Prologue

The word “logic” has faced the same fate as every other word in our common language - it has become ill defined. It is used to refer to almost any rational way of thinking that people encounter. Sometimes, it is even used to refer to irrational ways of thinking; everyone seems to have their own “logic”. Logic is one of the most important tools in human history, yet even people who study it often have no clear definition for it. Weird for a tool that relies so much on definitions. This text tries to give logic as robust and general a definition as possible and it tries to show what one can do with such a definition.


Part 1: The Limitations Based Logic

Fundamentally, logic is the analysis of rules. My observation is that all possible rules can be expressed as limitations. This is “limitations based logic” or “Limics” as I call it.

So, what is a limitation in its most abstract form? In order to understand Limics, one must start to think opposite to normal. Things are conceived not as what they are but as what they are not. The beginning state for everything is complete randomness: a state where every possible option is equally possible. In this state, a thing can be anything. The logical rules simply limit off those possible options.

For example, when I state that a thing is a ball, I limit off all the possibilities which are not balls. When I say that the thing is red, I limit off all the possibilities which are not red from those possibilities which were left. Now, I have given you quite a lot of information about this red ball since I have limited off quite a lot of possible options. If I then say that the thing is not a ball, I make a logical error since my new logical rule limits off all the remaining possibilities. This is a paradox - an impossible thing since no possible option can represent it.

The opposite of paradox is a logical necessity: a thing that is true in every possible option. A famous example of a logical necessity is: “no bachelor is married”. This is true in all possible worlds - even in those where no bachelors exist since a bachelor means an unmarried person. Logical necessities are usually quite obvious and meaningless since they never contain any logical information as they never limit off any possible option. Still, they often work as absolute proofs for things which are not intuitive or philosophically obvious. “I think therefore I am.”

The universality of Limics becomes very clear when one tries to express anything about anything without making any limitations. The things which are often thought to be above logic such as God, fall immediately under limitations when one starts to describe anything about them. Is God strong? Then that limits off all unstrong possibilities. Is God good? Then that limits off all ungood possibilities. The only thing in which no possible option is limited off is complete randomness - the complete lack of logical information.

But does this form of logic, which seems universally applicable, work as a practical tool the same way logic has before? Yes - all the deductions and logical thought patterns, which can be done with other forms of logic, can also be done with this form of logic. For example: a car is driving at a speed of 20km/h. How long of a distance will it have covered in 2 hours? This can be completely deduced through limitations. 20km/h limits off all the possibilities in distance and time to a linear line. And the question limits off all the possibilities of time except 2 hours. The only option that is left is 40km. So, of course, a tool that can describe anything can also describe all possible deductions.

The greatest advantage Limics has over other forms of logic is that it’s non-axiomatic. Axioms are basic assumptions which are needed in order to create basically any assertion. You can easily find axioms with a simple method: by asking a proof for every assertion. If every assertion needs a proof, then the asserted proof will also need a proof of its own and its asserted proof will need a proof of its own etc. This creates an endless continuum, meaning that every chain of proofs starts with an assertion that has no proof. This primary assertion is an axiom.

But Limics has no axiom. How is this possible? Limics simply makes no assertions. Without assertions axioms are not even possible. Limics only analyzes assertions with the rules they have made. It adds no additional assertions since deductions are just things that were already built in the original assertions. So, the veracity of Limics is no assumption. It can’t be since Limics makes no assertions which could be assumptions.

This has very interesting effects on logical necessities. Their veracity is necessarily true and this comes from logical deduction. This means that logical necessities are non-axiomatically proven assertions since their veracity is built into their definition without additional extra assertions. Definitions are not assumptions or assertions since they simply give arbitrary meanings for language without asserting anything. Therefore, with Limics one can create an assumptionless worldview which is built upon logical necessities instead of primary assumptions.

The next parts try to show what one can solve about the world with logical necessities.


Part 2: Development

One of the most easy-to-understand yet practical systems based on logical necessities is a universal model of all possible systematic development. This model gives a picture of how to create new ideas and solutions to fix any problem.

Simplified: it is the systematic processing of random information.

To understand what that means one must understand what information is. Luckily, information was actually already defined in Part 1. Information is exactly the same thing as a logical rule - a limitation. In Part 1, I used the words logical rule since in common language information doesn’t seem like a very intuitive synonym for a logical rule, but in reality they are the same thing.

For example: when I say that a number is between one and infinity this gives you very little information since there are so many possibilities. But if I continue and say that the number is between one and ten I limit off possible options and suddenly you have more information. If I still continue and say that the number is not between one and ten, I again limit off the remaining options and make a paradox. With this we realize that logical rules and information are one and the same.

But in order to understand development we must understand what new information is. New information is any information which can’t be deduced from previous information since all deductions from previous information are built in to those previous logical rules and they never limit any new options off. Therefore, deductions never create any new information - with them one simply understands the previous information better.

Because new information can’t be deduced from the old, it’s random from the point of view of its receiver. Therefore, all development which isn’t just deducing and understanding the old system to the end of its potential must be based on randomness.

But because completely random development isn’t very useful, we need a way to direct that development. This requires the second half of the universal model of development: the systematic processing of the random information.

Because there is an infinite number of ways to receive random information and to process it, there is also an infinite number of different developmental systems.

The best example of a simple developmental system is evolution. It is simply random variation in the offspring and their systematic natural selection. But the more one observes the world, the more one realizes that all systematic development is based upon this kind of developmental system. Human thought is the systematic simulation of randomly varying ideas in our heads. All computer programs which we program to self develop contain randomness and systematic processing of it. Immune systems in our bodies, the multitude of ways animals learn from their environments and everything else that leads to systematic development can be reduced to systematic processing of random information.

In practice, this gives one the mathematical understanding of creativity. A creative life requires a combination of chaos and systematic processing of this chaos. Combined with the universality of Limics we can create a way of thinking with which one can develop everything that can ever be developed at least with enough time.


Part 3: Goals

It is easy to see mechanical systems behind our rational thinking and our vision and our hearing, as we have computers and cameras and microphones that do just those things. But our feelings seem different, although their explanation is much more simple – stability – a fundamental property of every possible thing since every possible thing is by necessity either stable or unstable. Every possible thing either tries or doesn’t try to change its current state. Stability also corresponds with our emotions completely. Instability is the negative feelings we try to get away from and stability is the positive feelings we try to stay in. And since there is an infinite number of ways to be stable and unstable and the combination of those two, stability explains every possible emotion that can ever be experienced. Stability does not explain every possible experience - just how good or bad any given part of a complex experience feels. From joy to hunger. From hate to love to guilt to feelings of right and wrong.

But what is Right and wrong? – I have a logical solution for that. The greatest problem of morality is the axiomatic problem. All moral systems assert goals. What should be and what shouldn’t be. All of them need to be justified. And all of the justifications need to be justified and so on, ending up in the axiom of that moral system. But we already solved the axiomatic problem – a logical necessity. And we already described a logically necessary goal – stability. Everything tries to get away from instability to stability by logical necessity since instability means that the system is trying get change its current state. In emotional terms this is happiness.

But what is so moral in achieving your own stability – your own happiness? Since happiness is the only logically necessary goal, one should try to change all their other goals to serve this purpose. And what is the most efficient way to achieve happiness? To create a stable state – not only for you, but for everything else that you interact with – happiness for everyone. Because a stable system inside an unstable system will be affected and destabilised by that system. As incompatible goals compete with each other making the achievement of such goals hard and inefficient and forcing some to be always unhappy, one should change their changeable goals to be compatible with others and one should change others to be compatible with oneself. This creates harmony and sustained happiness. Cheaters can of course isolate themselves from others, so they only have to make themselves compatible with their environment.

Still, this is a complete moral system since every action of everyone can be objectively evaluated by how well it serves ones logically necessary goal and since the optimization of this creates happiness and harmony between all those, who interact with each other in this world. This shows that there never was a need for some external objective moral goal for the world. The unchangeable desire for personal happiness and the optimization of it was all that was ever needed.


Part 4: The World

But what is the world – I have a logical solution for that. The world can be completely explained by understanding the basic properties of limitations based information and randomness.

Information is the same thing as a limitation - the same thing as a logical rule. And information has one very useful property in explaining the world. The lack of information is not nothingness. Traditionally, when we think of nothingness, we think about the lack of objects and everything – a zero world. But a zero world, is a well defined and limited possibility within all the possibilities – like a zero is a well defined and limited solution to a mathematical equation. It still has information in it. It is not nothingness. The total lack of information is total randomness – where all options are possible. And this creates a duality, which makes the existence of either information or randomness a logical necessity. Everything can be described by describing logical rules, by describing information and information creates a duality with randomness that makes existence a logical necessity – a very good starting place for explaining the world.

But even if there was no information and the world was perfectly random, there is still a solution to explain the world we observe. Because perfect randomness is exactly like the biggest possible multiverse – where every possible world is and is not at the same time. When watched objectively, this is clearly not the world we observe. We observe order and logical rules. But when this multiverse of randomness is observed from a point of view in it – like from a human mind within that multiverse – it ends up creating another form of information – relative information. This information does not exist from an objective point of view – it is created by its own observer, as the observer itself contains the information of itself and of the things it interacts with. The possible worlds, where this observer and its interactions do not happen are limited off from its point of view. This too is information that is a logical necessity, when randomness is observed from a point of view within itself.

And this is exactly the way we observe our reality – from a certain point of view and we gain information about our reality by interacting with it. This relative information is quite complete for us, but not perfect. When we observe the smaller details of our reality, we see randomness in the form of quantum mechanics. And when we interact with that randomness, it collapses creating information for us exactly as this Relative Information Model predicts.

But that only explains what we are and where we come from. Where do we go? What happens when we die? I have a logical solution for that. Death is a process. It starts from a functional mind and ends up with a nonfunctional one. This is what happens from the point of view of an outsider. But from the point of view of that dying mind the story is quite different. As the mind loses its functionality, it loses its ability to contain relative information. As the interdependencies of the mind with itself and the world unravel informationloss grows. The world of the dying mind becomes more and more random. This continues until the mind no longer contains the information that it is dying. This stops the process of death and the information loss since the world of what is left of that mind no longer knows that the death should happen. What follows is the same thing that happens in quantum mechanics – just in a larger scale. As what is left of that mind interacts with that enormous randomness surrounding it, the randomness collapses, creating random new information for the mind to experience. That mind continues its existence as a random new being in a random new world.

And if this process continues for infinity, the mind will end up experiencing every possible world from every possible point of view over and over for eternity. So we may all be connected in a way. We could all have already been most everyone from most every world. I was you and you were me. And I will be you and you will be me... and everything in between.

Epilogue

As you can see, by understanding Limics well enough one can answer all the big questions of the world. Combined with enough empirical information, Limics could of course answer all the smaller questions also but that is beyond the scope of this text. The text would have been simpler if it just defined and explained Limics since the later parts are just examples of things one can do with Limics. However, I feel like these parts were necessary to demonstrate how universal and limitless the Limitations Based Logic is.