Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Proof of God


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
206 replies to this topic

#1 MySiddhi

MySiddhi

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 17 July 2008 - 10:07 PM

The proof has one definition, one Axiom, seven logical Tautologies with ten corollaries, one Deduction, five Inductions, with (credits), and [attributes].

Definition;
By God, I mean an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite pantheistic energy that is the generating and sustaining cause of that which exists.

(A1) Propositions cannot be both true and false. (Parmenides)
The axiom of non-contradiction is required to prove anything at all.

(T1) Nothing is nothing. (Victor Hugo)
(A ≡ A)∧(A → A)∧(idA: AA)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) (Mars Turner)
Four senses of “is” are meant here; of identity, of implication, of predication, and of existence;
A ≡ A “nothing equals nothing” Law of Identity
A → A “nothing involves nothing” Reflexivity of Implication
idA: AA “nothing has the property of nothing” Identity Morphism
(∃Ax)(A = x) “nothing exists as nothing” Reflexivity of Existence

(T2) Nothing is uninvolved. - Something is self-causal. (Mars Turner)
(A ≡ A)∧(A → A) [consciousness]
nothing equals nothing AND nothing implies nothing
ergo nothing is not implicated with something
ergo everything is implicated with something
ergo something is self-implicated
Note; Implication suggests causation and is correlation. When it is impossible for there to be missing variables correlation necessarily is causation, as the only reason correlation would not be causation is the possibility of missing variables.
ergo nothing is not causal with something Q.E.D.
ergo everything is causal with something
ergo something is self-causal Q.E.D.
Note; Self-causal means self-deterministic or teleological. Self-causation is consciousness!

(T3) Nothing is nondescript. - Something is self-descriptive. (Christopher Langan)
(A ≡ A)∧(idA: AA) [intentional]

Note; Endomorphic self-description is self-manifestation!

(T4) Nothing is nonexistence. - Something is essentially existence. (Parmenides)
(A ≡ A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x)

(T5) Nothing is made of nothing. - Everything is made of something. (Parmenides)
(A → A)∧(idA: AA) [pantheism]

(T6) Nothing is the cause of nothing. - Something is the cause of all things. (Mars Turner)
(A → A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) [omnipotent]

(T7) Nowhere and at no time has nothing existed. - Something has always existed everywhere. (Mars)
(idA: AA)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) [eternal, invincible, perfect, omnipresent]

Note; Something that has always existed is eternal. That which is eternal cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore it is invincible. Because it is eternal it also has an unchanging nature and this while embodying the existence of all things [T5] it therefore is perfect.

(D1) One thing is self-causal, self-descriptive, has the essence of existence, that everything is made of, that is the cause of all things, and has always existed everywhere. (Spinoza) [monism]
Proof--The true definition of a thing neither involves nor expresses anything beyond the nature of the thing defined. From this it follows that--No definition implies or expresses a certain number of individuals, inasmuch as it expresses nothing beyond the nature of the thing defined. There is necessarily for each individual existent thing a cause why it should exist [T6]. This cause of existence must either be contained in the nature and definition of the thing defined [T2], or must be postulated apart from such definition. If a given number of individual things exist in nature, there must be some cause for the existence of exactly that number, neither more nor less. Consequently, the cause of each of them, must necessarily be sought externally to each individual thing. It therefore follows that, everything which may consist of several individuals must have an external cause. And, as it has been shown already that existence appertains to the nature of something [T4], existence must necessarily be included in its definition; and from its definition alone existence must be deducible. But from its definition we cannot infer the existence of several things; therefore it follows that there is only one thing that is self-causal, self-descriptive, has the essence of existence, that everything is made of, that is the cause of all things, and has always existed everywhere. Q.E.D.

Note; Consciousness is a fundamental property of reality [T2 Note & D1], and is the cause of the creation of all things [D1]. Therefore God is conscious being and humans partake in this essence of the creative source to the extent that they are conscious or self-causal.

(I1) E = m⋅c^2 (Jules Poincaré & Olinto Pretto) [immanent]
Mass-Energy Equivalence; bradyons have transformational pathways with gauge bosons; all spatial things are forms of energy.

(I2) E = Δt⋅c^2 (Edmund Whittaker & Thomas Bearden) [transcendent]
Delta Time-Energy Equivalence; tachyons have transformational pathways with gauge bosons; all temporal things are forms of energy.

(I3) E = (h⋅ω)/2 (Max Planck & Werner Heisenberg) [infinite, omnipresent, perfect]
Zero-Point Energy; we have a contribution of 1/2 hbar omega from every single point in space resulting in a substantial infinity as well as making energy spatially infinite. Because it is infinite it is unchanging in it's nature, while embodying the existence of all things, it therefore is perfect.

(I4) ∑E = Et+Ek+Ep (Julius Mayer) [eternal, invincible]
Conservation of Energy; energy cannot be created nor destroyed, therefore it is temporally infinite.

(I5) P = ∫ ∇E dv (Mars Turner) [all-power-full]
Power Integral; power involves the transformation of energy, therefore the infinite, omnipresent, and eternal energy is all-power-full.

Note; The definitive and causal mechanism for mind-matter interactions (Mars Turner);
Mind (scalar temporal energy; tachyons) and Matter (vector spatial energy; bradyons) are dually related harmonic convergents of each other. i.e. The destructive interference of vector potentials creates a scalar wave, and the destructive interference of scalar waves creates a vector potential.

Experiments demonstrating the mind-matter mechanism; (p < = 5x10^-2 is statistically significant)

sense of being stared at (p < 1x10^-25) Biology Forum
Articles and Papers - Scientific Papers - The Sense of Being Stared At - Confirmed by Simple Experiments

telephone telepathy (p = 4x10^-16) Journal of the Society for Psychical Research
Articles and Papers - Scientific Papers - Telepathy - Experimental Tests for Telephone Telepathy

telekinesis on REG (p = 3.5x10^-13) Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
http://www.princeton...orrelations.pdf

mass psychic control (p = 2x10^-9) Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy
ISTPP: Crime Prevention

remote viewing (p = 9.1x10^-8) Division of Statistics University of California Davis
AIR : An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioning : Jessica Utts

By, Mars Sterling Turner

#2 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8,018 posts

Posted 17 July 2008 - 10:34 PM

Um. In Logic 101 we learn that proofs based on Tautologies are invalid by definition. Since your entire post bases its logic on the initial set of Tautologies you present, it has no validity.

I'd encourage you again to read our rules. If your primary purpose here is to "prove the existence of God" then you may find yourself unwelcome.

To reiterate, the purpose of our prohibition of Proselytizing is that it is offensive not because we wish to stifle expressions of religious faith, but because it is forcing personal beliefs on others. We no more tolerate forcing atheists to "accept God" than we tolerate trying to argue the superiority of one religious belief over another.

I never told my religion nor scrutinize that of another. I never attempted to make a convert nor wished to change another's creed. I have judged of others' religion by their lives, for it is from our lives and not from our words that our religion must be read. By the same test must the world judge me, :phones:
Buffy

#3 MySiddhi

MySiddhi

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 17 July 2008 - 11:27 PM

Um. In Logic 101 we learn that proofs based on Tautologies are invalid by definition. Since your entire post bases its logic on the initial set of Tautologies you present, it has no validity.


Proofs based on absolute truth are invalid by definition? LOL

Why that is rather interesting!

Logical tautology is Logical truth; A statement which is necessarily true because, by virtue of its logical form, it cannot be used to make a false assertion.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to create a proof without using tautologies whether you found it on ad hoc axioms or not. A tautology is a THEOREM in propositional calculus!

You should consider asking for your money back if you paid tuition... because you obviously didn't learn the basics and according to you... you were taught gross falsehoods.

#4 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8,018 posts

Posted 17 July 2008 - 11:54 PM

Logical tautology is Logical truth; A statement which is necessarily true because, by virtue of its logical form, it cannot be used to make a false assertion.

Quite true! I needed to check your meaning because quite frankly, your "Tautologies" are of the Rhetorical type: "In rhetoric, a tautology is an unnecessary repetition of meaning, using different words that effectively say the same thing twice."

Take for example, "Nothing is nothing" (for which I'd refer you to the link in my signature below): The Law of Identity provides no useful substantiation for any proof defining the concept of "nothing." In fact it can be quite misleading when "A" is ill-defined, in which case, it becomes easy to demonstrate (see the aforementioned thread) that "A = ~A"

Similarly take: "Nothing is uninvolved. - Something is self-causal." "Nothing is uninvolved" is hardly a logical Tautology, however it is a Rhetorical one. At this level it is clear that an anthropomorphic projection of the word "nothing" may imply "uninvolved" and such a statement is often assumed in analyzing say affairs of state (e.g. "a power vacuum"), however it is limited in its explanatory value as it is simply restating a similar and tenuously related concept. Trying to call this a Logical Tautology however is beyond comprehension, because there are so many counterexamples (e.g. "a power vacuum" can result in catastrophic effects on a social system). The implication posed: "Something is self-causal" is not equivalent to saying "not A" and thus adding it also does not create a Tautology.

If you expect to be taken seriously, you are going to need to provide a much more detailed explanation of why you insist that these givens are indeed Tautologies.

Fortunately a review of your oeuvre on the Internet indicates that this is the sum total of your published "research," so fortunately it appears that we may be lucky enough to have this be all we will hear of your tortured logic....

I should venture to assert that the most pervasive fallacy of philosophic thinking goes back to neglect of context, :phones:
Buffy

#5 MySiddhi

MySiddhi

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 18 July 2008 - 01:46 AM

Quite true! I needed to check your meaning because quite frankly, your "Tautologies" are of the Rhetorical type: "In rhetoric, a tautology is an unnecessary repetition of meaning, using different words that effectively say the same thing twice."


A rhetorical tautology is a logical tautology when used in LOGIC with reference to the semantics of the proposition.

I provide the exact propositional formula for each tautology so that it is impossible for anyone that actually has knowledge of logic to claim they are not logical tautologies.

Take for example, "Nothing is nothing" (for which I'd refer you to the link in my signature below): The Law of Identity provides no useful substantiation for any proof defining the concept of "nothing." In fact it can be quite misleading when "A" is ill-defined, in which case, it becomes easy to demonstrate (see the aforementioned thread) that "A = ~A"


"nothing" is the logical negation of "thing", do you understand this?... Are you seriously going to argue for some ad hoc semantics on "thing"? lol

The Law of Identity says; "nothing equals nothing"

That is a profound philosophical statement. I am sorry if you can't comprehend it.

Similarly take: "Nothing is uninvolved. - Something is self-causal." "Nothing is uninvolved" is hardly a logical Tautology, however it is a Rhetorical one. At this level it is clear that an anthropomorphic projection of the word "nothing" may imply "uninvolved" and such a statement is often assumed in analyzing say affairs of state (e.g. "a power vacuum"), however it is limited in its explanatory value as it is simply restating a similar and tenuously related concept. Trying to call this a Logical Tautology however is beyond comprehension, because there are so many counterexamples (e.g. "a power vacuum" can result in catastrophic effects on a social system). "Something is self-causal" is not equivalent to saying "not A" and thus adding it also does not create a Tautology.


Involvement or implication comes from the Reflexivity of Implication tautology;

A → A “nothing involves nothing”

Are you claiming that nothing is involved with something?

Saying that "nothing is uninvolved" implies that all things are involved or implicated with each other, creating a unity that is self involved! Refer to super string theory if you need help on this.

I think much of this is beyond your comprehension dear.

"a power vacuum" is a metaphoric figure of speech. When dealing with LOGIC you must use LITERAL expressions.

If you expect to be taken seriously, you are going to need to provide a much more detailed explanation of why you insist that these givens are indeed Tautologies.


Hopefully by now you should have some idea of what a logical tautology is. lol Since I am the one teaching you here your silly challenges are pure comedy... keep it up!

Fortunately a review of your oeuvre on the Internet indicates that this is the sum total of your published "research," so fortunately it appears that we may be lucky enough to have this be all we will hear of your tortured logic....


At the moment this is my magnum opus. It is the product of years of research... it is one of the most profound philosophical pieces ever written given that it is extremely geometrically concise as well as completely founded on absolute truth.

I should venture to assert that the most pervasive fallacy of philosophic thinking goes back to neglect of context,
Buffy


I don't think we will be surprised if I end up handing you your ***ertions several times in this thread.

#6 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8,018 posts

Posted 18 July 2008 - 02:24 AM

"nothing" is the logical negation of "thing", do you understand this?... Are you seriously going to argue for some ad hoc semantics on "thing"? lol

You have not defined "nothing" and you have not defined "thing". Because of this, the "A" you are using is undefined and cannot be accepted as an accurate representation of reality.

When ill-defined, we can indeed have both A=A and A=~A, in which case A=A is not a Tautology.

I would direct you to the thread by our illustrious Doctordick entitled "What Can We Know of Reality?" This is really a prerequisite to even beginning to try to validate your "proof."

"a power vacuum" is a metaphoric figure of speech. When dealing with LOGIC you must use LITERAL expressions.

"Nothing" is not literal! It requires definition! As you can see from the thread I have directed you to on the topic it is a word with endless nuances and contradictions.

In that thread we have played endlessly with the word nothing. "I see nothing": is nothing the absence of anything? Then how can you see nothing on the Earth when what most people mean is that they see "air." Air is certainly not nothing.

To get this back to what appears to be your ultimate goal here, when many people look for God, they see nothing, thus your Tautology "Nothing is nonexistence. - Something is essentially existence" would seem to provide perfect proof of the non-existence of God. Q.E.D. :phones:

The point is that if its not provably "literal" you are absolutely correct, it would have no validity in finding truth values to all of your statements of Predicate Calculus.

In other words, its meaningless.

You should have listened to Bob Jones!

At the moment this is my magnum opus. It is the product of years of research... it is one of the most profound philosophical pieces ever written given that it is extremely geometrically concise as well as completely founded on absolute truth.

My, "humble," aren't we?

For the sake of a few fine imaginative or domestic passages, are we to be bullied into a certain philosophy engendered in the whims of an egotist? :phones:
Buffy

#7 coldcreation

coldcreation

    Resident Bright

  • Members
  • 1,576 posts

Posted 18 July 2008 - 02:25 AM

...
(I1) E = m?c^2 (Jules Poincaré & Olinto Pretto) [immanent]
Mass-Energy Equivalence; bradyons have transformational pathways with gauge bosons; all spatial things are forms of energy.

...




With all due respect, I clearly disagree with every assessment articulated in the opening post.

Mathematically pleasing ideas have never proved or disproved the existence (or nonexistence) of superior conscious beings, simply because they are beyond the scope of the physical world, beyond numbers, beyond equivalences. Mathematics is based on somewhat obvious statements that quantities are identical. For example, 3, 1 + 2, and 7 – 4 are the same. Another mathematically pleasing equivalence is E = mc2. It would be a false statement to claim that God and Nature are equal. By definition, a state of divinity is very different from the patterns of behavior observed in the environment, or what is deduced from experience.

Furthermore, to attribute E = mc^2 to Poincaré and Pretto is like trying to attribute Cubism to Cézanne and african art. The fact is, neither Cézanne's work nor african art is Cubist. The genial idea comes from amalgamation. That is why Picasso is considered the father of Cubism, and Einstein the father of relativity.

The attempt to rationalize something irrational, or similarly, the attempt to explain the supernatural with logic (i.e, to explain god using scientific terminology), is like try to describe physical processes with religious arguments.

It simply doesn't work.




The existence of god is based on belief; it is ingrained within the inner-world of individuals: inherent only within the unbounded imagination of the human psyche. It is for those believers in god to face the fact that the object of their believe is a human invention.

Science is based on observations of the external-world. It follows from the very discourse of nature itself.


if fundamental intuition leads to sixth sense adherences we should better perhaps rely on experimental and observational data to guide us. It is not because millions or billions of people believe in a Unique Being at the Top that one exists.

That is not to say that imagination is outside the physical world: Nor that imagination cannot accomplish the goals projected by pious beliefs.

Only with the accurate knowledge of the natural laws, combined with firm understanding of our association to evolution fostered by objective observation, can there be productive growth, an increased capacity for positive human relations and peaceful interaction. Knowing the facts relevant to the underlying principles of nature will lead to a better understanding of the general notions of personality, creativity: the genetic and ontogenic factors in growth and evolution; recognition of environmental, internal or individual, unconscious and conscious factors as determinant of behavior; the idea that personality is connected to and indivisible from the physical laws; the recognition that human beings are social animals; and that the cyclical budding phases of life mirror synchronization between the developing individual, his societal environment and the evolving universe.






CC

#8 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 7,123 posts

Posted 18 July 2008 - 07:06 AM

(A ≡ A)∧(A → A)∧(idA: AA)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) (Mars Turner)

MySiddhi, either your post is nonsensical, or I don’t understand your notation.

Please write the quoted proposition in plain English. For example, I would write it:
“A implies and is implied by A, or A implies A, or the property A valued A implies A, or there exists Ax such that A equals x”
Although a tautology (any proposition of the form (x ≡ x)∧y is), this doesn’t make sense to me.

Before any communication can occur, writer and reader must understand the writer’s notation. At present, I’m unable to read more than a few lines of your post.

#9 nutronjon

nutronjon

    Suspended

  • Members
  • 619 posts

Posted 18 July 2008 - 08:13 AM

Um. In Logic 101 we learn that proofs based on Tautologies are invalid by definition. Since your entire post bases its logic on the initial set of Tautologies you present, it has no validity.

I'd encourage you again to read our rules. If your primary purpose here is to "prove the existence of God" then you may find yourself unwelcome.

To reiterate, the purpose of our prohibition of Proselytizing is that it is offensive not because we wish to stifle expressions of religious faith, but because it is forcing personal beliefs on others. We no more tolerate forcing atheists to "accept God" than we tolerate trying to argue the superiority of one religious belief over another.

I never told my religion nor scrutinize that of another. I never attempted to make a convert nor wished to change another's creed. I have judged of others' religion by their lives, for it is from our lives and not from our words that our religion must be read. By the same test must the world judge me, :phones:
Buffy



:phones::lol::turtle::lol: Talk about being biased and standing a firm stand against freedom of speech. Why is there a theology thread if no one can argue God exist? Why bate people with this forum and with questions? What is the purpose of this forum if no one is allowed to say God exist?

#10 nutronjon

nutronjon

    Suspended

  • Members
  • 619 posts

Posted 18 July 2008 - 08:16 AM

MySiddhi, either your post is nonsensical, or I don’t understand your notation.

Please write the quoted proposition in plain English. For example, I would write it:
“A implies and is implied by A, or A implies A, or the property A valued A implies A, or there exists Ax such that A equals x”
Although a tautology (any proposition of the form (x ≡ x)∧y is), this doesn’t make sense to me.

Before any communication can occur, writer and reader must understand the writer’s notation. At present, I’m unable to read more than a few lines of your post.


This is an objective response to the orginal post and I wish all responses were so objective. Then discussion could actually happen, and we could correct or develop our ideas. I very much appreciate your approach to the subject.

#11 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8,018 posts

Posted 18 July 2008 - 09:56 AM

:lol::lol::lol::lol: Talk about being biased and standing a firm stand against freedom of speech. Why is there a theology thread if no one can argue God exist? Why bate people with this forum and with questions? What is the purpose of this forum if no one is allowed to say God exist?

Its unfortunately becoming a bit more than disingenuous of you continue to claim unfair persecution in the face of the oft-times restated explanation of the distinctions made by our rules, which are more accepting than your slanderous and false claims, made all the more egregious by the fact that you have very non-sensically and obnoxiously blamed one of our most religious members of doing this "baiting."

You should be ashamed of yourself.

People are absolutely able to say the words "I believe God exists" on this Forum. If you are going to say "the existence of God is a Fact" then you have crossed over into the realm of science, and it requires proof.

What MySiddhi is doing here is actually *supported* insofar as he is trying to provide proof, as opposed to what you have done in so far here which is to *demand* *acceptance* of the existence of God, which is non-scientific and considered Proselytizing.

The fact that he has provided a proof of course means that it can be critiqued according to the Scientific Method, and that's what's going on here: while he's been warned about the consequences of demanding acceptance of calls to unsupportable metaphysics, he's being given free reign to try to support his proof.

To try to make this even clearer, please consider the following point you just made to coldcreation:

Sincerely, why is it a false statement to claim that God and Nature are equal? By what authority do we separate God from nature?

"By what authority" is indeed the point. For those who hold different opinions, you are *demanding* that *you* are the sole authority.

The issue simply comes down to the fact that "God is Nature" is an opinion.

We consider it very offensive to demand that other people agree with your opinion.

Boerseun believes strongly that there's no evidence of God and thus that God does not exist. I believe that God is Nature, but that God really doesn't care much about us, and if its a Him, then he's just running his Tonka truck off the top steps while if its a Her then she's probably much more interested in the ducks and bunnies. Jim Colyer believes Christ is the Savior of us all.

What links all of the three of us is that we all understand that these beliefs are opinions, and that allows all of us to get along quite well together here on this forum.

By continuing to stir the pot and try to claim persecution and create conflict, you make everyone here quite angry at you no matter what their beliefs are.

Don't worry, I'm quite patient. I'll continue to try to explain this to you until you understand.

Why, he is the prince's jester, :)
Buffy

#12 MySiddhi

MySiddhi

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 18 July 2008 - 09:59 AM

By definition, a state of divinity is very different from the patterns of behavior observed in the environment, or what is deduced from experience.


That is your definition.

to attribute E = mc^2 to Poincaré and Pretto is like trying to attribute ...., and Einstein the father of relativity.


Poincaré was the first to derive the mass-energy equivalence equation as well as the Lorentz transformations of the principle of relativity. Pretto was the first to explain; "the matter of any body contains in it a sum of energy represented by the entire mass of the body". Even the gravitational equations were first derived by Hilbert.

So, maybe someone was a gross and disgusting plagiarist?

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources" - Albert Einstein

the attempt to explain the supernatural with logic


Nowhere have I said that God is "supernatural". God may have non-physical aspects but that does not mean that God is not natural.

Only with the accurate knowledge of the natural laws, combined with firm understanding of our association to evolution fostered by objective observation, can there be productive growth, an increased capacity for positive human relations and peaceful interaction. Knowing the facts relevant to the underlying principles of nature will lead to a better understanding of the general notions of personality, creativity: the genetic and ontogenic factors in growth and evolution; recognition of environmental, internal or individual, unconscious and conscious factors as determinant of behavior; the idea that personality is connected to and indivisible from the physical laws; the recognition that human beings are social animals; and that the cyclical budding phases of life mirror synchronization between the developing individual, his societal environment and the evolving universe.


And all the more so if you had a respectful AWE of nature.

#13 MySiddhi

MySiddhi

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 18 July 2008 - 10:10 AM

MySiddhi, either your post is nonsensical, or I don’t understand your notation.

Please write the quoted proposition in plain English. For example, I would write it:
“A implies and is implied by A, or A implies A, or the property A valued A implies A, or there exists Ax such that A equals x”
Although a tautology (any proposition of the form (x ≡ x)∧y is), this doesn’t make sense to me.

Before any communication can occur, writer and reader must understand the writer’s notation. At present, I’m unable to read more than a few lines of your post.


My equation;

(A ≡ A)∧(A → A)∧(idA: AA)∧(∃Ax)(A = x)

reads as follows in plain English;

(nothing equals nothing) AND (nothing involves nothing) AND (nothing has the property of nothing) AND (nothing exists as nothing)

I look forward to our discussion.

#14 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8,018 posts

Posted 18 July 2008 - 12:21 PM

My equation;

(A ≡ A)∧(A → A)∧(idA: AA)∧(∃Ax)(A = x)

reads as follows in plain English;

(nothing equals nothing) AND (nothing involves nothing) AND (nothing has the property of nothing) AND (nothing exists as nothing)

I am not sure you can validate this clause:

(idA: AA)

which in stricter logical terms should be translated as "A has the property that A implies A."

I believe you will find that this is an excellent example of a case where Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem holds: (A → A) is a stated Axiom of the system (or should be, and it is a weakness of your presentation, perhaps caused by your desire for economy), and thus cannot without justification be said to be an inherent property of A. In certain formal systems it certainly could be, but you need to show why in your own formal system it should. What you are doing here is attempting to remove an axiom by making A its own logical meta-property. It could definitely be useful in your proof if this was the case because it allows you to bootstrap the truth-value of A, however I believe you will find that Gödel would view this as an invalid mechanism for circumventing his First Theory of Incompleteness, because it is inherently undecidable unless you add it as an Axiom.

Axioms of course are "givens" and thus their truth value is assumed, although they can be in conflict with any concrete application of the formal system.

-----------------------------------------

On a separate issue, I note that the only Axiom in your system is:

(A1) Something cannot be true and false in the same respect at the same time.

Which is reasonable in the colloquial sense, with the exception of the above-discussed issue of the lack of specificity about the meaning of the term "something."

However one of the implications of your claimed Tautologies is the statement:

Nothing = ~Something

And thus we can conclude from your Axiom:

~(A1) = "Nothing" can be true and false at the same time

Thus making all of your Tautologies undecidable!

The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us, :)
Buffy

#15 MySiddhi

MySiddhi

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 18 July 2008 - 02:31 PM

I am not sure you can validate this clause:

(idA: A → A)

which in stricter logical terms should be translated as "A has the property that A implies A."

I believe you will find that this is an excellent example of a case where Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem holds: (A → A) is a stated Axiom of the system (or should be, and it is a weakness of your presentation, perhaps caused by your desire for economy), and thus cannot without justification be said to be an inherent property of A. In certain formal systems it certainly could be, but you need to show why in your own formal system it should. What you are doing here is attempting to remove an axiom by making A its own logical meta-property. It could definitely be useful in your proof if this was the case because it allows you to bootstrap the truth-value of A, however I believe you will find that Gödel would view this as an invalid mechanism for circumventing his First Theory of Incompleteness, because it is inherently undecidable unless you add it as an Axiom.

Axioms of course are "givens" and thus their truth value is assumed, although they can be in conflict with any concrete application of the formal system.


(idA: AA)

This formula is called the Identity Morphism... feel free to look it up.

Gödel's theorems are only relevant to axiomatic deduction systems. I only have one deduction and it is natural (needing no axioms).

On a separate issue, I note that the only Axiom in your system is:

(A1) Something cannot be true and false in the same respect at the same time.

Which is reasonable in the colloquial sense, with the exception of the above-discussed issue of the lack of specificity about the meaning of the term "something."

However one of the implications of your claimed Tautologies is the statement:

Nothing = ~Something

And thus we can conclude from your Axiom:

~(A1) = "Nothing" can be true and false at the same time

Thus making all of your Tautologies undecidable!

The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us,
Buffy


Nothing can be true and false in the same respect at the same time.

My tautologies aren't nothing silly. So, this statement is actually true as a variation of my axiom.

#16 gareth

gareth

    Thinking

  • Members
  • 28 posts

Posted 18 July 2008 - 02:34 PM

Trying to define a formula for this may be a bit like grasping around in the dark for something that may not even be there, but MySiddhi's efforts are more in the spirit of science (i.e. reaching out into the unknown), and certainly more courageous, than those of Dawkins.

Disproving the existence of a supernatural being is like shooting fish in a barrel.

#17 MySiddhi

MySiddhi

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 18 July 2008 - 02:42 PM

Trying to define a formula for this may be a bit like grasping around in the dark for something that may not even be there, but MySiddhi's efforts are more in the spirit of science (i.e. reaching out into the unknown), and certainly more courageous, than those of Dawkins.

Disproving the existence of a supernatural being is like shooting fish in a barrel.


One can also understand from my proof that it is necessarily a logical impossiblity that a supernatural being exists.