Axioms Contradict Argument Structure
- Eodnhoj
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 18
- Joined: March 11th, 2017, 2:14 pm
Axioms Contradict Argument Structure
A) All axioms manifest randomness through self-evidence as the self is undefined.
B) Axioms manifest definition through further axioms; therefore definition of an axiom is relative to the propagation of axioms.
C) All propagation is a continuum in definition of the beginning axiom(s), therefore all beginning definitions are in flux.
D) All axioms are propagative to stabilize self evidence, however all axioms are reflections of the self as an undefinable.
E) The increase in actual definition of axioms, through relations to other axioms, manifests further possible axioms.
F) A continual propagation of possible axioms, causes a propagation of definition in actual axioms.
G) All possible axioms are not actual axioms, therefore are deficient in structure. This deficiency in structure is congruent with randomness.
However, all possible axioms define all actual axioms.
H) A deficiency in structure defines axioms; therefore axioms are manifested because of unmeasurability.
I) All unmeasurability is self-evident.
J) All unmeasurables, as axioms, gain definition through relations. However all relations are dependent upon axioms.
H) Unmeasurability is unavoidable as unmeasurability is self-evident.
I) All self evidence is the manifestation of observation as measurement.
J) All measurement is an extension of the self; therefore is a reflection of the self.
K) All measurement relies upon an element of randomness; therefore no measurement is proportional in its entirety.
-
- Posts: 31
- Joined: April 5th, 2017, 11:56 am
Re: Axioms Contradict Argument Structure
- Eodnhoj
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 18
- Joined: March 11th, 2017, 2:14 pm
Re: Axioms Contradict Argument Structure
I understand where the misunderstanding may be, however I am observing that there is a degree of randomness, or lack of structure/definition/observability in all axioms. Because of this degree of randomness, axioms must be probabalistic.RuleOnu wrote:I don't think you see the irony in your own argument!
A simple example would what is self evident to you may not be self evident to me, what is self evident to me may not be self-evident to you. Because of this lack of observability or definition there is a degree of randomness.
I will try to address some points which may appear confusing:
A) All axioms manifest randomness through self-evidence as the self is undefined.
All axioms are a duality of "the self" and "evidence". The self is undefined, by almost anyone's terms; therefore due to it's lack of definition and unobservability (ex: a person may say "I don't understand myself, I don't know who I am, etc.) it is random. All evidence is simply proportions/ratios/stability between the observer and structures, observers and observers, structures and structures; therefore there is a degree of definition that is not random.
C) All propagation is a continuum in definition of the beginning axiom(s), therefore all beginning definitions are in flux.
Because all arguments are built upon axioms, and argument for the most part seek to observe and further define these axioms, these axioms self-propagate. The beginning axiom(s) reflect into another axiom or set of axioms and the ratio manifests as the argument. However with each extension of the argument, through the manifestation of ratios through reflective axioms, the original definition of the axiom is in constant flux.
ex: Axiom A leads to Argument B
The argument continues to be observed and Argument C comes into fruition. Argument C does not contradict either Argument B or Axiom A, however it redefines Axiom A as Axioms A's definition originally stemmed from the ratios of Axioms in Argument B. With the extension of definition of Axiom A comes a new definition of Axiom A, meaning Axiom A always has a property of continuing definition who possibilities are not always observable due to a continual flux; this equates to the Axiom as having a degree of randomness. However the Ratios of Axiom A and Argument B are always there, so there is a degree of stability. This duality of stability and flux, means that all axioms are probabilistic as a gradient form of observation.
G) All possible axioms are not actual axioms, therefore are deficient in structure. This deficiency in structure is congruent with randomness. However, all possible axioms define all actual axioms.
All things are defined by their potential or "possibilities". An example may be a child, he or she is defined by what he or she "maybe" someday, or by the expectations placed upon him or her. The same applies for axioms, as the observation of this manifests further possibilities. It is these "possibilities" which although having a degree of definition as "maybe" are still probabilistic. This probabilistic has a degree of randomness.
I) All unmeasurability is self-evident.
All randomness is self evident as a "deficiency in observation". For example: "I cannot see over the cliff" implies a degree of deficiency in what I can observe, therefore my knowledge is reflective of "randomness".
J) All unmeasurables, as axioms, gain definition through relations. However all relations are dependent upon axioms.
All axioms are fundamentally something that cannot be reduce any further than themselves, they are "primitives". Because of this nature, they manifest definition as to what they are or contain by relations to other primitives.
ex: 1+3=4 gives a degree, not totality, of definition as to the natures of "1" "3" and "4" and from this relationship we understand some degree of their natures.
The problem that occurs is the "definition" through "relations" (or "relativity") occurs from structures that have no "value" on their own terms. This manifests a constant flux necessary to achieve definition. The problem occurs, that although flux as degrees of observability, it also has degrees of randomness as flux is a deficiency in stability.
H) Unmeasurability is unavoidable as unmeasurability is self-evident.
This deficiency in observability is unavoidable.
I) All self evidence is the manifestation of observation as measurement.
All axioms are basically points of measurement within knowledge. We use axioms to "measure" reality, or in other terms manifest ratios of proportionality.
J) All measurement is an extension of the self; therefore is a reflection of the self.
The problem occurs as all measurement is an extension of the "self" there is a degree of randomness within it. Which leads to the next point:
K) All measurement relies upon an element of randomness; therefore no measurement is proportional in its entirety.
This argument is not to be confused with axioms "only" having a random nature, but rather as axioms having an "inherent degree of randomness".
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023