That statement is one axiom progressing to another as a defintion of axioms, with that definition being an axiom in itself.

Law 2.

If you can't substantiate your statements, what is their point? If your laws are just words without applications, how are they laws? Principles must be manifest in the phenomena or domain they govern. Unless they're imaginary, they should be evident.

Show that these laws of yours apply in life. Not just with assumptions but back them up. So far, it seems like you've read esoteric books. However, those who give esoteric teachings show how the laws are evident in phenomena and how we interact with them. They understood between the various paradigms of knowledge and consequently their teachings are coherent and logical. Even Aristotle was raised on that mixture of esoteric traditions and the methods of critique that came to be a staple in western philosophy. And yet, he managed to harmonise them efficiently.
Unfortunately you have not understood them well enough but you want to pretend like you do.

Real simple, first of all the laws govern all things and can be observed any where and always.

First, and I will repeat this point again, the structure of the argument originates from one axiom, which on its own is formless, this progresses to another axiom and set of axioms which in turn cycles back to he premise axioms.

You talk about the laws of identity, you progressively define it, and in turn cycle back to the law of identity and address it from a separate angle.




In regards to practicality the list below, with the list itself following these laws as a a continuum.

Cycles as maintaining phenomena.

Examples:

All natural cycles: reproduction, solar events, seasons, etc.
Mechanics (alternator, osiclators, gears)
Circulatory system, nervous system, eating, sleeping.
Sports (balls, pucks, rotary movements in swing martial arts, etc.)
Thoughts, feelings, emotions.

Etc. Because the list goes on.


All phenomena as existing through time as a continual form of progressing past origins and changing:

Examples:

An orange progressing through time progresses past previous states (green) to others (orange) to others (decay) to others (atoms) to others (dirt) to others (plant absorbing nutrient in dirt) to others...etc.



Each state of defintion, is in it itself a progression and acts as definition:

Orange as Ripe is composed of cells replicating to further cells with prior cells dying.

A person progressing to another person by the act of reproduction with each person progressive from one state of being youth (and all the physical, mental and emotional aspects of it) to middle age to old age, with the reproduction of people's as generation progressing to further generation being composed of further progressions of art, culture, technology, science, philosophy, etc.

The progression is composed of further progressions.


All axioms as point of origin.

All of the above examples observe each phenomena as not just a point of origin in itself for further phenomena, hence effectively nothing in itself, but each phenomena as a cause in the respect it exists as a perpetual structure existing through further structures as an ever present origin.




Logic exists through and as these rules and cannot be separated from them, for the seperative and connective nature of these laws is these rules.


Do you want me to continue? Because if so I am strictly just going to extend this post so you will have to check back on it.

Now show me how yours are empirical, because generally speaking you haven't really given anything but a word salad.

Now the question, cycling back to the origin of the thread, is how does matter exist in accords with the classical laws of logic.

Now show me how yours are empirical. — eodnhoj7

I've already given you examples of what the law of identity means to our understanding of phenomena. I even used you as an example. The statements are there for you to re-read if you can't remember.

Like I keep telling you, you've misunderstood everything. When the cyclic nature of some events is realised, it may seem very captivating but it does not mean that laws become changeable or cyclic in themselves. If laws were changeable or cyclic then where would their constancy come from? The law of gravity is ever the law of gravity. The same applies to all natural laws and the laws of logic which are deduced from them.

The solar system has cyclic phenomena but they arise from interaction of laws. It does not mean that the laws change but that, they associate such that the phenomena expresses the conditions we refer to as cyclic.

For example, for a planet to revolve around the sun, there is a combination of centripetal and centrifugal forces which adhere to the laws which govern them. But the laws and the forces don't change even though the planet keeps changing its position.

The same applies to the laws of logic. They inference a wide range of application but they are in themselves constant and unchangeable. That is the point you should first recognise. There is a difference between laws and the phenomena which they govern. Do not mistake the nature of laws with the nature of phenomena. Do not attribute the characteristics of phenomena to those of laws.

Phenomena are always changing but the laws are ever constant. That is part of the esoteric teachings which you seem to confuse.

You are wrong because you cannot distinguish between the nature of law and that of phenomena.

No you haven't. Apply the law of identity to a particle wave.

P=P

Then,

Particle wave=Particle Wave

Nothing exists without movement, the circular and linear movement of all phenomenon allow the phenomena to exist. Can a particle exist if it does not project from position A to position B?

Whatever conditions there are, they are part of the identity in question. That's why the law is valid.

Word salad, what does "=" mean in "particle wave = particle wave"? It is not defined.

You just had to progress in definition to explain P=P, hence P=P is not axiomatic on its own terms.

It means that a particle wave (with whatever characteristics and conditions) can only be identified as a particle wave.

You just had to progress in definition to explain P=P, hence P=P is not axiomatic on its own terms. — eodnhoj7

This is nonsense. Just because it proves you wrong doesn't mean it is wrong. It's been applied that for as long as the law exists. That you do not realise it should show you that you don't understand.

So the particle wave is separate from all other phenomena and can exist on its own terms?

According to the principle of identity of I ask you what a particle wave is, then you are left with saying particle wave and the argument is subject to the fallacy of circularity according to classical logic.

Actually you just followed the laws I am arguing, the principle of identity has to progress to further axioms to be understood.

I honestly think you have no clue about what you are talking about. You are just pushing your subjective thoughts, which is fine under the logic system I am arguing, but not for the classical laws.

You are just frustrated because you are not just confused, but feel threatened...for whatever reason I don't know or care.

So the particle wave is separate from all other phenomena and can exist on its own terms? — eodnhoj7

That is not what I said.

A particle is a particle. It cannot be anything else.

According to the principle of identity of I ask you what a particle wave is, then you are left with saying particle wave and the argument is subject to the fallacy of circularity according to classical logic. — eodnhoj7

Wave-particle duality is the concept in quantum mechanics that every particle or quantic entity may be partly described in terms not only of particles, but also of waves. The law of identity does not contradict definitions, it accepts them as explanations of what the identity is.

Actually you just followed the laws I am arguing, the principle of identity has to progress to further axioms to be understood. — eodnhoj7

No. You tried to bring confusion by thinking the definition of 'particle-wave' will affect the outcome of my argument. It doesn't.

If wave-particle duality is true, then the particle which exhibits it would be just that. That is:

particle (which exhibits wave-particle duality)=particle (which exhibits wave-particle duality)


AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATIONS ARE WRONG.

so a particle is not anything else, but it can be described as a wave?

So P can mean multiple things?

If a particle can only equal a particle, but the particle can also equal a wave, then we are stuck with a continuum of defintion.


Here let me defined the particle wave conundrum for you under the law of identity:

Particle (which is a particle wave(which is a particle(which is a particle wave(...) = The other side.

So you are left with a continuum or circularity where a particle is a particle wave and a particle wave is a particle.

See how with the law of Identity you are still left with a continuum?

And you are still stuck with the prime traid?

Even the argument itself is continuing.....


ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Proof can never be finite because it would need a further proof to define it. It can only be complete if it is self refererencing.

You still never defined what "=" means in the law without referencing outside laws as necessary...but mostly you never defined it.

so a particle is not anything else, but it can be described as a wave? — eodnhoj7

Have some self-respect dude. This argument is sub par for anyone in this forum. You are the only one with this misguided notion. The duality of a particle is part of its conditioning, it does not alter its identity.

Particle (which is a particle wave(which is a particle(which is a particle wave(...) — eodnhoj7

This is unscientific. Good for you because you are not even trying. I like your imagination but, it seems you don't understand what a continuum is. (Please don't make that the next part of your argument, by now it's boring.)

Proof can never be finite because it would need a further proof to define it. It can only be complete if it is self refererencing. — eodnhoj7

This is your own assumption.

You still never defined what "=" means in the law without referencing outside laws as necessary...but mostly you never defined it. — eodnhoj7

= means is.

For such a sub par argument you are the one who left and came back...so what you are saying is that you do not feel you have self respect?

Google recursion theory, or type theory...this is extensions of that, but not the same.

And what is a continuum? What are you going to do but refer from one definition to the next to the next until you "feel" satisfied when objectively the definitions just continue. And while they are continuing they just circle back to eachother as progressive loops as one giant loop.

If you don't believe me, look up any defintion in a dictionary and you will find a progressive circularity and Linearism simultaneously.

I gave proof that not only zenos paradoxes are applied in science through the quantum zero effect, but even math and logic deals with recursion theory, type theory, and the directional nature of logic is observed in intuitionist logic.

So "equals" = "is"? Really?

ROFL!!!!!!

So, have your laws become theories?

So "equals" = "is"? Really? — eodnhoj7

= shows equivalence.

you are arguing equals is is and equals equals is....Rofl!!!!!!!

I mean that is fine and all, but not under classical logic.

You just used the law to ask that question as not only the question void on its own nature unless it progresses to another answer or question but even the axioms which compose it progress from one to another.

So "=" shows equivalence but it is not equal to it? The principle of identity is about = or "is" not

P shows P.

Please, you think your petty attempts at semantics will confuse me.

P=P means that the premise P (on the left side of the equation) is equal (=) to the conclusion P (on the right side of the equation).

Now, might I ask you to be as concise in your explanations as that?

Why all the petty attempts? It is clear your are wrong the moment you divert to all those other unrelated stuff.

You already admitted to being confused when pushing those videos.

So a particle wave = particle wave (as you describe above) is the premise having the same answer as the conclusion? According to classical logic, this is circular reasoning.


ROFL!!!!!

Why Red herring by using an ad hominem?

ROFL...this forum is hilarious.

So a particle wave = particle wave (as you describe above) is the premise having the same answer as the conclusion? According to classical logic, this is circular reasoning. — eodnhoj7

This is philosophy. So, the premise does not have an answer, it has a conclusion. And yes, the premise and conclusion are ALIKE. That is why it makes sense.

What happened to your laws, they seem very irrelevant now. You seem to be focused on linguistics, I wonder why?

Red herring — eodnhoj7

Who said that?