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.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

1

1=1

1+1=2(1+1)

1+2=3(2(1+1)+1)

1+3=4(3(2(1+1)+1)+1)

1+4=5(4(3(2(1+1)+1)+1)+1)

1+5=6(5(4(3(2(1+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)

1+6=7(6(5(4(3(2(1+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)

1+7=8(7(6(5(4(3(2(1+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)

1+8=9(8(7(6(5(4(3(2(1+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)

1+9=10(9(8(7(6(5(4(3(2(1+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)

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?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# My Proposal and Dilemma in Synthetic Logic

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**