I think that their point is that they do prefer non-existence but they are not a huge fan of the road that leads there. In other words, the find life to be better than an overwhelmingly negative end, but not necessarily more desirable than one that would most probably be peaceful. — DA671

The OP is confused. There is no peace in death. There is nothing. What the OP wants is peace in life. To get to a moment where they feel peace. You have to live to feel peace. They would prefer a life where they feel peace then a life where they feel pain. Death does not give peace. It gives nothing. There is no chance to find peace. There is no beating the pain. If you die in pain, its the last thing you will ever feel.

To believe that absence of your existence can be preferable to pain is true in some circumstances. Have all of your limbs cut off, your eyes blown out, your brain half blown to bits and you're surviving purely by modern science? Yeah, pull that plug. It does not sound like those are the circumstances of the OP. It sounds like someone who is in pain, and instead of dealing with that pain, looks to invent some fantasy to avoid the work needed to make the pain go away. The OP needs to deal with their pain. They can one day find peace if they work for it. They will not if they keep sticking to this romantic fantasy of death.

That would be wrong to say. I talk to others because, well what else is there? I mentioned the goal was to make life tolerable until the end. Just because I talk to people doesn't mean I enjoy it, I don't hate it either.

I do prefer death to living, to not have to do any of this anymore, but I must live as I have no other option at the moment.

It's like you read nothing I said. — Darkneos

Ridiculous. This is a philosophy forum. Logically, you live because you choose to live. If you truly preferred death more, you would die. If you're interested in a "woe is me" or "life is pain" conversation, this isn't the place.

Further, I've had times in my life where pain and emotional despair was unbearable. I've felt the urge to suicide before. But I made the choice to continue to live. That logically means I preferred life to death, despite all the nearly unbearable misery. What a pathetic human being I would have been to whine to others that I preferred death as I continually chose to live again and again.

You don't get to choose life, then say you prefer death. That's illogical. That's just whining about life. When this clear logical discrepancy is pointed out you whine some more. No wonder people tell you to go to therapy. You should listen to them. Your life sucks, so do something about it and improve it.

Well, you won't ever experience death. Death is simply, "The end". You'll experience dying if you're conscious at the time. But that's it. There is no peace, no rest, no etc. You're just dead. You won't be able to tell people how different you are anymore. You won't be able to chat with friends or family about how much of a chore life is. You won't be able to post on the philosophy boards in the hope of conversing or thinking.

You'll be gone. There will be no you. It will simply end. You won't even get the satisfaction of enjoying it or "being right".

You do enjoy life. Now it may not be roses and "the best", but you do, because you live. You actually do enjoy to some extent talking to other people. Making your voice known. People who really don't enjoy life at all don't talk. They don't write. They hate and despise everything about their very existence. You would loath eating, breathing, and doing anything. You obviously do not.

So no, you don't prefer death to living. You still live. You still eat. You still interact. Perhaps you wish life were better than it is. Perhaps you want peace and a release from pain, and confuse that for a desire for death. Many people do. But if you're talking about death as it is, an unromantic end that you won't get any feelings about or be around to experience, no you don't.

Likewise, I also agree that two unbounded infinites is a contradiction in terms and, therefore, I will interpolate that into the essay (as I believe I can prove it without further axiomatic importations).

In other words, “one” sine qua non is not “one” in the sense of a numerical whole but, rather, in total; that is, the analysis of what it approaches without the ability to encapsulate it. Perhaps a distinction of a “numerical one” (i.e., “in toto one”) and a “in total one” would be useful in the essay? — Bob Ross

I may have been focusing too much on bounded vs unbounded when I think toto and total are really the focus in your essay. I think what I'm trying to note is that no matter how you shake it, toto and total are both bounded infinities. But I honestly don't think that's important to your overall concepts and where you want to take the essay.

So with this, let me make sure I understand your definitions of toto and total without the use of bounded and unbounded infinities, but just infinities. Instead, let me relate it to concepts if I could.

Lets look at the concept of "trees". A tree can be imagined an infinite number of ways. In toto seems to be close to "realized".

"In toto, on the contrary, cannot be conceived for a given concept without admitting of that concept bounds (in form). " - Foundational Metaphysics

So if I were relate this to trees, perhaps we could say its the realized number of trees for just one person. But, just because we have a realized a limited number of trees, it does not negate the fact we could keep realizing more. In fact, an infinite amount of trees if we so desired.

To my mind, the words total and toto is more like potential vs. actual. If I imagine the total amount of trees I can conceive of, its infinite. But if I imagine the tota number of trees I can conceive of, this seems to require a form of some sort, like trees. But, when speaking in total, I require some word like "trees" as well. There's no real difference in this instance, because both are still the unrealized concepts of trees themselves.

Instead of using both tota and total as representatives of infinity, perhaps one should represent infinity, while the other represents what is realized within the potential infinite. Infinity after all, can never be fully realized by any being. It is a concept of an unending pattern. I think this is also where you're implicitly intending to go, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

So for example
1. The total number of trees I can realize is the unformed potential of all possible trees. As they are unformed, we cannot establish them all. It is an unending pattern.
2. The toto number of trees I can realize is the actual number of trees I realize (perhaps through my life? Or X time?). Perhaps in your original conception we could say if you lived an infinite time, the toto number of trees would be all the trees you actually conceived of during your infinite life.

The point that I want to note is that there is no actual infinity, only a potential infinity. As we are limited beings, the actual of what we are cannot be noted in terms of infinity.

I also don't think this hurts your essay. If we go to the principal of regulation, we can then apply the concept similarly. The total number of derivations I'm able to make is infinite. The tota number of derivations I have made are X. We can derive from concepts in two ways. I can derive a concept post, or subordinate, that follows from my current concept. Or, I can also derive a concept pre, or superordinate, that creates a concept that one could use to lead to the original concept.

As an example I could create the concept of a man on a moon. Then I could create the subordinate concept that, "The man traveled there from Earth". Taken without the consideration of derivation, one could say, "Ah, the man traveled to the moon from Earth, that's why they're on the moon." While the order of time or logical consequence might indicate it as the "beginning", in order of derivation, it is actually the second concept conceived of.

As such, we could say the toto number of concepts would be the derivation chains I've conceived of, but in total, there are an unrealized infinite I could conceive of. Is this along the lines of your thinking, or am I still missing or confusing something?

This leaves the sqn. What I feel you are trying to imply is that a sqn is what is required for the potential of derivations to exist at all. Because the total number of derivations I can make is unrealized, we're not going through and cancelling a "set" of all unrealized concepts I would actually make, but the total potential of what I could make. Because this is unrealized infinity, there are no "numbers" or actuals to negate, only the potential itself. Does this work?

If this is the case, you're noting that the principle of regulation is a sqn, because without the principle of regulation, there can be no derivation in potential. If derivation could only be done with subordinates, it would miss the picture of the superordinate. If derivation could only be done with superordinates, it would miss the picture of the subordinate. And if a being did not consider anything subordinate or superordinate, there would be no derivation at all.

For me, this is where I think the essay runs into problems. Noting that derivation has both superordinate and subordinate concepts is fine. But those are simply definitions we can realize. What is to prevent a person from defining derivation as something that is only subordinate? What if they made a different word for constructing a superordinate, and did not find that was a derivation at all? What if something has a completely different thought process than ourselves?

For example, if I were to postulate a concept of “a being that cannot derivate”, then I am doing so by means of deriving something which cannot derive. — Bob Ross

Yes, you are doing so, but you didn't negate the fact that the being could not derivate. And this being may be a highly intelligent being, even another human. Such a human could not use the the PoR. But this is basically because we have defined it as such right? If something cannot conceive of both superordinate and subordinate ideas, by definition, it cannot derivate. The PoR is not a universal concept that can be used or understood by all thinking things. It is a descriptor of certain logical processes of some beings.

But here is where I don't see a problem. The PoR is a concept that can be used and understood by many thinking things. I don't think you need a sqn to assert the PoR as a concept to derive other concepts. I think its a fine proposal that can be demonstrated, used effectively, and agreed upon by most people. Is it a necessary concept to thought itself? No. But is it a fine concept that I believe you will use to derive and explore other interesting and possibly useful concepts? Yes! So please continue Bob.

So, down to work. I have presented some ideas about how the mind works from scientists I consider credible whose ideas make sense to me. I’d like to discuss what the proper approach to thinking about the mind is. I consider these good examples. My conclusion - the mind is not magical or even especially mysterious, although there is a lot we don’t know. Mostly it’s just a foundation of business-as-usual biology resulting in the very powerful and complex thinking, feeling, seeing, remembering, speaking faculties of the human beings we all are. — T Clark

Sounds good to me T-Clark. You've cited the correct people for this conclusion. While this is a nice summation of several different findings, do you have anything of your own to add? Should we change how we approach life? Does this affect morality? Or is it simply a nice result you wanted to share with us all from what appears to be a lot of research on your part?

I think that our dispute first lies in whether an “unbounded infinite” is valid as a concept — Bob Ross

Yes, I think this is really the issue. Lets see if we can put this in terms of math.

You already mentioned that the infinite X is bounded if we use actual numbers. The only way to really capture an unbounded infinite is not to use numbers at all, but the relation itself, where is is not limited by any number or dimension. I have no problem with this. What I will attempt to demonstrate is that there is only one unbounded infinite, and the X "without numbers" is it.

Your original bounded infinite could be represented as
X = Y with limit 5. Here we have X is fine as long as it doesn't equal 5. But if X is bounded as soon as numbers are used, then as soon as a number is used in the equation, it is also bounded. So X = Y with a limit of 5 is a bounded infinite by the limit.

But lets go further. X = Y is really a limit of "Whatever Y is, X is. We can say we won't assign actual numbers to X, but there is a number, a bound within the formula itself that acts exactly on a limit. That limit is that Y will always be X, and Y cannot be anything but X.

The above may be confusing, so let me add another detail. 2X = Y. Now we explicitly have a number in which Y will always be double X. Even if we don't use actual numbers in X or Y, this double explicitness is a limit, or a bound. Referencing the previous X = Y, lets change it to 1X = 1Y, which is equivalent.

Ok, if X, unnumbered is an unbounded infinity, while all the rest are bounded, can we have multiple unbounded infinities. Can I just say Y without using actual numbers and have that different from saying X without actual numbers? Besides the symbol itself, they are both identical. X is unbounded, and Y is unbounded. They are not bounded in relation to one another. If they are not bounded in relation to one another, they are not different from one another. Neither has any limits, so they are both the same.

Lets now translate that to words, context, and meaning. As soon as you put a limit in words, context, or meaning, you are no longer talking about an unbounded infinite. You are talking about a bounded infinite.

Now, this still doesn't convey the whole idea fully. We now have to change it to words, meaning, and context. To represent X, we need unstated words, unstated meaning, and unstated context. The moment we state anything, any "number", we are now within a bounded infinite limited by the expression of that word, meaning, and/or context.

Can we have a sine qua nons for an unbounded infinite. Yes, but there is only one. That would be "not X". If not X were true, then X would not follow. Anything more specific may be a sqn for a bounded infinite, but it cannot be a sqn for an unbounded infinite.

The same applies to the principle of regulation. Within X words, Y meaning, and Z contexts we are still bound by words, meaning, and context. Let simplify this further. W = { X, Y, and Z } all without "numbers" or explicit individual representations. W is still bound by X, Y, and Z. The only way for W to be unbounded is just "W".

So I do not think it can be shown the Principle of Regulation is a sqn. There are specific words, such as principle, regulation, of, that are understood within a particular bounded infinite meaning, and in particular bounded infinite contexts. Can thinking things within this limit form and use conclude the logic of the principle of regulation is necessary. Absolutely. But can this be concluded from "W" alone? No, I don't believe it can.

To clarify on

p1. A unbounded infinite is a concept — Bob Ross

No, I'm not stating this. I'm stating an unbounded infinite is not a concept. The moment we create a concept within it, we are now within a bounded infinite. As such, there is only one unbounded infinite. Anytime any explicit infinite is proposed, it is by nature bounded.

That being said, this does not mean you should give up on the principle of regulation as a basis for a theory. I think it is a fine starting point, and I know I, and probably many in this discussion would love to see where your mind takes this. I would hate it to be stopped by something as trivial as a debate over infinity.

You shouldn't need sqn's to prove the principle of regulation to logically thinking minds. And even if you do, perhaps its something you could come back and show later? Is the concept of a SQN within an unbounded infinite absolutely needed to continue your line of thought from the PoR proposal? If you just started the sentence with, "If we have the ability to derive, the principle of regulation logically arrives," would that hamper what you want to do? I feel you have so much more to say, and possibly introduce greater thoughts that I would hate to see stopped over focusing on what may be a technical, and perhaps unnecessary detail to show us what you have planned.

In my experience in philosophy, it is easy to get stuck on approaches that seem necessary to us when first formulating the idea, but as we evolve the idea, were perhaps not as necessary or important as we thought to those who are reading our papers. Consider your readers so far. Very few have argued against the PoR, but almost everyone has a problem with your views of infinity. Now we may all be wrong, and you may be correct. But is it necessary at this time to focus on the infinite as such, or can this be shelved or stated another way that allows your readers to focus on the first premise they can readily accept?

I realized, to keep it brief, that even if I concluded that there was no foundation to derivation, or no derivation, it is all by means of the principle of regulation (or whatever one wants to call it). — Bob Ross

This right here is where I think you should go into detail. Prove not only to yourself, but that none of us can conclude anything differently. If you do this, I don't think anyone is going to need the infinite. How in the absence of derivation must we all necessarily have the principle of regulation? If I am not a being able to derivate, could I conclude I could not derivate?'

I look forward to your work Bob.

The problem with all of the testimonials is the brain wasn't fully dead. Just because you are not conscious or responsive, does not mean you are not collecting smells, sounds, and even visuals if your eyes are opened by a doctor or your lids fail.

If we could monitor a brain, see it fully dead, then bring it back to life, then we could test. But currently we cannot.

We can also have absolutely no scientific indication that you are anything more than your brain. At best we could say if something duplicated your brain functions, we could say "You lived on." But there's no indication of that either.

Lets think one more time. Suppose there was something that copied your brain patterns, then put it into a new body or machine. Is that really you? You're dead. That's just a copy. And if its just a copy, why would the thing that did the copying need to copy you only once, and only when you're about to die? Why not at your prime? Or multiple copies?

You will die. I will die. Everyone will die. Its an incredibly uncomfortable proposition and one that is difficult to imagine. When we die, we'll be gone. That's really all we know. And we cannot make good decisions about reality beyond what we know.

Your vote doesn't matter. It won't change anything unless you vote in a small enough election where it's possible for one vote to matter. — Marchesk

That's only if everyone votes. And for everyone to vote, you must vote. Meaning your vote matters.

Voting is not a fight. Not even in the slightest bit. It's an exercise in statistical bureaucracy to find out who people want to hold that office. There's not even the tiniest element of 'fight' in it. — Isaac

That's your belief then. I'll keep voting and have some victories while you can sit home and let people like me decide your future without opposition.

We all can be agree here that China is a dictatorship but you have to accept that they are the power ruling the world right now, so they are not doing the things that bad.. — javi2541997

No, we do not. No, China has a lot of its own problems as well. We're talking about places where your vote is actually free and counted, not a fake democracy. And no, America is not a fake Democracy.

How can I (as a citizen) join the adult's table? Anyone knows the formula? — javi2541997

Did you read the rest of what I wrote? You are not an island. Join a group. Make one. Also consider where your vote matters more. Local politics often times only take a few individuals to make major changes. Start there.

That's just repeating the assertion, not explaining why. — Isaac

My apologies then, I did not understand the question.

That's because it's provably true that dieting and exercise has a very high probability of causing you to lose weight. Hence if you don't do it you're not trying. — Isaac

And yet many people who exercise and attempt to diet do not lose weight. It is no guarantee. Of course voting does not mean you'll get what you want. But its one of the few viable processes of expressing what you want. You're also viewing yourself as an island. People vote. That means you can convince people in your community to vote as well. You can advertise. You can run for office yourself.

Take the opposite, that you can't vote at all. That you can't congregate with others to discuss what you're going to vote on. You have absolutely no choice to be run by a few others who have all the power. Do you want that? Is that somehow more favorable?

The reason why you don't get everything you want when you vote, is because others vote too. Which means some voters in any vote, will win. Sometimes that can be you, but only if you vote too. Either you're at the table, and will receive some modicum of respect and consideration, or you're at the kids table while the adults make decisions about your life.

In what way does my voting anti-car change that situation? — Isaac

To re-emphasize in my reply to your first post, voting is done by people. You could start a campaign to be anti-car. You can be the first vote. Then go explain to people why. Many people may hear your explanations and think, "Yeah, anti-car is the way to go!" Even if you don't win the vote, if you start getting a sizable amount of anti-car people, the car people have to start considering you. Maybe they'll compromise on cars a bit.

Let me give you an example of some real life statistics. Generally people in their early 20's don't vote very much. As such, candidates don't court them. Each time you don't vote, your demographic is not considered in policies, as those who vote are. And so you sit around thinking, "Politicians won't care about my vote anyway", thus perpetuating the cycle.

If you don't want to vote, don't vote. A lot of people worked very hard and died so you could. But it is not noble, efficient, or beating the system. It is surrender without a fight. You have that choice of course. But if you choose not to fight, don't expect people to be sympathetic when you complain about the outcome.

How do either of these positions differ in the case of voting? It is also impossible to tell the difference between enthusiastic support and reluctant consent from a vote. — Isaac

Your emotional opinion has nothing to do with the outcome of voting. Voting is electing that a group of people that you are involved in should do something, or not do something. Your refusal to participate in the process simply means you don't get any say on what goes on around you. Its like being a child.

And I don't understand why voting then provides the right to complain. If anything, it's the opposite, you actually provided your written consent for the person to run the country for you. — Isaac

Voting does not provide written consent that the country gets to run you. That's consented the day you enter the countries borders. Its consented on every day you decide to continue to live there. Voting is the ability to have a say in how they get to run you, and others around you.

Imagine a person who complains they can't lose weight, but doesn't exercise and eats junk food all day. If they complain, they will simply be viewed as lazy by people around them. The person who is exercising daily and working on their diet gets to complain and will likely receive some respect from the people around them.

Of course not voting is a viable position. Your refusal to participate in who gets to make laws about you is fine. Just don't complain when people pass laws that you don't want. If you want to go with the flow of the river because fighting against the current is too hard, distasteful, or seems impossible, go for it. The current will always be happy to have one less thing it has to fight against.

Hello again Bob! A late reply, but I'll try to refresh where we were.

All possible numbers would be, with respect to the essay, a bounded infinite. — Bob Ross

We're in agreement then Bob! That's what I was trying to point out.

By true infinite, I think you are talking about something entirely different than me, but I could be wrong. — Bob Ross

I don't think so here. I was regressing through all numbers, and noted that all numbers themselves are a bounded infinite as well. I was trying to lead to the point that an unbounded infinite cannot be quantified or limited.

This is where it gets incredibly subtle, but equally incredibly vital: it is not “without it an unbounded infinity is negated” but, rather, without it there are an unbounded infinite of negations. Sounds kind of like the same thing, doesn’t it? I agree, but yet they are entirely different ideas. — Bob Ross

If we are in agreement that numbers are bounded infinites, then whenever we come up with an identity, we are creating some type of bounded infinite. If we use the word "negations" were are implicitly talking about bounds then. I don't think we can say an "unbounded infinite of negations". That's really, a "bounded infinite of negations". I can see an unbounded infinite negated, because an unbounded infinite is the base from which all bounded infinites are formed. But if we say that all possible bounded infinites are negated, isn't that the same as stating an unbounded infinite is negated? Can you give an example showing how they're entirely different ideas?

Is there a superordinate to 1? I'm not sure.

It is entirely possible to declare a particular derivation complete; that is, that it has been sufficiently justified and, therefore, can be put to rest. This doesn’t negate the principle of regulation’s truth: that assertion (i.e., that it has been sufficiently justified) is yet another conclusion which utilized the principle of regulation. — Bob Ross

Thank you, I re-read and realized you had covered that part. Also, you have not had the chance to show how sufficient justification works under your system, so I accept this for now.

In terms of the former (your version), I would have no choice but to concede that a sine qua non is simply a misapprehension; that is, not an unbounded infinite is to necessary conceive of it in toto to thereby flip its affirmation into a denial (i.e., negation): therefore, it would be nothing more than the masking of a bounded infinite under the name of an unbounded infinite. However, in terms of the latter (my version), it is simply the negation, sequentially, of everything (i.e., not …, not not {…}). I think this is potentially where you may be misstepping (or I may be simply incorrect). — Bob Ross

For myself, I think this is a crux of your argument that needs better explication. You are as usual, brilliant Bob, but I'm having a difficult time conceptualizing the latter as something real. In trying, the best I can come up with is that it is some conceptualization that is necessary for an unbounded infinite to be. The best I can think of is that we must be able to make conceptualizations out of/within the unbounded infinite. Because if something could not, then nothing could create any sort of differentiation between bounded, and unbounded. Does this somehow fit within your PoR?

Being in bounded infinites is not a bad thing however, as I believe its the only way we can have concepts. Perhaps we can simply reform your idea into, "A sqn is what is needed for concepts to exist." Basically try to find what is logically necessary for concepts to occur.

Unfortunately, that would defeat the point of the essay, as that is not a foundation (unless we speaking of contextual foundations). Likewise, a sine qua non is not deriving what is necessary for concept to occur, as that is within the sphere of critique of derivation (as opposed to its higher form of performance of derivation). — Bob Ross

This again is where I have a hard time. Without a sqn, nothing can be. Which means without a sqn, concepts cannot be either. The way I read the essay and your explanation, it seems to imply without a sqn, the infinite, bounded or unbounded could not be.

This would be true if the principle of regulation pertained soley to explicated superordinate and subordinate rules. It’s quite literally being postulated as an unbounded infinite of such. — Bob Ross

Again, I think this is really where my issue resides. The unbounded infinite is the source of all explicated infinites. Negating the unbounded infinite, negates all explicated infinites as well. Without a sqn, the unbounded infinite would be negated. And I think we agree there is only 1 unbounded infinite, as more than one would be by definition, two bounded infinites. All explicated infinites are within the unbounded infinite. Which means a sqn is necessary for all explicated infinites to occur as well. If this is the case, then a sqn must stand without contradiction in all explicated infinites. Meaning that if it does not stand within even one explicated infinite, it cannot be a sqn.

As I noted earlier, the burden of demonstrating this is nigh impossible to meet. But this again, is through my interpretation so far that the sqn is a misapprehension. If you can demonstrate your version " it is simply the negation, sequentially, of everything (i.e., not …, not not {…})." somehow is not logically equivalent to my version, then there may be something to explore.

Thank you for your reply Bob, I believe I'm beginning to see what you're going for more clearly. First, lets cover what I mean by the true infinite versus the bounded infinite. Lets look at the true infinite as all possible numbers. Within that infinite, you can have bounded infinites. For example, all numbers that end on the tenth's place is a bounded infinite within the true infinite. A bind is a limit. To speak of an unbounded infinite, is to speak to something without limits.

Within the infinite, I can create many bound ways of comparing numbers. I can create bounded ways of adding, substracting, etc. But does the negation of one of these comparisons negate the true infinity of numbers? No. But if we think about numbers for a second, we realize they are bounds as well. Each "number" is a bounded concept. So we get rid of numbers as well, and we are finally left with true infinity.

When you say a sqn is needed, because without it an unbounded infinity is negated, I'm not sure that's possible. The unbounded infinite is a total, and we can only represent it with a toto, or a bounds of some kind. For the most basic of bounds, we create a number, 1. To your principle of regulation, we can then create the number 2 as a subordinate to the idea that its a 1 and a 1 together. Is there a superordinate to 1? I'm not sure.

The point though, is that all ideas are bounded within unbounded infinity. Unbounded infinity is the stream from which all identities and relations are pulled from. Unbounded infinity is where all bounded infinities are created. An unbounded infinity is something we can never understand in total, but only in toto as well.

So when you declare a sqn is that without it, unbounded infinity cannot exist, it something that I'm not sure can ever be proven. The best you can do is use bounded infinity. But at that point, that seems to defeat the purpose of the sqn. The best we can do is re-create our "bachelor" example repeated among several different contexts. The PoR is no exception.

If we disregard all possible synonyms for "unmarried man" in all possible contexts, would this be a sqn?

It would not, because fundamentally we would have a situation where we are positing “without Y, there’s a bounded infinite of negative judgments”. That claim is not coherent if posited as an unbounded infinite because the omission of “unmarried man” leaves many concepts intact. — Bob Ross

Being in bounded infinites is not a bad thing however, as I believe its the only way we can have concepts. Perhaps we can simply reform your idea into, "A sqn is what is needed for concepts to exist." Basically try to find what is logically necessary for concepts to occur.

The PoR is a logical way of relating concepts. But can a being have a concept without conceiving of superordinate and subordinate concepts? Yes, we can prove this. To have a subordinate or superordinate concept, one must have two concepts. By the nature of a concept being a derivation, one must be formed before the other. If one cannot conceive of a single concept without the PoR, how does one conceive of the first concept?

One must conceive of that first concept prior to the second according to the PoR. That means one must be able to conceive of a concept without the PoR, because prior to the first concept, one has no concepts. If one can conceive of a concept prior to the PoR, than the PoR is not necessary to conceive of concepts. If this is the case, one could also conceive of a second concept that had no relation to the first concept. The ability to create concepts does not necessarily mean one will create derivated concepts, or use the PoR.

Thus we've shown that while the PoR is a way to view derivation itself, it is not necessary to hold or create concepts. Meaning that the PoR cannot be a sqn as the idea of "concepts" itself can still be conceived without it.

Overall, I think the true problem is trying to include unbounded infinity. Perhaps there is a sqn for unbounded infinity, but I don't think the PoR is it.

Snide comments are not an argument
— Philosophim

Irony noted. — Jackson

Ignoring the rest of what I posted noted. Do not troll.

Gosh, wiki. — Jackson

Snide comments are not an argument. Sources are cited at the bottom of Wikipedia. Feel free to post your own source about Aristotle, otherwise you've been shown to be mistaken.

That proves that “unmarried man” is not a sine qua non, which I believe (and correct me if I am wrong) you are thinking it would prove it if there’s an infinite amount of things that could be postulated without “unmarried man”. — Bob Ross

No, that wasn't my intention. What I was trying to note was there are an infinite number of things I could postulate with "unmarried man", that I could not postulate without "unmarried man". If unmarried man did not exist, then the defintions of bachelor and bachelum would not exist. Perhaps the words could still exist, but their meaning could never be "unmarried man", because "unmarried man" does not exist. If we disregard all possible synonyms for "unmarried man" in all possible contexts, would this be a sqn?

You see, as I would argue, that concept of Y, valid as it is by means of derivation, is a bounded infinite because I can abstract further by questioning the grounds of that very concept of Y, thereby invalidating it as an unbounded infinite. — Bob Ross

I think I understand this. Words like bachelor and bachelum all rely on the concept of "unmarried man". Again, it is not the words we are really referencing, but their meaning. Without "unmarried man", any derivations from the concept of "unmarried man" cannot exist. Of course, there are a potentially infinite number of derivations we can establish from "unmarried man" that we could not without the concept of "unmarried man". From the finite springs the infinite, though this infinite is bounded by the finite superordinate.

By “context”, I just loosely meant an idea that is sandboxed. So it is perfectly possible that “A IFF D” is only true within a sandbox, so to speak, and not true universally. — Bob Ross

The problem I see you running into is when you note a "universal" infinite. Having worked with infinite before, its very easy to lose the real consequences of true infinity. Real infinity has no limit. Which means practically any formation within that infinite can also be negated.

Think of numbers for example. Numbers are bounded limitations within true infinity. One such measurement is discrete data versus continuous data. Continuous data is a bounded infinite, such as "height". In theory, there is no limit to how high we can measure. A discrete data point would be 5 feet high.

As noted, continuous data is still a bounded infinite. Without the context of dimension, height just dissolves into the true infinite. There are an infinite amount of potential dimensions that we can create within that true infinite. To your point, I'm noting that the rule of regulation too would dissolve into the true infinite without certain bounded contexts. If a sqn must be true universally, then it must be true in the unbounded infinite.

If you are trying to inquire how it can be proven sans context (i.e., unbounded context), then I can provide further detail: I continually performed abstraction to its highest point, whereat I could not longer abstract higher and, thereafter, determine what (if anything) produces the negation of those abstractions if removed (or it could be thought of as the negation of particulars too, if you will). — Bob Ross

This is still within your own bounded context. I take no objection to there existing a sqn within a bounded context. It is completely true that you thought everything you did, and could only come to one conclusion. But is that true of all contexts, of the true infinity? That has not been proven. Let me give you an example. There are some people who cannot visualize in their mind. As in, they cannot think of images like most people can. They close their eyes, and the world is completely dark for them. Think of the host of conclusions and thinking you've done with your ability to visualize in your head, and then try to imagine the conclusions one can or cannot make if they cannot visualize.

In the same manner, a personal conclusion of thought within your own bounded context does not prove a universal context. In the same manner, we can imagine a creature that can think without the rule of regulation. Its difficult for those of us who use the rule of regulation on a daily basis to imagine this, but we already know that some things think differently from ourselves. This is what I was noting earlier. If you personally think using the rule of regulation, and nothing else, then yes, its a sqn for you. But that doesn't mean its a sqn for something that does not think like you do.

what about the principle of regulation do you think doesn’t hold for a plant that demonstrates it reacts to its environment (which, I would argue, pretty much happens in virtue of them being alive—no?). I certainly don’t think a plant would be able to affirm the principle of regulation, but I think I can affirm that they use it (which is a different claim, I would argue). — Bob Ross

First, there's the idea that we're assuming our own basis of thought applies to all other thinking things. We cannot conclude that just because you and I think in the terms of the principle of regulation, that every other thinking thing does as well. All it takes is one thinking thing that does not, and then we don't have a universal sqn anymore. I'm not saying you can't come up with a universal sqn, but it must be provably true within the true infinite. I don't see the PoR doing that currently.

Second, we can speculate that a plant, or any other creature thinks with the PoR, but we have to prove that. The burden of proof is not on me within the true infinite, the burden of proof is on yourself. And even if we prove that, we must prove it for all plants of that type, then all plants, all creatures, etc. The PoR is not something provable, because it is a bounded idea that relies on certain bounded infinites thinking in a particular manner.

Now, if we have a bounded sqn, we avoid the problems noted above. That of course, brings about new problems. If sqns are bounded to contexts, which context should we choose? I think you know this, which is why you wanted to note a sqn is universal. The ultimate problem is that I believe you have not shown that the PoR is something true universally. As noted above, I'm not sure its something you can either.

That being said, it may be that there are things I still don't understand, so please correct me if I'm in error. I also think the PoR is a fine principle within bounded contexts, and see nothing overtly wrong with it within these bounded contexts. I just don't think at this time that you've provided what is needed to show it is true universally, and not just within the contexts you've been thinking in.

So “without which, not” is meant as an unbounded infinite negative (i.e., if not A, then an unbounded infinite of negative judgments). It is not meant to negate only one particular derivation. — Bob Ross

Could you clarify with an example here? When you mean infinite, do you mean "All possible derivations in total/tota"? To compare again to the bachelor, we could derive another term called a bachelum, which is an unmarried man that is about to be married. Again, we could not derive the term bachelum without the superodinate "unmarried man". As such, there are an infinite derivations we could not create without the concept of "unmarried man", many which we do not directly know or have been invented yet.

A sine qua non is not denoted by being the anchor of a biconditional statement (such as D IFF A); for that could entail that it is only valid within one or a finite set of contexts. For example, it’s possible that A IFF D is true of context C1 but not true of context C2. — Bob Ross

Could you give an example of what you mean by context here? If it is unbounded context, I cannot see a sqn forming simply by the fact language and thinking can change. Lets look at the principle of regulation. A fine principle, but can it be proven that its a sqn in unbounded context? What if something does not think in a derivative manner? This may be due to low intellect, or simply a brain that does not process in such a way. Does a plant think in terms of the principle of regulation for example?

The problem with an unbounded infinite is we can always come up with a situation that negates another.
To your end, I believe you are implying a bounded context. For example, in individuals who have the capacity to only think in superordinate and subordinate manners, we could say the principle of regulation holds. Because people in this context have no other way of possibly thinking, it is impossible to think differently. Among creatures that had alternative thinking processes, the principle of regulation does not apply to them.

Again, please correct me where I am incorrect Bob.

I logically concluded that "it simply is" here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1

I have a follow up as well where I go into what that means for the universe. But its pretty simple. There is no reason why anything exists. It simply does. This is logically concluded, not simply an opinion. So what does that mean for us? Honestly, just enjoy it!

Hello Bob, it is great to see you again! I'll address your paper the best I can.

Let me see if I can sum up your argument. sine qua non means "without which, not". Which means, "If this does not exist, this derivation cannot follow"?

As an example, A -> B. But also, C -> B. If we removed A from the derivation, we would still have C. So neither A, nor C, are a sqn. If however we had A -> D, and in the removal of A, it is no longer possible to ever derive D, we have a sqn. Does this approximate the idea fairly?

If so, this is similar to a contrapositive of derivation. Perhaps a way to view it is a bachelor is an unmarried man. The term bachelor is derived from the "unmarried man". Without an unmarried man, there can be no bachelor. A man is a bachelor if and only if he is unmarried. Being an unmarried man is the foundation of a being a bachelor. In this case, we could call "unmarried man" to be a superordinate rule. The subordinate rule would be the creation of the term "bachelor".

I think what you also wanted to note was that a superordinate rule can be a subordinate rule in relation to its previous derivation as well. So, I could look at the term "man", and note (as an example, not denoting the correctness) that some creature with an 46 chromosomes in an XY structure exist, and from there, we derive the word "man". In this case, the chromosomes would be the superordinate, while the term "man" would be the subordinate.

That being the case, we can create superordinate clauses that work, but do not negate the subordinate when removed. It is not necessary that I know of chromosomes to derive the word "man". I could note its a "human with particular reproductive anatomy". Thus while the chromosomes can be a superoridinate to man, it is not a sqn. This is simply a bounded capture of a man, but in tota, not in total.

Let me know if I'm on the right track or it needs some correction Bob!

What you are saying is extremely elementary and boring. Try to say something worth responding to. You want this? — Jackson

If you're going to be a snide person who just cares about your ego, we're done. If you want to chat, engage without the insults.

Art is about a human's personal experience. — Jackson

Could you go into more detail? Does this mean all of my personal experiences are art? Is breathing an art? My heart beat? Driving my car to work? Try to engage with more than one sentence Jackson. We're here to think right? Its not about winning, losing, or being smart. We're just juggling ideas, no judgement.

Sure. The objective/subjective dichotomy is meaningless. If there were no subjects no art would exist because no humans would exist. So, humans make objects. — Jackson

So what I mean by objective is something that exists apart from a human's personal experience. Think of a ruler for example. Whether I or someone else uses the ruler, the measurement will objectively be the same.

Back to art, what are the objective commonalities of art across all human experience? Why are a bunch of colored sguiggle lines slopped on a canvas considered art compared to a realistic picture of a lake? Is there a morality in art? Objectively good and bad art that we should encourage or inhibit? Questions like these had no objective answer back when I investigated years ago. Perhaps things have changed. If so, feel free to let me know, I'm always willing to hear of new things.

Currently art is considered subjective.
— Philosophim

By you. I see no argument for that. — Jackson

What would be helpful is for you to point out objective measures of art. I can give one, "The golden ratio" for example. Of course, there's the question of why that's considered so appealing in art. What creates a situation where art is involved? What are the degrees of art. Why are some things considered more artistic than others? There are lots of questions that I am not aware of any definitive answers to them. Feel free to enlighten me!

Desperate times call for desperate measures!

Microtubules & consciousness! Wild would be an understatement. Clearly, we're in a dark room, blind, wearing shades and looking for a black cat which isn't there. — Agent Smith

Oh my, did you hear of a desperate person who wanted to say we revolved around the sun? I mean, its plainly obvious by looking in the sky that it revolves around us. The need to escape God's glory, and our singular importance as human beings in this world is a mental illness for sure!

I think you get the point. The inquisitive and curious mind does not mock attempts at discovery, but always gives it a chance.

Art is largely founded on the subjective, so pulling out an objective result faces its own challenges.
— Philosophim

Then all of everyone's life is "subjective." — Jackson

I think you misunderstood. Currently art is considered subjective. Finding an objective explanation for art is one of the challenges philosophy has to yet solve.

A good topic Alkis. I've thought on this plenty of times myself. First, I don't think the forums are a great place to judge philosophy. This is an informal place where people are often learning about philosophy. To ask whether philosophy is moving forward, I think we need to look at the current academic movement of philosophy. It has been several years since I followed academia, but when I was in it, I would say, "No".

Philosophy at a casual level does not take much to get into. All it requires is a child like approach to problems. Take X assumption and simply ask, "Why?" Watch a frustrated adult who does not have the time or inclination to atomically break down the exact reason, and the child is amused and might think they are clever. And there is nothing wrong with this. When getting into any field, it is child-like wonder and amusement that first drives us there. And as children in a field, we poke and prod topics that have long been discovered, but need to be discovered anew by taking that journey.

As you mature, you start to reach the walls in philosophy. Perhaps this is because its successes become settled or science, and there is not much left to talk about. When I was in academic philosophy, there were only a few viable topics which had mysteries that needed to be solved.

1. Epistemology - Definitely problems and issues here that need answers. In my opinion, the most important philosophical problem.
2. Morality - Currently there is no agreed upon and established secular morality.
3. Art - What is it, and why is it needed?

Some people might say "Mind", but that's honestly been taken over by neuroscience. The problem of course, is the answers to these questions have been considered for thousands of years, and are incredibly difficult to solve. Incredibly difficult problems are not very open to the public, or casual philosophers.

Epistemology is likely going to find its advances in AI where its solution will result in billions of dollars of profit. I think this is the most likely candidate for progress due to the money and demand for its solutions. Morality is what we "should" do, which is a question about the future, culture, and context; so its a difficult puzzle to find a formula that adapts to all three variables. Even if you did, morality is very personal to many people, as well as a means of power and control for others; so I would expect immense push back. Art is largely founded on the subjective, so pulling out an objective result faces its own challenges.

Good post!

Proof requires something outside of a system. — god must be atheist

No, you can have something proven as a base that begins the system. If you show proof that there is nothing outside of the system, you do not need something outside of the system.

I was a math teach for five years, so I have my opinions.

1. Schools are designed by the state for a few reasons.
a. Create citizens that can read and thus contribute to a Democracy
b. Create citizens that can do jobs that society needs
c. Babysit so parents can work

So where does formal logic fit in with this? I don't mean logic, I mean formal logic. Formal logic is mostly academic in society, and really a form of math. As you noted, it is examples of logical fallacies that are valuable, and this is often taught through English classes through the evaluation of literature.
Whereas the math-like formal logical part of education is taught by math itself.

Both fields appear to have more immediate use towards the above goals. As such I just don't see room for an entire course on logic except as an extracurricular like debate class.

What is meaningless about human existence?
— Harry Hindu

That it's all for nothing. — Tate

What is all for nothing? What does that even mean?

↪Philosophim Firstly, the "we are doing fine" is a statement that doesn't even wholly pertain to the current state of human beings, let alone animals. — TheSoundConspirator

Well, let me back that statement then. Right now you are able to communicate with someone across the world in a way just 40 years ago would have most likely been impossible for you. We have modern conveniences of air conditioning which has only existed in the last 100 years. You likely live parasite free, which is a convenience most humans did not have.

We live in a time where war is at its lowest in human history. We can travel into space. Education and knowledge are at people's fingertips with the internet. Opportunity for business and creative enterprises are more than they've ever been. We've created technology that pulls energy from the sun and the wind.

So where are we not doing fine? I ask you to qualify those statements now.

I think gratitude is an extension of empathy or mirroring. I think we realize how much work it takes to make things go right for ourselves or others in life. When we see nice things happen to ourselves from things outside of our control, I believe its taking that sense about our self, and attributing that to whatever it was that had to work to make the reality you are experiencing.

The idea that humans have brought nothing but destruction and catastrophe was likely written by a depressed person. Thinking beyond the statement as emotional poetry shows us the absurdity of the statement. Did you not just write a thought provoking and emotionally laden piece of work? Was that destruction and catastrophe?

No, humanity has created a world in which people may sit around the internet and postulate imaginary scenarios. We're doing fine.

First and foremost I want to thank you for a wonderful discussion (as always)! — Bob Ross

I feel equally the same Bob! This is hands down the best overall discussion I've had with another person on the forums. My respect for you cannot be overstated. You've given me a conversation I tried to find for years. Even if this never goes anywhere beyond these forums, that has been enough for me to feel fulfilled. I look forward to your epistemology, and I will seek to give it the respect and thoughtfulness you have shown mine.

Thanks again,
Philosophim

As you'll see in the last reply prior to yours, I'm still having a nice conversation with Bob.
— Philosophim
I see. So you simply mean, "I have a nice conversation ..." :grin: — Alkis Piskas

No, I am having. As in ongoing, present tense. The conversation has not ended yet.

Alkis, you're being a troll, and its obvious. Anyone who doesn't read the OP, in which I go over how knowledge is acquired, then tries to critique something they haven't read is an ignorant person who is wasting my time. I thank people who are willing to engage in the OP and legitimately challenge the views here, not people like you.

A human cell has human DNA, it is human, but it is not a human being. — Angelo Cannata

Am I supposed to list every cell combination within the human body? You know what I meant. I'm sure you want people to respect your intent when you post, give it to others as well please.

DNA. The reason you're a human and not an apple. Nothing else really matters.

↪Philosophim
I've been having a fantastic discussion with a member on this forum
— Philosophim
You mean, simply, "I had a fantastic discussion ..." :smile: — Alkis Piskas

As you'll see in the last reply prior to yours, I'm still having a nice conversation with Bob.

I know of course that this is far from being an actual reply to the whole topic, which BTW sounds quite interesting, but too mauch for me to get involved.. I just brought up some basics of knowledge. — Alkis Piskas

No offense, but if you aren't going to read the OP, you have no idea what you're talking about and are not offering anything useful. Feel free to read it and bring your full criticism and knowledge to bear on the subject. We'll chat then.

I completely understand the desire to prevent irrelevant derailments on the thread, and I can see how diving into my epistemology could do just that. — Bob Ross

My concern was less with derailment, but not giving your theory its proper due when you're constantly trying to compare it to the d/a distinction. I've had time to build up the d/a distinction, then we've drilled into it. You have not been given the time to build your theory up, but are building it while comparing. That makes it very difficult for me to evaluate your theory fairly, while also trying to explain mine. In reading your reply, I see my suspicions were correct. Your definition of PoN was different from my understanding of it, and that's only because you haven't had time to let your own epistemology be explored and carefully constructed like I've had time to do here.

I do not mind at all exploring your epistemology here! Next post, feel free to get the last responses to the points I'll make here. I will not respond to them, but give you time to post your theory. You can use this spot as a draft if you would like before making your own post. Once I understand your theory, and get to ask my questions about it without the d/a comparison, we might come back to this later. You have had patience and curiosity with my proposal, the least I can do is return that favor. If this sounds like something you would like, I'll post my final points on the d/a distinction (for now!).

To keep it brief, my point is that my use of PoN is not meant as a logical construct like those, and its precise definition holds no immediate favoritism on the battle between paraconsistent vs consistent logical languages. I am defining PoN in the form of predicate-logic:

"a predicate cannot contradict its subject concept" — Bob Ross

Ah, I completely misunderstood this. I don't think this is called the principle of negation as often understood, but simply a consequence of language construction. First, lets break down what a predicate and subject are Feel free of course to amend my understanding of these definitions to fit your intention!

Subject - the "thing" being addressed in the sentence
Predicate - some type of assertion attributed to the subject in the sentence. An attribute, action, etc.

First, we can clearly see this is not more fundamental than discrete experience. This is a linguistic construct, whereas discrete experience requires no language, and is the foundation for language. One must be able to discretely experience to define a subject, and within my theory, you are able to define an essential or non-essential attribute of said subject. This is essentially a predicate; a further breakdown of the discrete experience of a subject into more discrete component parts. The "thing" is currently running. The "thing" is red. But I don't have to note that its running or red. The "thing" can exist as simply the discrete experience itself, unbroken and without any attributes but itself. Predicates are not required for subjects to exist.

Now if we are to note that properties are sub-discrete experiences of a subject, then by consequence we've constructed a system of distinctive logic that entails that a predicate is part of a subject. Thus we could propose that a predicate cannot contradict a subject, as that would mean we created attributes of a discrete experience that cannot exist on that discrete experience (the subject). But this does not predate the ability to discretely experience, it is built up from it. As such, "The predicate cannot contradict the subject" is not needed as a fundamental. It is a derived logic.

As for it being impossible that a predicate cannot contradict a subject, lets go further. What is the nature of a deduction? That the conclusion follows the premises. This also means that the conclusion does not contradict the premises. That the predicates do not contradict the subject. An induction is a conclusion that does not necessarily follow from the premises. This also means one possible type of induction is a conclusion which does negate the premises! I believe Dan is running right now. If so, it is distinctively implicit that Dan may in fact not be running right now. I look at Dan, and applicably determine he is not running. So here I have an induction who's resolved conclusion is that the predicate counters the subject. This was something I distinctively knew and held, despite reality showing otherwise. How does your epistemology handle the fact that inductions also implicate a predicate that contradicts the subject?

Let go even further. I applicably conclude Dan is running. But it turns out I made a mistake. It turns out this was Dan's twin that I was not aware existed. His name is Din, and he was the one running. Dan was also walking nearby with his back to us, and he turned around to let us know that was his brother when we yelled at "Dan" (who was Din) to turn around. Yet prior to Dan turning around, I distinctively and applicably knew that "Din" was "Dan" and that he was running. Barring the d/a distinction, was I not holding knowledge of a subject that had a contradictory predicate? Because the actual Dan was walking. In short, a Gettier type problem. How does your epistemology handle this?

The d/a distinction does not require the principle of subject non-negation (PSNN?) This is because I can distinctively know inductions, which implicitly allow me to distinctively hold knowledge of a sentence that could in application, have a predicate that contradicts a subject. Now, we can state that we distinctively know through deductions. This is true. But why should we hold to deductions over inductions? As I've noted, there is a hierarchy. But why is there a hierarchy? It is not because there is some necessary logical construct. It is because this logical construct gives us the best chance of survival, and actually understanding the world in a way where we can control or predict its outcomes accurately. Again, I do not see the PSNN as a fundamental. A nicely derived logic, but necessary for my epistemology.

Thinking further, someone could most certainly construct a distinctive knowledge that does not follow the PSNN. The construction of an all powerful God is one. All three omni's make this God. Despite a person being pointed out how that would be a contradiction, the person simply adds another property to God, "God can do all things, including holding predicates which are contradictory to its subject." Are we to say they do not distinctively know this? No, they distinctively know this, despite the predicate contradicting the subject. We can construct a separate distinctive logical system which would show this to be a poor distinctive bit of knowledge to hold, but we cannot deny that this is what they distinctively know.

I think this is similar to your green circles example.

It is perfectly possible to hold sincerely that something is A and not A without contradiction as long as the subject concept is not contradicted by the predicate — Bob Ross

Except for the fact that there are contradictory predicates. But if the predicates are contradictory in themselves, how does this relate to the subject? In the d/a distinction, I can claim I do not applicably know of any thing that is both existent and non-existent at the same time. But I can distinctively create such a thing in my mind. Which means I can say "There is a thing which is everything and nothing at the same time." and it be "possible" because I can create this in my mind. In your argument, these predicates do not contradict the subject. Whereas with the d/a distinction, I can demonstrate distinctively such a thing is possible, but applicably, it is something we cannot know. I do not have to concern myself to a linguistic game of predicates and subjects.

Finally, I want to ask if a subject can hold two contradictory predicates, why can it not hold a predicate which contradicts its subject? If a thing can have the predicate of both being there, and not being there, then isn't the subject a contradiction in itself? Which again, we can imagine such a thing distinctively. At best we can only speculate that such a thing could be known applicably. If I can distinctively create whatever subject with whatever properties (predicates) I want any time, then doesn't that hold to the notion I've been stating this entire time? That is, distinctively, I can hold whatever system of logic I want. And I am not seeing the argument that convinces me that I cannot create a system of logic in which the predicate can contradict the subject.

Again, the only way to counter such a hold, is with applicable knowledge. By asking them to show that such a being exists, we can escape the fact that we can distinctively know almost anything we want/are programmed to hold. In applicable knowledge we use deduction, but again, we use deduction not because we need to, but because it is more helpful to our survival and outcome in life.

"The bread I am eating is purple"

Well, I am not eating bread. So I am neither eating bread that is purple nor bread that is not purple, because I am not eating bread. Therefore it is neither true nor false. Imagine I am eating cereal and I claim: — Bob Ross

I had to note I don't believe this is the case. This is a combined sentence, and we can break it down.

I am eating bread.
The bread is purple.

Both are false, I cannot see this as being neither true or false in application.

"this sentence is false"

I could simply concede that the liar paradox outputs {t, f}, which is essentially the same thing as defining a liar paradox sentence as having a property of being contradictory (just like being green and not green). — Bob Ross

Again, we can break the implicit combination down.

This is a sentence "This sentence is false."
The previous sentence is false.

That results in t,f. No paradox or indeterminency. I would argue that when one cannot break a sentence down into t and f, that is a weakness of sentence construction, not a revelation of knowledge.

You are subscribing your epistemology to LEM and PoN, most notably as described by classical logic. This rules out the actual applicable usages of paraconsistent, fuzzy, and first-degree entailment logic. My epistemology still accounts for these within their own respects. — Bob Ross

I never claimed my epistemology ruled these logical constructs out. If anything, I've noted repeatedly you can construct whatever logical system you want distinctively. Can those logics be used in application? If so, then they are fine. I think this is a situation again in which I do not fully understand your theory.

Thus I would conclude using the POI that what is distinctively known is what we discretely experience, and I would add the claim we could discretely experience both something, and its negation at the same time.

I don't think you can posit this unless you are redefining discrete experience: the subject concept necessitates, categorically, that it be distinct, which necessitates that one cannot experience both something and its negation at the same time in the same place. — Bob Ross

No, we just affirmed I could do this. Can't I say a thing is both green and non-green at the same time? That is indeterminency. I can distinctively know this. Can I applicably know such an indeterminency? So far, no.

A potential infinite, of the type I am describing, is not claiming "it could, or could not be", it is claiming that a particular finite operation would be infinite if given the sufficient resources to continue. For example, counting the positive integers starting at 1 is a potential infinite. This claim is not an induction whatsoever. — Bob Ross

I agree with your definition here. But we know this because the design of numbers allows this to be. Such a description is not necessarily meaningful for any designed system. What we can discretely experience is potentially infinite. What we can applicably experience is potentially infinite. Any formulaic system with an X variable will always be so. My question to you so I understand better, is whether your foundation is finite. The system of numbers is formed by symbols, addition, subtraction, and for our purposes, base 10 rules. Does your epistemology have a solid and unquestionable base that does not need potentially infinite regress?

This is why it is important to note the necessary inseparability of time and space, for the sentence "Space contains A and not A" does not violate predicate logic PoN, nor does "Time references A and not A at the same time": it's only when combined, the union of the two concepts, where the predicate contradicts the subject concept. — Bob Ross

I don't believe this is correct Bob.

Space contains A and not A
Time references A and not A at the same time
Therefore space and time contains A and not A, and references A and not A at the same time

So again, we have contradictory predicates to a subject. What might help is showing a genuine situation in which a predicate contradicts a subject, and why, without using the d/a distinction.

Mine contains no potential infinite regress.

I think it does. You can construct PoN and LEM based off of my definition of PoN, but cannot prove my definition of PoN without recursively using it. This is just like how you can't ever stop counting positive numbers granted enough resources and claim you've hit the last positive integer. — Bob Ross

I think I clearly did using discrete experience. If you discretely experience within another discrete experience, then that sub discrete experience is part of the bigger one. But we could also discretely experience that the sub discrete experience is not part of the bigger one. Perhaps it is a parasite, or foreign entity that we find not necessary to the greater experience. If the predicate cannot contradict the subject, can the subject contradict the predicate? What happens then if in my mind I reverse what the subject and predicate are? Claiming a predicate can never contradict a subject is a logical rule you have constructed after understanding what a subject is, and what a predicate is. It is not foundational.

If you would like to end the conversation in this discussion board here, that is totally fine! Sometime soon I will post a discussion board of my epistemology anyways. — Bob Ross

Coming back to this, I think it is simply needed that you construct your epistemology from its foundation at this point. I believe I don't fully understand your theory, as you've noted you define things different from what I think you are. Coming from me, I understand. :) So until you really have room to build your theory, I think we'll be talking past one another. Again, feel free to respond to my points that I have made, and I will let you have the last word on those. Then, if you would like to continue, feel free to construct your epistemology here, even as practice before posting it on its own thread. I will address it without using the d/a distinction. If we get to a point where you and I both feel we understand your theory, then we may go back to those final points that you'll make. Great discussion as always Bob!