How about we each show the validity of of our logic by how it presents in practical life? This means using points of reference which are proofs and that means physical phenomena only. It is the simplest and most clarifying way to prove our points. Are you willing to bet your understanding on that?

So it is your point? So this is your logic and not the group consensus?

My point is that your ramblings are illogical. And there appears to be group consensus on that.

Practical life is subject to equivocation. Considering you worked to pay for your internet service, and that internet service is spent proving some point to me (all of which I am just absorbing for angles of research) the point is the logic foundations determine where your practical means (money) are spent.

You tell me how your logic is practical.


Reproduction.

Male (thesis) and female (antithesis), synthesize into a further male or female. The genetic composition progresses past its point of origin (parent, parents) while certain elements are maintained (cycled) through the offspring.

Let us have one final argument in support of our points and let them stand on their own merit. We should not have any further statements after them whether we agree or not. Are you in? It's a standoff and only those who read them will know who is logical and who is illogical. The weight of our principles and understanding will reveal themselves in those final statements.

Do you agree with this?

Okay...How can the fallacies exist if the fallacies can be applied to eachother.

Second. What is Logic? I provide sources stemming from the Greek as "reason" and "word"...you make up your own.

If the group consensus is spinning there logic around my arguments, and I point out that you do not agree with eachother, then you suffer from a cult disorder where you believe without questioning because an authority told you too.

I am saying P=P but the statement is incomplete.

You have not provide a practical example to your logic...why should I trust you?

Proof. How is it practical? What is practical though considering you are spending the most practical of resources "time" in trying to justify a point I will just absorb for a paper.

2×9=18 is rambling to a toddler...all is relative.

If we show how our logic applies to practical life then there can be no contradictions when experience itself is proof of its reliability.

It doesn't matter who goes first or last, the point is after those final statements, there should be no more.

So, do you agree?

Then my logic is automatically correct as I am arguing all logic is subjective, but the fallacy of ad hominem, equivocation (as one experience can mean many things over time), ad hominem (all logic is determined by the source hence attacking the logic is attacking the person) and a whole list of other fallacies occur according to your system. My system allows for contradiction as a grounds for proof through sythesis.

You laws do not.

But you claim no contradiction can exist, yet your logic says it does.

Excuse me for a second.....



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

I have been arguing it is subjective all along.

Do you agree with my proposition or not?

If you believe you're right then it should not be a problem.

So, what is your reply?

My reply to "agree...or not"? Is "or" what?

You saying logic is subject to personal experience is what I have been arguing all along "logic has a subjective and objective nature" . You have no proposition because the premises are void...admit defeat. I already admitted to yes with the example of reproduction as a practical example, and you did not give an example and said logic is subjective.

You lost because the contest was already concluded. The answer "was" yes.

So the laws of logic are subjective?

Sorry, I did not know the 'reproduction' example was your reply. I will give mine shortly. Please be patient.

Times up. Been 15 minutes.

I am saying P=P but the statement is incomplete. — eodnhoj7

Now you're changing your tune. Before you said that P=P requires -P in order to have any meaning. Starting to see things my way now? Now that you're starting to see the deficiencies of your principles, should we go back and reassess all the deficiencies of your various arguments?

Let's consider pi and the line. A line is a relation. Pi is a relation. Does this mean that pi is a line? Or can there be different types of relations, pi being of one type and a line being of another type?

So about 30 minutes.

You can type all the thoughts you want for your proof, because that proof is subject to you. The most you can do is turn my words around on me, but that is inherent within my laws, so you would just be acknowledging them.

But if your logic is deemed as true by others then a bandwagon fallacy occurs, hence it is false.

I win simply because without you being born through synthesis you would have no argument to begin with. Without life, which occurs through the linear direction of organisms and the circulation of genetic material through cells existing through other cells as cells there is no "practicality".

Life is practical with reproduction being the most practical aspect of life stemming from sythesis, with this synthesis further existing through eating, etc.

I just said in the above P=P is incomplete in the quote.

Wow.....


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

I owe both of you thanks for the laughs.

I just said in the above P=P is incomplete in the quote. — eodnhoj7

Right, you've now changed your tune. Before you said "P=P requires -P=-P to exist". Now, P=P is simply incomplete without -P.

LOGIC

Some sources relate it with reason others with principles inherent in the function or expression of reality and its many aspects.
For example:

1. reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
2. a formal scientific method of examining or thinking about ideas.
3. the formal principles of a branch of knowledge.
4. a method of reasoning that involves a series of statements, each of which must be true if the statement before it is true.
5. any particular formal system in which are defined axioms and rules of inference.
6. the system and principles of reasoning used in a specific field of study.

There are many other definitions given but the fundamental meaning remains the same.

Thus logic refers to a system or method which governs our understanding. This means that the premise must lead automatically or naturally to the conclusion.
For me, logic is realised from the laws or principles governing phenomena, which means that, the conclusions drawn must be explicit in the way we understand and relate to phenomena and consequently how we interact with reality. I believe that is how the three laws of logic came to be.
They are:

1. The Law of Identity.

Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is.
Identity is the concept that refers to all aspects of existence, that is, the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity.
The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable.
The proof of this is the experience of phenomena. That is, we only experience what is affirmed as an identity through its specific characteristics.

2. The Law of Non-Contradiction

First, a contradiction arises when two ideas each make the other impossible. Contradictions don't exist in reality because reality simply is as it is and does not contradict itself.
Only our ideas and interpretations can be contradictory.

It states that contradictory identities, circumstances or statements cannot both be true when having similar values. It is complementary to the law of identity.

3. The Law of Excluded Middle

It states that a proposition is either true or false. There is no middle ground between the two which is neither true nor false or both true and false. It is also complementary to the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction.


IS LOGIC SUBJECTIVE?

The claim that logic is subjective can take the form of:
1. a mere assertion, in which case, there are no grounds for believing it
2. an argument, in which case, it becomes the very thing it attempts to disprove and hence fails.

Logic is established or realised from the laws which govern the domain of knowledge (of phemomena or the reality they exist in) and in which both the subjective and the objective are aspects.

Therefore, as is readily apparent from the above argument, there is no excuse or escape from adhering to logic. There is no hiding behind the idea of subjectivity, circularity, paradoxes, etc. There are no assumed or unfounded premises or conclusions in the representation of logic. Everything is stated as it is related to in our experiences of reality. And that is the absolute validity of logic.

The premise was that you show how it applies to practical life, not a series of definitions and assertions.


Lol, you actually made up the rules and cannot follow them.

The Prime Triadic Laws observe all this is more:

1. All logic is a continuum as:

A. a point of origin in which all axioms are extensions of all axioms and as individual axioms they are void.
B. Linear defintion where axioms are separated or connected relative to begining axiom observed.
C. Circular maintainance where all axioms are maintained or dissolved in accords to there circular movement.

The continual nature of finiteness, as a point of inversion from one thing into many as change, sets the foundation for a continuum and the irrational nature of finite truth.



2. All contradiction is a deficiency in structure due to a lack of self referencing existing through opposition. All progression as opposition through seperation is foundation of contradiction.

All axioms as points of origin are beyond contradiction or paradox as they are extensions of all axioms and void in themselves.

All axioms as self referencing are truth statements as logical structure and hence proof statements.

Hence all axioms exist as self maintained as truth statements, contradictory in the respect to being progressive, and both true and false with all false being a gradation of truth while being none of the above as Continuuims. All axioms are true, false, and both/neither.

3. All axioms occur through synthesis as joining, where the axiom is defined by its joining to another axiom as an axiom.


And I can go further.

If P=P requires -P=-P to exist and is incomplete without -P then what is incomplete is void on its own terms as it must exist through further axioms.

Because it must progress to further axioms, considering it is only a part, it does not exist on its own terms.

You said to provide a practical example, you literally just gave definitions.

Who loses there own game?


ROFL!!!!!!!!!

Then comes up with there own assertions and calls the other guy a narcissist?

ROFL

You lost fair and square.

This is a philosophy forum, there are plenty of philosophers such as Wittgenstein and Neitzche who pointed to the absurdities in logic. I am not setting a precedent here.

Ad hominums.



You lost according to your own rules, you said "Practical" experience, hence "reproduction" as a continuum. You gave a list of definitions.

It is not my fault.

My response was even short.

Red herrings as well....


You do know Godels incompleteness theorem renders the foundation of logic incomplete right? It means they are in a perpetual state of contradiction as a further system is needed to justify them.

Logic as a continuum, justified by infinity, is the only answer to giving logic any foundation.

Your game is a word salad, along with confusing and now you are diverting blame.

Circularity proves this as the form of the answer you provided does not reference the form of the game.

If P=P requires -P=-P to exist and is incomplete without -P then what is incomplete is void on its own terms as it must exist through further axioms.

Because it must progress to further axioms, considering it is only a part, it does not exist on its own terms. — eodnhoj7

P=P, does not itself need to progress to further axioms. It has meaning on its own, as the law of identity, indicating that P exists and is identifiable as an entity. What "must" progress, and what is represented by "logical necessity" is the human mind carrying out the logical process. Logical necessity, ("must progress") is within the mind. The freedom of choice is self-restricted as the mind is compelled to proceed toward the logical conclusion. The mind desires to know, and therefore restricts its own capacity to choose by enforcing :logical necessity, as the means to that end, knowing. The compulsion to proceed further, toward a related axiom, is produced by the existence of, and the understanding of, the primary axiom P=P. So it is not the case that P=P requires the further progress for its existence. The further progress is enabled by its existence.

The completion sought is within the mind and follows from the identification of the object (P). The desire is for a completion to the understanding of the identified entity. It is first identified, and therefore designated as existing through the act of identification, but the understanding of it is recognized as incomplete. So the mind is compelled, by the desire to know, to proceed toward further understanding.

There is a separation between the object (signified as P) and the understanding of the object, a separation which is necessitated logically, by the incompletion of the understanding. The object is identified as one whole, P, not a part, and therefore complete in and of itself, but the understanding of it is incomplete. Therefore there is a separation between the object itself, identified as P, and the understanding of the object. The understanding is what progresses. P=P signifies the first step of understanding. Recognizing the existence of the object, as an entity, a whole, and giving it identity is the first step of understanding. P=P is not void without further axioms, it just does not provide a complete understanding.

If you deny that what is identified as P is a real object, a whole, claiming that it is instead a part of a whole, then you invalidate that entire logical structure. You cannot therefore, proceed from P=P to further axioms, if your claim is that P represents a part rather than a whole, because you now need to validate the existence of P. P=P has been invalidated, P does not represent a thing with its own existence, as itself,, but it represents a part of a thing. This would require proceeding backward to a prior, more fundamental axiom, which would necessitate the identify of P as part of a whole, rather than as an individual thing, itself.

The first sentence began with "P=P, does not itself need to progress to further axioms." Then you had a long progressive argument of axioms used to defined P=P.

After the first sentence, I did not even bother reading it.

My explanations of logic are grounded in "phenomena", "reality" and "existence". Isn't that practical enough?

If you want you can insert any example.

Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is. — BrianW

=> e.g. cow, ball, etc.

I thought you would understand.


On the other hand,

NONE OF YOUR PREMISES IS GROUNDED IN ANY OBSERVABLE PROOF.

1. All logic is a continuum as:

A. a point of origin in which all axioms are extensions of all axioms and as individual axioms they are void. — eodnhoj7

=> So what? How does this manifest in reality or phenomena?

B. Linear defintion where axioms are separated or connected relative to begining axiom observed. — eodnhoj7

=> Again, so what? How does this manifest in reality or phenomena?

C. Circular maintainance where all axioms are maintained or dissolved in accords to there circular movement. — eodnhoj7

And again, you get the drift don't you? How does this manifest in reality or phenomena?

Your logic seems to exist in your imagination only. I guess that's why you keep hiding behind subjectivity. Clearly, yours is.