What language carries meaning, and how is it defined? Are tautologies meaningless, or meaningful? How does a tautologous system compare to an …
Ontological Mathematics & Theory of Everything 3b: The Meaning of Tautology
/—
What a nice education!
My work is primarily about the epistemological condition of the two routes, and how that applies to activity in the world.
Though I never really thought about it in the way that this guy is putting forth, and I’m not haven’t been very familiar with Godel. however, his discussion about tautology and axiomatic Systems really support what I’m talking about when I talk about orientation.
Enjoy! 
And. Happy resurrection day!
4 responses to “Rp and comment on Ontological Mathematics & Theory of Everything 3b: The Meaning of Tautology”
Thanks for the share. I liked the Saussurean bit about 11 minutes in.
It’s interesting how the guy threads and pieces of his politics. Lol
The issue that I’ve point out and that “The two routes“ really helps show, is the contradiction involved in him even presenting that situation.
In order for what he’s talking about to have any sort of validity at all he must have some sort of faith in that there’s some underlying presumption that either the axiomatic or the Tatia logical exemplifications of representations must be indicating. He, of course is saying that existences tautological. OK. But he’s not really explaining how it’s possible that he could even know of anything axiomatically. What I’m saying is that inherently the terms that we must be using are actually reflection what actually exists, but that human beings have an ability to deny what actually exists for the sake of justifying its manner of existing. This kind of “enclosed“ manner of justifying existence of its own existence is what I say calls for the ability for faith to function. Because without that faith what this guy is saying has no substance. It has no ability to mean anything to me at all. And so ultimately for him to bring in pieces of his politics, or to say that tautology talks about what actually exists where axiomatic systems do not, merely begs the question of his Ability to present us this wonderful presentation.
I like this distinction on Stackexchange, though I find his example of axiom left wanting, or at least othewise limited to 2-dimensional space.
Here is how I would define each of these terms (with examples):
Tautology: A statement which is necessarily true given its logical structure and definitions.
Example 1: I was born in the United States, or I was not born in the United States. (True by logical structure.)
Example 2: All dogs are animals. (True by definition of terms.)
Axiom: A statement that is assumed to be true without rigorous proof (I would add, potentially using un-defined terms).
Example: If two distinct lines are not parallel, they intersect at exactly one point.
Premises: A set of statements which, when assumed true, are (supposedly) used to (logically) lead to a set of true statements (called the conclusion or consequent).
Example 1: Consider the following argument. “If today is Monday, tomorrow is Tuesday. Today is Monday. Therefore, tomorrow is Tuesday.” In this example, we have two premises (1. “If today is Monday, tomorrow is Tuesday” and 2. “Today is Monday”) and one conclusion/consequent (i.e. “Tomorrow is Tuesday”).
Example 2: Note that a statement being a premise does not require that statement to be true or false, nor do they absolutely require that the conclusion necessarily follows (though in any good argument, the conclusion does logically follow). Consider the following. “If today is Tuesday, tomorrow is Saturday. Today is Thursday. Therefore yesterday was Sunday.”
In this case, we again have two premises (1. “If today is Tuesday, tomorrow is Saturday” and 2. “Today is Thursday”) as well as one conclusion (i.e. “Yesterday was Sunday.”).
Ref: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3122181/tautology-vs-axiom-vs-premise
Well, he’s drawing from Godel. And another person. But Godel Proof is that any axiomatic statement cannot be true, simply because the premise is that one is using to say something axiomatically is not contained within the axiomatic proof.
And when you think about life and society and how people get along and what people think it’s true, what they are usually and regularly drawing upon is axiomatic thinking.
For example, all of those statements you just gave me is based in axiomatic thinking. Even your proposal of what a tautology is. Because you are relying upon certain assumptions about what language is able to do, but also between Whatever might be a thought and language. Whatever it is, there is an assumption involved with it that you cannot communicate to me no matter how hard you try. It is always based in your assumption that I am being able to know something true by virtue of the words that you use, if you use them precisely enough.
That method is axiomatic. It is based in axioms.
Atagi on the other hand is stating something that does not rely upon an assumption. It is saying that such and such equals such and such.
And within the condition of the tautology it is true.
Axioms do not use that kind of understanding. Rely on something, which if I can draw from a lot of other philosophies, Something that is withheld. Whether it’s nothingness, void, body without organs, parallax gap, a spirit, soul, some thing that is left out of the communication is axiomatic, based in axioms, axiomatic reasoning.