PDA

View Full Version : Metalogical reasoning for the Divine



selfreasoning4all
08-06-2014, 03:16 PM
I believe it may be possible to derive a rigorous reason for the Divine from metalogics.



Well, metalogic is really simple. Did you know that metalogic is merely the generalizing of logical connectives??? In other words, saying anything about a logical connective IS called metalogic!!! You will notice I say many things about these connectives. Well, all that logic is, is the generalizing of what can be said through the use of logical connectives.




Parmenides said "nothing IS not" which means "nothing doesn't IS" or "IS" doesn't apply to nothing.

It is a scientific fact that nothing does not exist somewhere. And even if one had a superconducting and supermagnetic box (which could remove magnetic and electric fields) that one could remove all of the gases, photons and charged particles from; you would still have the gravitational field in the box (which is a longitudinal radiation gradient)! m = ∇ x Φ (-∇A)/(n0 ς) therefore G ∝ ∇ς where ς is webers per cubic meter or the longitudinal radiation intensity.

This link discusses the history of the idea; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#Historical_interpretation


Four senses of IS can be meant;


generalization; identity (equivalents), [mankind IS homosapien]

implication (implies) [a man IS an animal]

predication (has the property of) [an orange IS the color orange]

existence; instantiation (exists as) [there IS truth]


Generalization has two antecedents;


Liken

Contrast




Which means;


Nothing likens not

Nothing contrasts not

Nothing generalizes not

Nothing implicates not

Nothing describes not

Nothing instantiates not




The contraposition of "nothing IS not" is "everything IS" or "everything does IS" or "IS" applies to everything.


meaning;


everything likens

everything contrasts

everything generalizes

everything implicates

everything describes

everything instantiates




The contraposition of "everything IS" is "one thing self-IS"

Or by implication; IF everything IS (or likens, contrasts, generalizes, implicates, describes, and instantiates) then everything generalizes one thing. But this one thing, is also a thing, in other words it self-IS;




meaning;




one thing self-likens => it self-harmonizes => it is autoimmune

one thing self-contrasts => it self-informs => it is an autodidact

one thing self-generalizes => it self-identifies => it is self-aware => it is sapient

one thing self-implicates => it is self-causal => it is self-deterministic (conscious) => it is self-reasoning

one thing self-describes => it is self-interested

one thing self-instantiates => it is self-generating => it is self-sustaining => it is self-sufficient




The contraposition of "one thing self-IS" is "one thing all-IS"


meaning;


one thing all-likens => it all-unifies => it is omnibenevolent

one thing all-contrasts => it all-informs (and from self-aware it all-teaches)

one thing all-generalizes => it all-identifies => it is all-aware => omniscient

one thing all-implicates => it is all-causal => it is all-deterministic (and from conscious => all-intentional (and from self-reasoning => all-reasoning => all-wise)

one thing all-describes => it is all-essence => monopantheistic

one thing all-instantiates => omnipotent and eternal.




here is some of the reasoning more explicitly;




Relevant implication suggests causation and is correlation. When it is impossible for there to be missing variables correlation necessarily is causation. Since all things are implicated here it is impossible for there to be missing variables. Thus this one thing is self-causal or all-causal


Note; "causal" is not in the same declension as "caused"; the latter refers to an event in time, the former refers to a process through time. Self-causal means self-deterministic or teleological. Self-determinism is consciousness. Thus cause is reason and causal is reasoning. Therefore; one thing is self-reasoning or all-reasoning


If this one thing is all-describing, all things must be made of it and get their essence from it. Which means the one thing is a monistic pantheism.


We have established that the one thing is an autoimmune, autodidact, sapient, consciousness, that is self-interested, self-sufficient, and omnibenevolent, making it an all-teacher, that is omniscient, and all-wise, as well as monopantheistic, omnipotent and eternal.


This essay about the one thing is part of it's self-describing, self-reasoning, and as an act of it being an all-teacher.

whag
08-06-2014, 03:26 PM
I believe it may be possible to derive a rigorous reason for the Divine from metalogics.



Well, metalogic is really simple. Did you know that metalogic is merely the generalizing of logical connectives??? In other words, saying anything about a logical connective IS called metalogic!!! You will notice I say many things about these connectives. Well, all that logic is, is the generalizing of what can be said through the use of logical connectives.




Parmenides said "nothing IS not" which means "nothing doesn't IS" or "IS" doesn't apply to nothing.

It is a scientific fact that nothing does not exist somewhere. And even if one had a superconducting and supermagnetic box (which could remove magnetic and electric fields) that one could remove all of the gases, photons and charged particles from; you would still have the gravitational field in the box (which is a longitudinal radiation gradient)! m = ∇ x Φ (-∇A)/(n0 ς) therefore G ∝ ∇ς where ς is webers per cubic meter or the longitudinal radiation intensity.

This link discusses the history of the idea; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#Historical_interpretation


Four senses of IS can be meant;


generalization; identity (equivalents), [mankind IS homosapien]

implication (implies) [a man IS an animal]

predication (has the property of) [an orange IS the color orange]

existence; instantiation (exists as) [there IS truth]


Generalization has two antecedents;


Liken

Contrast




Which means;


Nothing likens not

Nothing contrasts not

Nothing generalizes not

Nothing implicates not

Nothing describes not

Nothing instantiates not




The contraposition of "nothing IS not" is "everything IS" or "everything does IS" or "IS" applies to everything.


meaning;


everything likens

everything contrasts

everything generalizes

everything implicates

everything describes

everything instantiates




The contraposition of "everything IS" is "one thing self-IS"

Or by implication; IF everything IS (or likens, contrasts, generalizes, implicates, describes, and instantiates) then everything generalizes one thing. But this one thing, is also a thing, in other words it self-IS;




meaning;




one thing self-likens => it self-harmonizes => it is autoimmune

one thing self-contrasts => it self-informs => it is an autodidact

one thing self-generalizes => it self-identifies => it is self-aware => it is sapient

one thing self-implicates => it is self-causal => it is self-deterministic (conscious) => it is self-reasoning

one thing self-describes => it is self-interested

one thing self-instantiates => it is self-generating => it is self-sustaining => it is self-sufficient




The contraposition of "one thing self-IS" is "one thing all-IS"


meaning;


one thing all-likens => it all-unifies => it is omnibenevolent

one thing all-contrasts => it all-informs (and from self-aware it all-teaches)

one thing all-generalizes => it all-identifies => it is all-aware => omniscient

one thing all-implicates => it is all-causal => it is all-deterministic (and from conscious => all-intentional (and from self-reasoning => all-reasoning => all-wise)

one thing all-describes => it is all-essence => monopantheistic

one thing all-instantiates => omnipotent and eternal.




here is some of the reasoning more explicitly;




Relevant implication suggests causation and is correlation. When it is impossible for there to be missing variables correlation necessarily is causation. Since all things are implicated here it is impossible for there to be missing variables. Thus this one thing is self-causal or all-causal


Note; "causal" is not in the same declension as "caused"; the latter refers to an event in time, the former refers to a process through time. Self-causal means self-deterministic or teleological. Self-determinism is consciousness. Thus cause is reason and causal is reasoning. Therefore; one thing is self-reasoning or all-reasoning


If this one thing is all-describing, all things must be made of it and get their essence from it. Which means the one thing is a monistic pantheism.


We have established that the one thing is an autoimmune, autodidact, sapient, consciousness, that is self-interested, self-sufficient, and omnibenevolent, making it an all-teacher, that is omniscient, and all-wise, as well as monopantheistic, omnipotent and eternal.


This essay about the one thing is part of it's self-describing, self-reasoning, and as an act of it being an all-teacher.

Mods, please move to philosophy 101.

The Pixie
08-08-2014, 08:23 AM
The contraposition of "everything IS" is "one thing self-IS"

Or by implication; IF everything IS (or likens, contrasts, generalizes, implicates, describes, and instantiates) then everything generalizes one thing. But this one thing, is also a thing, in other words it self-IS;
Can you talk me through this bit?

It would seem that some of these necessiate two things. This is like that. This contrasts with that. Etc. Does it mean anything to say this apple is like this apple? Or this apple is this apple?

I am also curious how you can show that everything describes.

selfreasoning4all
08-08-2014, 04:22 PM
Can you talk me through this bit?

It would seem that some of these necessiate two things. This is like that. This contrasts with that. Etc. Does it mean anything to say this apple is like this apple? Or this apple is this apple?

I am also curious how you can show that everything describes.

"nothing likens not" contrapositions to "everything likens"
"nothing contrasts not" contrapositions to "everything contrasts"
"nothing generalizes not" contrapositions to "everything generalizes"
"nothing implicates not" contrapositions to "everything implicates"
"nothing describes not" contrapositions to "everything describes"
"nothing instantiates not" contrapositions to "everything instantiates"

NormATive
08-08-2014, 08:05 PM
I believe it may be possible to derive a rigorous reason for the Divine from metalogics...This essay about the one thing is part of it's self-describing, self-reasoning, and as an act of it being an all-teacher.

I really LOVE Metalogical! Enter Sandman is one of my favorite tunes.

There is only one sentence of relevance, I think, in the preceding: "existence; instantiation (exists as) [there IS truth]"

This is the presupposition to your excercise. So you think there is ultimate truth. That is not a logical conclusion. It is merely the premise upon which you've built a logical model. I could easily postulate the opposite coming from the presupposition that there is NO Truth. It would be equally meaningless because it is based on an arbitrary premise.

I'm not sure what your are gaining or how this over-long philosophical exercise demonstrates your claim.

NORM

selfreasoning4all
08-08-2014, 09:24 PM
there is NO Truth.

which is a truth, which is absurd (reductio ad absurdum), therefore there is truth

The Pixie
08-09-2014, 08:33 AM
"nothing likens not" contrapositions to "everything likens"
"nothing contrasts not" contrapositions to "everything contrasts"
"nothing generalizes not" contrapositions to "everything generalizes"
"nothing implicates not" contrapositions to "everything implicates"
"nothing describes not" contrapositions to "everything describes"
"nothing instantiates not" contrapositions to "everything instantiates"
Ah, I see we aunderstand "talk me through" rather differently.

You made the claim "everything generalizes one thing", which appears to be derived from "everything IS". Please show me how you logically get from one to the other. Please explain why we should suppose everything generalises the same thing (which appears to be necessary for your argument. If it comes to that, please explain what "everything generalizes one thing" actually means here. What does "everything describes" actually mean?

At the moment I am trying to decide if you have an argument of a word salad. If you cannot explain what you mean, then we will assume you have a word salad.

selfreasoning4all
08-09-2014, 12:10 PM
You made the claim "everything generalizes one thing", which appears to be derived from "everything IS". Please show me how you logically get from one to the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalization

every individual thing, is a special case of one thing; the definition is, that which likens, contrasts, generalizes, implicates, describes, and instantiates


Please explain why we should suppose everything generalises the same thing (which appears to be necessary for your argument.

another way to understand it is; set theory, the one thing is the universal set

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_set



If it comes to that, please explain what "everything generalizes one thing" actually means here.

each individual thing, is an instance of one thing, and there are instances of one thing that are not in every individual thing



What does "everything describes" actually mean?

everything has information to it

NormATive
08-09-2014, 04:44 PM
which is a truth, which is absurd (reductio ad absurdum), therefore there is truth

Please re-read my post: you misunderstood it, apparently.

NORM

37818
08-09-2014, 06:16 PM
Here are two propositions: 1) There is a Divine. 2) There is no Divine. Now what there is, is. And this 'is' needs no Divine.

NormATive
08-09-2014, 07:37 PM
Word Salad:


In my fevered dream thinks of that milk-white proxy land of lore, the frying pan daisies shall coalesce with the muddy browns of an ill-begotten child of the dawn's grass wherin the rules will crumble before the afterward visions of seagull's gangling cry. This heedless infection of humanity's perceptive unconsciousness upon which the green monkey shall feast with the wisdom of ignorant beauty's greatest scheme. It is this toy of the elderly tree that awaits the thought patters on the willfully unedited freedoms of an endless expanse inside our most foul of heart-holes. And though the sound of screaming instills yet more birds in our lethargic fingernails, cell-by-cell we witness the faithful and the bland unite in a passionate embrace of thorns and the knowledge that advanced psychosis and thought disorder allows the weaving of this tapestry that we call out to the Gods of Men in triumphant an undulating thrusts of our serpent tongues which slit the collective throats of a thousand helpless murdered sands. So go now into that endless end of the unilateral triangle's crusty wave so that we as a collective may sit in the sphere's corners to twiddle our thumbs because of the gravity of our whimsical fancy. - crookedalley. Found here: http://crookedalley.deviantart.com/art/Word-Salad-Poem-311217595

NORM

The Pixie
08-10-2014, 12:32 AM
You made the claim "everything generalizes one thing", which appears to be derived from "everything IS". Please show me how you logically get from one to the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalization

every individual thing, is a special case of one thing; the definition is, that which likens, contrasts, generalizes, implicates, describes, and instantiates
I know what "generalizes" means. I am not sure you do.

In what way does my desk generalise anything? It does not. The concept "desk" generalises, the concept "furniture" generalises. But individual items do not.

And yet in the OP you claimed: "everything generalizes"

Argument: 0, Word salad: 1


Please explain why we should suppose everything generalises the same thing (which appears to be necessary for your argument.
another way to understand it is; set theory, the one thing is the universal set

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_set
No explanation there.

Argument: 0, Word salad: 2


If it comes to that, please explain what "everything generalizes one thing" actually means here.
each individual thing, is an instance of one thing, and there are instances of one thing that are not in every individual thing
You mean like my desk is an instance of the definition of desks? Is a definition then a thing?

My desk is not in my car. Is that what you mean by an instance of a thing that is not in every individual thing?
Why does you definition leave me asking more questions?

Argument: 0, Word salad: 3


What does "everything describes" actually mean?
everything has information to it
Great. My desk has a certain size, a certain location, a certain mass; all information.

But wait, in the OP, this then leads to:

one thing self-describes => it is self-interested

So what does self-describe mean?

Argument: 0, Word salad: 4

It is pretty clear that your purpose on this thread is to obfuscate rather than to clarify, and I think we can all guess why.

selfreasoning4all
08-10-2014, 09:07 AM
In what way does my desk generalise anything?

your desk generalizes it's material constuction; the wood and metal it's made of are contained in your desk



But individual items do not [generalize].

every individual item can be understood as a composite which generalizes it's composition



No explanation there.

the universal set contains everything




You mean like my desk is an instance of the definition of desks? Is a definition then a thing?

the concept desk, is a thing



My desk is not in my car. Is that what you mean by an instance of a thing that is not in every individual thing?

what I mean is; your desk is not every kind of desk




Great. My desk has a certain size, a certain location, a certain mass; all information.

But wait, in the OP, this then leads to:

one thing self-describes => it is self-interested

So what does self-describe mean?

everything describes, generalizing to one thing, well the one thing is a thing, it therefore describes itself

I say it means endomorphic self-manifestation

The Pixie
08-10-2014, 09:31 AM
your desk generalizes it's material constuction; the wood and metal it's made of are contained in your desk
Hence I do not think you know what "generalizes" means.

Hence I will not bother with the rest of your post.

selfreasoning4all
08-10-2014, 10:08 AM
Hence I do not think you know what "generalizes" means.

Generalizations posit the existence of a domain or set of elements, as well as one or more common characteristics shared by those elements.

Therefore every composite is a generalization. And every particular just so happens to be a composite. Therefore, everything is a generalization!

selfreasoning4all
08-10-2014, 10:28 AM
Hence I will not bother with the rest of your post.

well, you seem smart, I would like to hear your thoughts from a logical perspective;

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3082-Logical-reasoning-for-the-Divine&p=86479#post86479

selfreasoning4all
08-10-2014, 10:37 AM
Therefore, everything is a generalization!

the only thing that might contradict this is the empty set, or zero.

but we can understand the empty set as the composite of equalized existential negation or x - x = 0

selfreasoning4all
08-10-2014, 10:43 AM
the only thing that might contradict this is the empty set, or zero.

but we can understand the empty set as the composite of equalized existential negation or x - x = 0

actually, it would be; {x x} = {}

The Pixie
08-10-2014, 10:44 AM
Generalizations posit the existence of a domain or set of elements, as well as one or more common characteristics shared by those elements.
Generalisations are abstract concepts. They exist because we think they do (I would guess as part of our language ability).

Therefore every composite is a generalization.
Show step by step how you arrived at this conclusion from the premise.

selfreasoning4all
08-10-2014, 10:54 AM
actually, it would be; {x x} = {}

{x & x} = {}

selfreasoning4all
08-10-2014, 08:19 PM
{x & x} = {}

|- ∃{};{∃x & ∃x} = {}

37818
08-30-2014, 01:23 AM
|- ∃{};{∃x & ∃x} = {} In English please write out how that is to be read. Thanks.

shunyadragon
08-30-2014, 04:34 AM
which is a truth, which is absurd (reductio ad absurdum), therefore there is truth

Actually, 'there is NO TRUTH' is not a statement of truth, it is an presupposition for a meta logical argument, likewise 'there IS truth' would be a presupposition.

In line with this meta logical argument, I use the presupposition that there IS truth, but this truth could be natural (i.e. the ultimate Natural Law that determines the nature of our physical existence) or it could be a 'Source' some call God(s). The other assumption is that our physical existence is possibly eternal and infinite.

37818
08-30-2014, 05:08 PM
Actually, 'there is NO TRUTH' is not a statement of truth, it is an presupposition for a meta logical argument, likewise 'there IS truth' would be a presupposition.

The "argument" "there is NO TRUTH" is self defeating, an absurdity. Like saying there is no existence. Or "this sentence is not a sentence."

shunyadragon
08-30-2014, 05:29 PM
The "argument" "there is NO TRUTH" is self defeating, an absurdity. Like saying there is no existence. Or "this sentence is not a sentence."

It was never proposed as an argument in and of itself. It was proposed by normative as a presupposition for another argument.
I am citing the original use of the phrase in this thread, which has not been used in the context that it was a 'sentence.' In the context of how normative used it, it was simply a presupposition, there is NO truth, for a meta logical argument, as was the presupposition in the original thread argument, which there IS truth, or for your convenience: There is absolute Truth.

It is neither self defeating nor an absurdity in this context. For your convenience let's word it as a presupposition: There is no such thing as absolute truth. A presupposition can be expressed as a 'belief' and not claimed as a statement of fact nor truth.


It represents a presupposition that the nature of our existence, whether spiritual nor physical reducable to an absolute truth.

37818
08-30-2014, 11:45 PM
It was never proposed as an argument in and of itself. It was proposed by normative as a presupposition for another argument.
I am citing the original use of the phrase in this thread, which has not been used in the context that it was a 'sentence.' In the context of how normative used it, it was simply a presupposition, there is NO truth, for a meta logical argument, as was the presupposition in the original thread argument, which there IS truth, or for your convenience: There is absolute Truth.

It is neither self defeating nor an absurdity in this context. For your convenience let's word it as a presupposition: There is no such thing as absolute truth. A presupposition can be expressed as a 'belief' and not claimed as a statement of fact nor truth.


It represents a presupposition that the nature of our existence, whether spiritual nor physical reducable to an absolute truth.

Yes. Nevertheless, there is absolute truth. And some presuppositions are true and others are false. All the while the person or persons holding them do so thinking them to be true.

shunyadragon
08-31-2014, 04:04 AM
Yes. Nevertheless, there is absolute truth.

This is as above a presupposition, and factually unknown. From the metalogical perspective, IF absolute truth exists, it could possibly be Divine (i.e. theism) or it could possibly be Natural Law from the perspective of philosophical naturalism.


And some presuppositions are true and others are false.

True


All the while the person or persons holding them do so thinking them to be true.

Thinking them true does not make it so.

37818
08-31-2014, 05:37 PM
This is as above a presupposition, and factually unknown. From the metalogical perspective, IF absolute truth exists, it could possibly be Divine (i.e. theism) or it could possibly be Natural Law from the perspective of philosophical naturalism.Well, either the absolute truth of an argument is true or it is in its whole, false. Any argument against absolute truth is inherently false.




Thinking them true does not make it so.Agreed.