An Exercise on Advanced Epistemology [or Logic as Social Networking]

original post

exercise

TRANSCRIPT

i know the argument well. it strength comes from noticing a fallacy of reduction in stipulations derived from an axiom – a law of non-contradiction needs the object to be equivalent to itself to be tautological, but that axiom (that A≡A) comes from a different order of thought, its epistemological origin is from a different nature, so you need to prove that one is contained by the other, which invoques another true proposition, and that to another known truth, and to another to infinite, so it's logically absurd. mathematics as a corps supports this by its incompleteness.

any general solution and every particular solution dissolves your examples since, even in contradiction, the sum still exists, so we know that existence persists ad absurdum as well and in the same rate, proving non-contradiction true – epistemology – and disproving simple cases by its particular nature, proving any and every one case to be absurd in itself – via either logic or anthropology. 

i gotta go to work now. this was fun.