Logic Links

Nathan Coppedge Blog

Philosopher, Artist, Inventor, Poet. Theoretical inventor of perpetual motion.

Nathan Coppedge

Philosopher, Artist, Inventor, Poet · Updated Mar 12 ·

Logic Links

June 30, 2017.

LONG TERM MEHH

Recently I study uncertainty.

I wouldn’t say I’m in hell, it’s progressive actually.

I wouldn’t say I haven’t progressed.

I’m doing well. It’s like that. Like being a lawyer.

Doctors don’t waste time.

I swear, sociologists.

I couldn’t say more. It’s like being grandmaster.

I’m not sure I have an objective opinion.

You’d be surprised. I was Astonished.

I have other achievements, not all of it is fair to mention.

I think I have a Big Wand, that isn’t the half of it. The big wand could have had kids by now.

Soon I’ll be in the ivory tower.

In the past I was Marie Antoinette the First.

I think she captured the soul of all the Ivies TD.

What's your favourite proof?.
Prove Material Reality: “I don’t think everything is priceless, maybe not the Gods.”
This is the simple logic I’ve been applying since 2005 or even earlier. I try to call everything advanced basic, if it’s simple enough to understand. Don’t burn the roof Katy. (2024)
Complete Logic Concise Edition.
No Longer Holding You Hostage Argument (2024)
Systemic Belief.
Juncture Solution.
General Categoric Logic.
Organizational Systems.
Improved General Proof Theory (more traditional perhaps with some risk).
If they assume the consequent they may be loading the deck.
Otherwise, it may be an arbitrary symbol propagation error.
Opposite Logic Supported by Deductive Induction: You don’t have to gamble. It might be someone nice.
Non-Opposite Logic Supported by Race Theorists: Everyone is not nice. But that means opposites exist.
Asians don’t think everyone is the same: Supports some things are nice that are neutral. Coherence is neutral, coherence is nice or it isn’t.

NEW LOGIC

Working Red Herrings.

INTELLIGENT APPROACHES

…

TENTATIVE REPRESENTATION OF ALL LOGICAL SYSTEMS CATEGORIES:

Example of a relative argument: For what it’s worth a coherent knowledge system often provides an infinite number of solutions, provided enough concepts exist.

…

Note: Infranential may mean intuition

Paradoxes seem to be affiliated with cheating in the case of evolution.

LOGICAL BINARY OPPOSITE PHENOMENA (2023–10–12)

COHERENT-MAGIC

The way where M.C. Escher seems like magic.

The way where the imaginary seems real.

The way where getting what you want seems easy.

The way where what is absolute seems undeniably powerful.

The way where representations seem incoherent.

The way where emptiness seems unobtrusive.

The way where what is incoherent can seem meaningless.

The way where what is irrational seems stupid.

The way where perpetual motion seems to be the best area to study.

The way where innocence is usually unexpected.

The way where anything can seem completely new.

…

COHERENT-ANTITHEORY

The way where intuition appears impossible.

The way where labeling appears nonsensical.

The way where confusing arguments appear problematic.

The way where certainty appears to provide answers.

The way where metaphors appear to be mesmerizing.

The way where most things seem to appear to be rated average.

The way where calculations appear to confuse you.

The way where advanced yogis sound completely crazy.

The way where what is evolved seems to cheat.

The way where being a kid does not seem important.

The way where complex problems seem to require a simple solution.

…

COHERENT-DISINTEGRAL

Disintegration seems oddly impossible.

Nonsense seems non-physical.

Relativity seems to cut a Gordian Knot.

Vagrants seem oddly absolute.

There is an odd phenomena where it seems like the sign for ‘Aries’ is marked on every painting.

There is the odd feeling that a black hole is a singularity.

The way where incoherent things seem to mean something.

The way where irrational things seem especially evil.

The way where there seems to be something uncertain about a paradox.

The way where something naive never seems to be complete.

Coherence and genetics seem oddly similar.

…

MAGIC-ANTITTHEORY

The way where something new seems antithetical.

The way where verifying is surprising.

The way where problems seem to attract expert advice.

The way where smart rational things seem very stupid.

The way where classification sometimes seems excessively arbitrary.

The way where measuring things seems a bit average.

The way where mathematics seems incoherent.

The way where thinking something is superhuman makes it superhuman.

The way where evolution doesn’t provide a solution.

The way where reality seems to be somehow trivial.

The way where magic seems too obvious.

…

ANTITHEORY-DISINTEGRAL

The way where what is ultimately obvious never seems obvious in the beginning.

The way where death matters less to the living.

The way where evolution involves cutting a Gordian Knot.

The way where people who you think cannot survive do survive.

The way where mathematics rarely seems to lead to just one place.

The way where it can be easy to count one thing but hard to count two things.

The way where one example is unhelpful yet two feels too extreme.

The way where cerebralism seems to attract evil geniuses.

The way where what is deeply problematic seems to give us a sixth sense.

The way where we never seem to have knowledge on the most important things.

The way where opposites seem to match.

…

Philosophers know if something is really a tautology, then it’s the best thing. If it’s really a tautology—really, really a tautology—then, it’s true.

… it does seem to imply that there are not infinite things that are true, unless at least one of them is also false, but only if we assume that something that is true is also false.

Tautologies in other words are valid though not always sound, but there is not much of a way to prove difficult claims without making at least one assumption.

Arguments DO prove things with assumptions. But we cannot assume they prove things automatically, for they depend on validity and soundness.

RECOMMENDED:

Evil 1 and Evil 2?

Philosophy equal to science? The Fallaciousness of Empirical Deconstruction (…)
‘Evilly good’ argument all tautologies: Argument with Possible Commotioners Regarding Perpetual Motion (…)

…

How do you go from being bad at logic to being good? (…)
Possible Solution to the 4-Logic Problem (…)
Inquiries into 21st Century Ignorance (…)
Unified Proof Theory (…)
Complete Logic (attempt 2023)

A kind of Quintessential Heuristic:

…

EVOLUTION OF LOGIC:

—Evolution of Logic diagram: Nathan Coppedge, March 31, 2023

…

An experimental typology menu based on the above diagram:

E.g. the permutation is scientific and fits into the 7 Roads System excel file.

…

SUCCESSFUL LOGICS 2021

Coherently:

Without exponential efficiency:

Data can be organized in sets which may overlap in various ways. The system is not exponentially efficient in that the system produces more combinations than there are categories in the system, except arguably when there is only one universal category.

With exponential efficiency:

Polar opposites must be opposed on the diagonal. All members of a set must be read, placing priority on the first term, and never reading opposites as neighboring categories. The result is exponentially efficient, by reaching fewer permutations than overall categories.

Incoherently:

Causally

Traditional reasoning is a posteriori, mostly using Modus Tollens, finding rudimentary structures. Such systems are various in their composition and can have various foundational structures.
Future reasoning is said to be conditional: If-then, computer programming. This reasoning has been said to be suitable to more scientific formulations of logic.

Informally

Informal methods can have various expressions, typically representational methods.
Informal methods do not have a foundational structure, they simply aim to teach casually and informally: garbage in, garbage out.

IS DEDUCTIVE REASONING ALWAYS TRUE?

Here is as exceptional as I might get (a tractatus of exceptions):

1: In cases where the reasoning is unsound or invalid, or ambiguous, or arbitrary, or cannot be interpreted as an argument.

2: Other Exceptions:

Coherence. - - > Some forms of deduction might support this, but would not be coherent except as coherent arguments. Coherence itself would be great but would not qualify as a deduction.
Paradoxical. To have the perfect system you will have to solve paradoxes, won’t you?… What if you can’t? What if all is one big unsolvable paradox? What if there is more than one paradox, and you have to solve all of them? (Coherence solves paradoxes but deduction does not).
Irrational or emotional. We could imagine a ‘higher’ ‘better’ system if we just see it in a more extreme, way, with ‘wildness’…
Incoherent. - -> Some forms of deduction would fit here. In mathematical notation it would look exactly like this… If you study carpentry it might be better if you do it this way…
Neutral / non-interacting. Maybe the conclusion is that we conclude nothing?… Or everything?… What about that?
Informal. In art class, I have learned… In business class we do it this way…
Relativistic, not affecting coherence, but not subjective. It is not that it is so, but it is not that it is not so… Maybe that is a little bit true, from a certain angle, not necessarily subjective… Big maybes that generally remain maybes.
Nonsensical, in nonsense there may be different rules which defy ordinary reasoning. My sandwich is a flying saucer, etc.
Subjectively maybe something is not incoherent but not deductive or coherent either. To me this room expresses pain, it really pains me, I can feel it. And that cup is really blue, not white, I have sensitive eyes.
Impossible logic might have a method. If we extend something further, even if we are not being emotional, you might still get some extreme results. All you have to do is make it impossible, and accept that impossibility is impossible.

3A: Causal reasoning and such might be different from deduction, though not very greatly different from incoherent reasoning from the standpoint of coherence. Points in space just amount to universals eventually, in which case deductions could be causal or not from a coherent standpoint but from the standpoint of deduction causal reasoning looks very different than ordinary.

3B: Causal reasoning applied to coherence might be coherent and causal.

4A: In Eastern Philosophy, if the rules of Western rationality are broken.

4B: If the laws of Western rationality are irrelevant.

…

THE QUESTION OF FALSE DICHOTOMY

I have wondered if I am guilty of it. While I understand it takes this form:

An artificial set of examples, eliminating one supposedly (falsely supposedly) validates another.

It seems there is an exception: if you have exclusive set of balanced polar opposites which describes all cases of an instance. If you adopt a form of relativism where the specific case is the case that matters, and the specific case is of course complete in its context, then it seems the question is circular reasoning not false dichotomy.

But, if you move to the point of trying to prove that it is circular reasoning and it turns out not to be, then there may be cases like described where there is no logical fallacy involved whatsoever.

Maybe there are other exceptions to this fallacy, too, which I haven’t bothered to notice.

There is also a scientific case of this, where you have bothered to empirically provide all available evidence. While it may be hard to prove that you provided all available evidence, within a reasonable doubt it is possible that you did, or that you well-considered in a fair-minded way that some of the evidence is not relevant to the communication. This is especially true within the mode of communicating rather than being absolutely perfect.

There is no rule which says reasoning must be absolutely perfect by every imaginable standard in the whole universe to count as flawless reasoning by one standard. That would be open to slippery slope to argue AGAINST such a ‘complete’ theory.

By evidence-qua-evidence an attempted exclusive list may not be false dichotomy. And it may be assuming the consequence to dismiss this as being non-evidential if the claim is that it presents no evidence whatsoever relative to a certain quantity of items. In other words, compared to some arbitrary case, an exclusive list may actually be presenting more evidence, for example, it could hypothetically be more imaginative or complete, or it could involve more liquid intelligence or interest to the audience, or even more relevant examples or more interesting cases than some other case.

If an exclusive list begins to look like an interesting case, it can begin to look highly useful that the list of interesting examples may be complete, though we cannot automatically assume it is complete in every case unless by acceptable criteria. To be safe, we might assume any such possible criteria are potentially logically disposable, but potentially no more so than the range of all possible scientific hypotheses are disposable within science.

…

ON TO OTHER STUFF:

Logicians have also had to defeat more sophisticated popular arguments, with the effect being that most professional logicians are partly illogical and populistic with zero belief in isolated systems, even though what they mean by a system that is not isolated is partly merely that it is a social system, which is to say, a trite concern of populist rhetoric.

Logic is possibility and impossibility.

A topic created by language resulting in excessive technological development, most closely associated with technology, according to the TOE.

Boggled reasoning—If you want to discuss my notion of exclusive logic in philosophy then do so. If on the other hand, you want to talk about the justice or injustice of social inequality then do that. If you mix them together though that is just boggled definitions unless you can establish a connection under your own line of reasoning, hopefully not someone else’s.

Select:

What is 'complete certainty' and 'certain enough' in Theory of Knowledge (TOK)? (…)

How can we distinguish between knowledge, belief, and opinion? (…)

What are the different types of proof? (…)

Four Logics (…)

Outside Logic (…)

Simplified Overview of Philosophy (…)

What are examples of unserious approaches to arguing? (…)

What is the meaning of “conditionalized knowledge”? (…)

Minimum Logical Symbols (…)

What differentiates a productive argument versus a non-productive one? (…)

Intro to Traditional and Non-Traditional Logic (…)

Perfect Axiomatic Reasoning Model (…)

Logic & Innovation: 20 System Approaches (…)

Improved Logical Argument System (…)

Falsedoor Theoretics (…)

A

causes

E.

[All causes Some].

—Quora User's answer to What is causal reasoning?

…

Basically:

Instructive.
Organizational.
Practical.
Idealistic.

Secondly,

Causal.
Metaphorical.
Mathematical.
Systematic.
Essential.
Symbolic.
Transcendent.
Semantic.

…

--> Maps, Big Ideas, Souls, Experiences

—What are the uses of logic?

Understanding Assumptions in General

Logic Questions

Russell’s Paradox: No Right Answer

History of Logic: Logical Golden Gate Formula

…

“I remember thinking: causal inference, that’s the most brilliant thing since categorical deductions. Then I invented categorical deductions [four years later].”

—Nathan Coppedge

…

What is my favorite logic problem? I have many, but they’re hard to describe. I’d just end up posting links to things that are hard to understand.

—The master of logic

Causal Inference (Logical Syllogisms)

…

How does one prove that tautologies are provable in the first order logic?

Favorite Proofs

The Improved Tractatus of Philosophy

Hard Logic

Precie to Non-Classical Logic

Justified, true, necessary, beliefs

Understanding tautologies

What are the most logically rigorous philosophical works ever written?

Is every logic good?

How generally can logic be applied?