogical" based upon the opinions of other is not just bias and elitist, but effectively illogical as well considering it necessitates logic as a system of belief no different than other religions with religion being the foundations of many group conflicts and wars.

Are you an elitist? Do you believe you are better than the majority of people, or me, who do not see the world the same way you do?