Reality.exe: The Logic of Existence
ARCANA-LOGICA
🌖︎ 🌗︎ 🌘︎ 🌑︎ ࣪𖤐 🌑︎ 🌔︎ 🌓︎ 🌒︎🧙🏽.
Philosophical study is an executable process: An encoded sequence of information and instructions engaged within cognitively structured representations… similar to a user’s interaction with an .EXE file upon double-clicking its icon ➡ ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ🖱 *click-click*
PARTS:
1. Reality.exe 𓆝 𓆟 𓆞
2. The Nature of Logic 𓇢𓆸
3. Uncovering Meaning via Logical Translation 𓆩📃𓆪
Reality is all objects, everywhere, all as one. Objects are collections of points — say a “point-structure” — even you, all your thoughts, every memory and little experience.
Points are cut-outs -ˋˏ✄┈┈┈┈ of backgrounds:
Points, Objects, and Things are all defined in contrast, by what they’re not, rather than are.
The totality of everything — the whole thing — is still only one distinct thing:
The cosmos is a cognitive unity, filled with multiplicities, each element of which are unified.
{Multiverse}Unity(Forces)
⇅
(Things)Multi{Universe}
More interestingly:
Reality includes forces that act unlike any other points in nature (e.g., subatomic particles, states of mind, gravitational fields, ideas, etc).
We can reasonably infer that thoughts are — and on a fundamental level — energetic: So then “minds” are closed descriptive energy loops ↑◯↓.
In practical words:
Understanding what we percieve, changes what we percieve 👁️⃤↷🔮.
𓇢 𓆸━━━ 𓇢 𓆸━━━ 𓇢 𓆸
So to understand minds, we must understand logic.
“Nature of Logic” argument:
P1) Reality is a point-structure.
P1.5) Things are points, and all points are objects.
P2) Forces are real things.
P2.5) Ideas are real forces.
(╯’□’)╯︵ ┻━┻
∴) ◻ Ideas are real objects.
def: {
∴ = “therefore”, ◻ = “It’s neccessarily the case that…”
(╯’□’)╯︵ ┻━┻ (table flip) = an offhand visual divider between the propositions and conclusion
}
Thoughts are “immaterial perceptions”…
… ones that can be symbolized and treated like palpable objects:
like in fantasies and dreams; the many gods; social ettiquette and philosophies; in psychoanalytic theories and emotions; intuitions and feeling based truths; skills and life experiences; etcetera 🗣⌨.
Presenting metaphysics COHERENTLY, proves to be a challenge for anyone who attempts it ヽ(ಥ_ಥ)ﾉ…
Natural spoken or written languages host misinterperative limitations….
“Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is — insofar as it is thinkable at all — primitive and muddled.” — Albert Einstein, 1949👴🏻
Philosophy without epistemology is too loose in meaning: leaving unsettled conflicts in belief and knowledge.
Ignorance shapes the world in ways we can’t predict,
i.e., ignorance is bad 😭….
yet,
formal logic grounds the roots of the tree of knowledge in reason:
i.e., logic is good 😄….
— ⋆⚛⋆⁺₊⋆𖥧☼｡𖦹 ° ☾𖥧⋆⁺₊⋆⚛ ⋆ —
Formal logic uses self-referential symbols to map philosophy to real-world objects:
a process known as “meta-language object-language mapping”.
More generally:
Philosophical Metalanguages replace normal syntax and semantics with precisely defined symbols, opening up the rigorous means of empirical science to metaphysics 🧪.
Metaphysics (MP): abstract theory about the non-material basis of reality.
Science (S): empirical study about the material basis of reality.
Philosophical Metalanguage (ML): language used to analyze other philosophical languages.
ML → (MP ↔ S)
🗝 FORMAL NOTATION KEY:
⊥ it is not the case that, ⊤ it is the case that;
∈ is an element of, ∉ is not an element of;
∃ some/there exists, ∀ every/universally;∧ and (conjunction), ∨ or (disjunction;
x and y are individuals;
if → then (condition);
given ⊢ I know that (entailment/proof);
↔ equivalence (bicondition);
𓀀 Define a universe of points:
‘P(x)’
"x is a point."
‘Q(x)’
"x has a propety Q."
‘R(x, y)’
"x is related to y."
𓀃 Axiomata:
‘∀x (P(x) → Q(y))’
"Every point has a property."
‘∀x ∀y (R(x, y) → R(y, x))’
"For any x and y, if x is related to y, that relation is symmetrical."
‘∃y (P(y) ∧ E(y))’
"There exists a point that can experience."
𓀕 Predications:
‘E(x, y)’
"x experiences y."
‘U(y)’
"The experience y is in the process of understanding."
‘∃x ∃y (F(Ux, y))’
"There’s a form of experience that influences understanding."
‘∃x ∃y (F(y, Ux))’
"There’s a form of understanding that influences experience."
‘F(y) → U(x, y)’
"Forms of experience predicate understandings of experience."
𓀖 Define a metaverse of points:
‘F(x)’
"x belongs to the formal realm.”
‘L(x)’
"x is an expression in formal logic."
𓀎 Axiomata:
‘∀x (F(x) → L(x))’
"Every object in the formal realm is a logical expression."
‘∀x (L(x) → F(x))’
"Every logical expression belongs to the formal realm."
⊢ We understand experiences through formal logic.
