Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

My Proposal and Dilemma in Synthetic Logic

  1. Jan 23, 2005 #1
    I have found that the synthesis of existence or of the universe has two components the pure logical structure of which is represented as to logic in mathematical arithmetic. Then there is the content, which provides quality to both the numbers as to the logical sequence. I have developed the pure logical form of mathematical arithmetic here.


    My conception of synthesis provides that what is necessary is a rational means by with to appropriate context and content to the the numbers and to the logical sequence of which the numbers follow. It is logically necessary to have a foundation in which to accord words and concepts to the logic. It is in symbolic logic that we find a logic arising out of the linguistic structures for language arises from concepts, concepts from perception, and perception from senses, and senses from reality. However, these conversions are purely deductive and at the level of concepts we find the pure and true reality because the a priori allowed such deduction to occur and make the concepts equatable to reality. However, language arises inductively through the use of a priori but not in deduction rather in induction. Words serve as a means to the consciousness to provide a turning point as it were in which to realize the concepts and from the realization of concepts it is possible to derive knowledge of the a priori provided Descartes "Cartesian Doubt". "Cartesian Doubt" is really a subjective comprehension of Dialectical logic developed by Hegel and reached which it complete and correct form with Adorno's "Double Negation". This allows us to strip away the words from the concepts, and the concepts from the a priori ideas. It is like learning to apply deduction against things which were inducted only to arise at the consciousness determination of the a priori which creates the development of higher consciousness, a transcendence as it were. I belief Schopenhauer understood that the world of experience and the consciousness is but a means to revert upon itself and understand itself and realize the only truly metaphysical thing of the will. Yet, the will is what is most fundamental but what arises from the will and ordered after the will is just as important as the will itself.

    Therefore, I seek to know the a priori to understood firstly the logical structure which is mathematical as Kant understands correctly and Frege backed by Russell tried to refute and do so in complete error. They assume Kant talks of linguistics but in fact his is talking about the concepts and ideas that presuppose and form words. Frege provides that there is for example the number "3" as a word it is a particular but representative of a plural, in application it is toward a plurality, and in experience or after application it is a plurality. Therefore, they conclude that three is a plurality of a plurality of a plurality and are not a priori but merely abstractions, hypothetical inducted and concocted. However, this is quite stupid even fro Bertrand for the concept of three is one denoted in concepts both in relation to experience but only so because it lies in relation to the a priori. Besides this if Frege were correct it would means that the sequence of abstraction go on for infinity which does not occur and therefore demonstrated incorrect. The origin is a priori but since it is not consciously know to Bertrand it is obviously easy for him to make the mistake. Mathematics as to arithmetic provides a logical equation to the a priori structurally and in this we develop Mathematics in accordance with the laws of logic provided a priori which need to be established and I will establish. Then it can synthetically conduct itself and provide a logical structure by which to objectively interpret reality without resorting to induction or anything of empirical influence. All that is needed in order to grasp reality firmly is the development of protocol to guide the application of concepts and words unto the synthetically derived logical structure.

    If this is not made capable in the english language will we not have to create a new language?

    For, it is certainly not made capable in any Philosophical or Mathematical logic as the first is based in language and its relation and the second may be based (althought no accepted) in the a priori its conduct is without explanation or definition all that is there is the logical structure. Besides this mathematics has be invaded by empiricism, induction, and hypothetical constructions all of which have no foundation except in experience. The empirical foundations of any induction have been annihilated by Hume and his arguments are quite irrefutable at least the majority of them. Langauge basis is incorrect, empirical basis is incorrect because it leads to induction and the combination of induction and deduction leads to further error. Therefore, it requires purely deductive based logic and a synthetically derived system in which a protocol of explanation, conception, and definition is without basis.Therefore, since I am unable as of yet to come up with basis and therefore methodology of conduct the the appliance of context to logic I resort to your help.

    I ask you on what rational basis is it made possible to appropriate concepts and words to the logic both in the logical system and in the numbers that represent the units of it?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 23, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What is this notation supposed to mean? Standard notation would have you claiming 1+1=2(1+1)=2(2)=4, which is false by definition. If you mean to indicate something else with your notation, you should make it explicit what your notation is supposed to mean. Additionally, to avoid confusion, you should not use an already established notation unless you are using that notation in the way it is commonly interpreted.

    I'm afraid to say I'm largely confused by the rest of your post. Perhaps you should try to phrase it in simpler language, or focus on establishing one aspect of what you want to say instead of presenting it all at once. Also, I'm confused as to your use of the term "a priori," so please explicate what you mean by it.
  4. Jan 23, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think for each symbol other than 1, +, and =, that he's writing its definition in a parenthetical, but yes I agree it's extremely confusing notation.

    And yes, I don't follow the rest of the post either.
  5. Jan 23, 2005 #4
    You should quantificationally construct an aparatus that converts induction into deduction. When a logic or logical system of a given kind reaches an irresolvable paradox or paradoxes, it's time to climb out of it and look from above!
  6. Jan 23, 2005 #5

    The form is not meant to be conventional it is meant to represent all the processes and the relations such as "2" would be representative of "1+1". This way I do not simplify the arithmetic all the relations and processes are preserved. I thought it would be pretty easy to comprehend just by looking at it but I guess some people are so dependent on memorization of conventional logic they have no creativity in developing logicality on their own context yet alone interperting logicality that are represented in creative non-conventional ways.

    I will firstly adress my use of "a priori".

    The a priori is resonable for all mental activity whether deductive (analytic) or inductive (synthetic) in nature. The logic which we consciously use that is equatable with the a priori is Descartes "Cartesian Doubt" which is a crude conception compared to Hegel's "Dialectic" which still yet is crude to its most developed form Adorno's "Double Negation" I will give you an example of Double Negation:

    Given "Existence" we negate producing "Non-Existence", we take those together and negate again and get "Niether Exsitence nor Non-Existence". It is to negate and then negate the negated as to remove all negative and produce a positive. The product of "non-existence" is empty but must be filled with a value that is positive. Provided that existence can be said to have substance and subsists it can be preceded by that which has no substance and does not subsist. I replaced the term existence with "actual" and I provided in place of the former "non-existence" "potential". What is potential must neccesarily precede what is actual as the logic dictates. The concept applied to the logic is neccesary to consciously grasped the the logic correctly. Creativity is needed to appropriate the correct words to the logic.

    Arithmetic denotes the logic of the dialectic in reverse, in synthesis as it were reverse of analysis, of which dialectic logic is used. The logical structure of synthesis which is pure in nature, that is pure a priori and equatible with reality is easy to develop and understand.

    What I seek is how to develop a protocol of which to apply concepts and language to the synthetic structure as to provide objectivity and logical consistency?

    I would firstly indicate that it would require that one understand the logical character of language and find some sort of protocol from translation between the language and the synthetic logic. The language would have to be broken down into the concepts and then the concepts some how logically applied to the synthetic logic. The process seems impossible and to apply the concepts to the logic seems a task that would be impossible not to mention to the sheer complexity and numeration of the synthetic logic would make it difficult to interpert consciously.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook