TheLogicalArc Posted October 3, 2022 Posted October 3, 2022 In this paper there will be discussed a re-imagination of logical categorization, based on modern data from quantum physics for the reason of obviating the limitations, paradoxes, and arbitrary parameters found to characterize a said physical reality. If you are unfamiliar with categories: category, in logic, is a term used to denote the several most general, or highest types of thought forms or entities, or to denote any distinction such that, if a form or entity belonging to one category is substituted into a statement in place of one belonging to another, a nonsensical assertion must result. Categorization shaped classical logic, which shaped mathematical logic, which shaped the scientific method, which in turn shaped the development of classical and quantum mechanics. The discourse is developed into a new form of mathematical logic, and form of set theory that is corrective of the shortfalls above-mentioned. This reconceptualization will be called compositive logic. The theory proposes that reality is an ob-reciprocal reference. In the most general sense, that means that reality is of no reciprocal condition, or put in other terms- reality does not compartmentally express itself, and thus elements, making the substantive aspect of reality an indicative relation, and not absolute. Reality as a totality in itself cannot have a precursor nor any external initiative, or initiation, because it itself encapsulates everythingness, thus objective reality shouldn't have specified characteristics, which are delimitations, suggestive of an external entity, or pre-generative entity, or inexplicable spontaneous internal function. It will be demonstrated that the foundation of formal, and informal logic has a categorizational incompleteness, and issues of contradictions and paradoxes, consequently arising in the theories of math, classical, and quantum mechanics. Not being privied to the now standard quantum mechanical data is being proposed as a fundamental negation that blocked pre-classical thinkers from forming sufficiently complex general parameters for the construction of the sentient reciprocal order, or in other terms- an accurate definition of categories that requires experimentally testable findings about the Planck scales of the universe and Planck epoch to be a part of the perspective. The following three excerpts that are cited from the website Wikipedia.org contain information that has been externally fact checked: " the Planck scale is an energy scale around 1.22×1019 GeV (the Planck energy, corresponding to the energy equivalent of the Planck mass, 2.17645×10−8 kg) at which quantum effects of gravity become strong. At this scale, present descriptions and theories of sub-atomic particle interactions in terms of quantum field theory break down and become inadequate, due to the impact of the apparent non-renormalizability of gravity within current theories." Excerpt 2: "At the Planck length scale, the strength of gravity is expected to become comparable with the other forces, and it is theorized that all the fundamental forces are unified at that scale, but the exact mechanism of this unification remains unknown. The Planck scale is therefore the point where the effects of quantum gravity can no longer be ignored in other fundamental interactions, where current calculations and approaches begin to break down, and a means to take account of its impact is necessary. On these grounds, it has been speculated that it may be an approximate lower limit at which a black hole could be formed by collapse. While physicists have a fairly good understanding of the other fundamental interactions of forces on the quantum level, gravity is problematic, and cannot be integrated with quantum mechanics at very high energies using the usual framework of quantum field theory. At lesser energy levels it is usually ignored, while for energies approaching or exceeding the Planck scale, a new theory of quantum gravity is necessary. Approaches to this problem include string theory and M-theory, loop quantum gravity, noncommutative geometry, and causal set theory." Excerpt 3: "In Big Bang cosmology, the Planck epoch or Planck era is the earliest stage of the Big Bang, before the time passed was equal to the Planck time, tP, or approximately 10 to the negative 43 seconds. There is no currently available physical theory to describe such short times, and it is not clear in what sense the concept of time is meaningful for values smaller than the Planck time. It is generally assumed that quantum effects of gravity dominate physical interactions at this time scale. At this scale, the unified force of the Standard Model is assumed to be unified with gravitation." Here we have a synopsis of two universal extremes and not merely the quantum universe, as the largest scales of the universe is where the universe from the Planck time is said to be right now, demarking physically in consistent examples, where our physical premises break down because of our physical incapacity, whether as measurement, or experiential incapacity in the case of the Planck epoch, where light (an aspect of physical reality described by theories invariably stemming from the faux categorizations of classical logic), from that early in the universe's so-called emergence will never reach us. If we look at the universe from the perspective of its demonstrated structural limits, physical reality is assertable as a literal finite domain, containing all the physical outcomes possible. However, where there are definable limits demarking where the dynamics of physical reality no longer apply, it does not explicate an imperative of negation of other possible domains, as physical reality, as a domain, contains strictly physical outcomes in accordance with the exclusive categorization. Let x=x be equivalent to a domain characterized by the totality of all possible functions and transformations categorizable as physical: with our assertion of x=x being true, we discover that the domain x=x does not express that x=p. The fact that x=x does not express x=p, for no aspect of x=p is containing in domain x=x, does not mean that x=p does not exist, in fact, as x=x can be defined as finite under the above-mentioned definition, there is no account for the structural exclusion of x=p that is consisting as domain x=x, for domain x=x is inherently and absolutely expressing domain x=x only ( as far as quantum mechanics go there has never been a non-physical outcome and will never be a non-physical outcome), which is a different categorical imperative from the exclusion of potential domain x=p, thus the non-existence of x=p as a domain is not proven by the expressions of x=x. It has been established that x=x represents the consisting potential of physical reality; and it has been established also that the domain of x=x is both noninclusional and nonnegational of a domain x=p, which represents a single consisting potential other than x=x. There is also a noninclusion of x=o, =t, =5, x=s,.....n. X=x and x=p are non-interdependent imperatives, based on the fact that x=x intrinsically excludes x=p, and x=p intrinsically excludes x=x, and that the intrinsic exclusion is not specific to x=p, or x=x but to all potential domains . From the definition above we can assert a structural continuum that is not defined in the conditions of the superimposed domains, as they are superimpositions that are in themselves fine-tuned, thus demonstrating an adherence to a specifying context. Ultimate reality cannot be an element, or a set type of universality as any such specification requires a specifier. Reality, in its absolutely logical form, cannot be an expression of any kind, as this is fine-tuning, that domains the expression as a categorical domain that does not actively exclude the existence of external domains. Reality is logically non-referential, and the tangibility that we associate with physical reality is not "in the expression of" a beingness (beingness is defined by physical reality's quantitative standards when we see it as a domain that simply just is, without proper categorization). We can find non-referentiality by reduction of the quantum mechanic relativism that we experience in physical reality. In the overarching domain that contains all superimpositions such as x=x, is characterized the non-interdependency of x=x and any given other domain such as x=p. Superimpositionality is not describable within the local frameworks of finite domains themselves: they are not expressing of overarching dynamics in themselves. They seem absolutely local Invariation of external domains, both in themselves as superimpositions, and as naturally extenuating domains, indicate a relativism that does not express the structural limitation of locality, just universalism, which without the usual physical reference of locality is something quite different from solely physical interpretations of an empty set. The reduction of superimpositionality to non-referentiality sees the non-locality in superimpositionality prevariated by further non-localizational relativism, where now universality goes, the basic reference of quantitative coherence in relation to context excluding the opposite, is the said nonreferentiality that reality can be logical. It's not nothingness, however it's not as irrational as existency. So we can see where non-referentiality covers all truly realistic outcomes and demonstrates through a determined reduction of Relativistic structural ethos, not only explication of all realistic participles, but also the de-relativistic subjectivization of all realistic participles, making the non-referentiality actual, in not being objectively expressing of intrinsic, or perturbed fine-tuning. We can establish that applying substantive, elementary metrics to non-referentiality, basically making reality a materially existing location, must have the metrics somehow amount to a non-referentiality being true. The elementary metrics being proposed must then be categorizable as basally referential, however, maintaining of non-referentiality. The application of element metrics to nonreferentiality creates the least relativistic relationship. The active de-gradualization from physical reality to nonreferentiality as a base logic system is the affirmation of nonreferentiality itself as a non-expression, as all extents involved are categorized within reality. The most basic relativism is singularly universal, where elements are intrinsic property, thus of no particular demarcation. This is superimpositionality. Giving metrication to nonreferentiality equals to the sphere of superimpositionality, which, further metricated, results in local superimpositions, of all possible typologies, non-interdependent in nature on a level that represents a specific prevarication. Further metrication invariates elements of superimposed domains, for instance, in physical reality, planets, space, time, forces, etc. If we choose to element nonreferentiality like this we become capable of any typology of transformation graphed within the framework of a field theory. The proposed field, consisting of these levels of relativism as sub-fields, hold all objects as defined with 4 basic values from the sub-fields: 1. Non-referentiality 2. Superimpositionality 3. Domains 4. Elements of domains These values are of course general. They are simply significant points on a spectrum.
studiot Posted October 3, 2022 Posted October 3, 2022 2 hours ago, TheLogicalArc said: In this paper there will be discussed a re-imagination of logical categorization And there's poor little me thinking that it was just an exercise in pomposity.
NTuft Posted October 3, 2022 Posted October 3, 2022 (edited) 5 hours ago, TheLogicalArc said: <snip> Categorization shaped classical logic, which shaped mathematical logic, which shaped the scientific method, which in turn shaped the <snip> Here we have a synopsis of two universal extremes and not merely the quantum universe, as the largest scales of the universe is where the universe from the Planck time is said to be right now, demarking physically in consistent examples, where our physical premises break down because of our physical incapacity, whether as measurement, or experiential incapacity in the case of the Planck epoch, where light (an aspect of physical reality described by theories invariably stemming from the faux categorizations of classical logic), from that early in the universe's so-called emergence will never reach us. Excuse me, Sir, but we can't have you barging in here and using parentheses and commas this way. That is my domain. 5 hours ago, TheLogicalArc said: If we look at the universe from the perspective of its demonstrated structural limits, physical reality is assertable as a literal finite domain, containing all the physical outcomes possible. However, where there are definable limits demarking where the dynamics of physical reality no longer apply, it does not explicate an imperative of negation of other possible domains[ed.:Are you going to test and prove this, or expect logical acceptance?], as physical reality, as a domain, contains strictly physical outcomes in accordance with the exclusive categorization. Let x=x [ed.:Just call it x. What kind of remedial math is this.] be equivalent to a domain characterized by the totality of all possible functions and transformations categorizable as physical: with our assertion of x=x being true, we discover that the domain x=x does not express that x=p[Ed.:phantasy land, I take it]. The fact that x=x does not express x=p, for no aspect of x=p is containing in domain x=x, does not mean that x=p[Ed.:Oh, so now finite domain contains phantasy domain. K.] does not exist, in fact, as x=x can be defined as finite under the above-mentioned definition, there is no account for the structural exclusion of x=p[Ed.:Oh, except for the logical definitions you've made so far] that is consisting as domain x=x, for domain x=x is inherently and absolutely expressing domain x=x only ( as far as quantum mechanics go there has never been a non-physical outcome and will never be a non-physical outcome)[Ed.:You shut your mouth! Quantum business is a magic show, obviously Quantum=p or something. And stop abusing parentheses!], which is a different categorical imperative from the exclusion of potential domain x=p, thus the non-existence of x=p as a domain is not proven by the expressions of x=x.[ed.: No, but it is by definitions you've made] It has been established that x=x represents the consisting potential of physical reality; and it has been established also that the domain of x=x is both noninclusional and nonnegational of a domain x=p[Ed.: Ok, new definition, x=p], which represents a single consisting potential other than x=x. There is also a noninclusion of x=o, =t, =5, x=s,.....n.[Ed.: How dare you, Sir. This is the relativity board, not a tic-tac-toe one.] X=x and x=p are non-interdependent imperatives[Ed.:You're an impertative!], based on the fact that x=x intrinsically excludes x=p, and x=p intrinsically excludes x=x, and that the intrinsic exclusion is not specific to x=p, or x=x but to all potential domains . From the definition above we can assert a structural continuum that is not defined in the conditions of the superimposed domains, as they are superimpositions that are in themselves fine-tuned[Ed.:Pfft], thus demonstrating an adherence to a specifying context. Ultimate reality cannot be an element, or a set type of universality as any such specification requires a specifier. Reality, in its absolutely logical form, cannot be an expression of any kind, as this is fine-tuning, that domains[Ed.:What is this, a verb?] the expression as a categorical domain that does not actively exclude the existence of external domains. [Ed.:Look at the damned comma use here. Is your brain taking breaths and so you put one in a sentence?] Reality is logically non-referential[Ed:Save for definitions we may need to refer to to have a discussion.], and the tangibility that we associate with physical reality is not "in the expression of" a beingness (beingness is defined by physical reality's quantitative standards when we see it as a domain that simply just is, without proper categorization).[Ed.:Tubulur.] 5 hours ago, TheLogicalArc said: We can find non-referentiality by reduction of the quantum mechanic relativism that we experience in physical reality. In the overarching domain that contains all superimpositions such as x=x, is characterized the non-interdependency of x=x and any given other domain such as x=p. Superimpositionality is not describable within the local frameworks of finite domains themselves[Ed.:Defining x=x and x=p as above suffices]: they are not expressing of overarching dynamics in themselves. They seem absolutely local[Ed.:Not if you use your imagination! Yippee.] Invariation of external domains[hypostasis], both in themselves as superimpositions, and as naturally extenuating[wrong word choice] domains, indicate a relativism that does not express the structural limitation of locality, just universalism, which without the usual physical reference of locality is something quite different from solely physical interpretations of an empty set.[nonsense, hypercommatosis] The [unacceptable logical]reduction of superimpositionality to non-referentiality sees the non-locality in superimpositionality prevariated[ prevaricate: To speak or write evasively; equivocate. synonym: lie. To behave in an evasive or indecisive manner, usually in delay. To utter or say in an evasive manner.] by further non-localizational relativism, where now universality goes, the basic reference of quantitative coherence in relation to context excluding the opposite, is the said nonreferentiality that reality can be logical. It's not nothingness, however it's not as irrational as existency.[Your coherence has now reached the opposite of not nothingness] So we can see where non-referentiality covers all truly realistic outcomes and demonstrates through a determined reduction of Relativistic[Oh thank God you posted in relativity section after all] structural ethos, not only explication of all realistic participles, but also the de-relativistic subjectivization of all realistic participles, making the non-referentiality actual, in not being objectively expressing of intrinsic, or perturbed fine-tuning.[Oh, beingness, totally tubulur] We can establish that applying substantive, elementary metrics[subjective hair-splitting?] to non-referentiality, basically making reality a materially existing location, must have the metrics somehow amount to a non-referentiality being true. The elementary metrics being proposed must then be categorizable as basally referential, however, maintaining of non-referentiality[yeah, based referential non-referential. logic=words]. The application of element metrics[very thin wedge] to nonreferentiality creates the least relativistic relationship. The active de-gradualization from physical reality to nonreferentiality as a base logic system is the affirmation of [complete subjectivity or]nonreferentiality itself as a non-expression, as all extents involved are categorized within reality. The most basic relativism is singularly universal, where elements are intrinsic property, thus of no particular demarcation. This is superimpositionality. Giving metrication to nonreferentiality equals to the sphere of superimpositionality, which, further metricated, results in local superimpositions, of all possible typologies, non-interdependent in nature on a level that represents a specific prevarication.[You already said x=p] Further metrication invariates[ ] elements of superimposed[p] domains, for instance, in physical reality[x], planets, space, time, forces, etc. p=x If we choose to element nonreferentiality like this we become [if you had a keyboard you'd be]capable of any typology of transformation graphed within the framework of a [out of left-]field theory. 5 hours ago, TheLogicalArc said: The proposed [pseudo-logical and opposite in spirit to a truly relativistic]field, consisting of these levels[what? you don't list them] of relativism as sub-fields, hold all objects as defined with 4 basic values from the sub-fields: 1. Non-referentiality 2. Superimpositionality 3. Domains 4. Elements of domains [so basic. but so without basallity] These values are of course general. They are simply significant points on a spectrum. I aware you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Edited October 4, 2022 by NTuft D+ for effort 2
TheVat Posted October 4, 2022 Posted October 4, 2022 Please post a plain English abstract of your paper. And maybe some touchstones, as how your ideas relate to Carnap or Russell or other modern thinkers in the field.
studiot Posted October 4, 2022 Posted October 4, 2022 8 hours ago, NTuft said: Excuse me, Sir, but we can't have you barging in here and using parentheses and commas this way. That is my domain. +1 8 hours ago, TheVat said: Please post a plain English abstract of your paper. And maybe some touchstones, as how your ideas relate to Carnap or Russell or other modern thinkers in the field. @TheLogicalArc This has been place in the hard physics section. If it is not physics but soft philosophy please tell us and ask a moderator to move it to the appropriate section. By the way, what is a logical arc please ?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now