| The following is a short position paper that attempts to characterize logic in terms of motion. It begins with a definition that establishes my axiomatic foundation. This is followed by a theorem that expresses a conceptualization justifying the characterization. This theorem is followed by a series of supporting propositions. These propositions argue toward a conclusion delineating an ontological-epistemological skeleton of the universe.
Definition logic the rules of inference.
Theorem With regard to the rules of inference, they tell us what we can further know as derived from what is already known.
If the progression from what is known to what logically follows can be conceived of as a phenomenon of movement, i.e. as a journey, then logic, in general, can be conceived of as a set of guidelines for movement from one specifiable point to another.
Underlying assumption The symbolic movement of logical notation corresponds with the phenomenal movement of physical objects.
Prop 1 logic articulates guidelines for movement from possible positions manifest to possible positions implied.
Prop 2 the logical picture of reality articulates the range of possible movements between points that can be made manifest.
Prop 3 When we say that something is logically impossible, we articulate a limit upon the known set of possible movements.
Prop 4 When we conceive of something logically impossible, we situate the set (range) of known possible movements within a larger, transcendent context, which context contains types of movement whose specificity and practical implementation (as viewed from the pre-transcendent context) are unknown.
Prop 5 logical impossibility is only absolute within a specified context. Even so, such specification is self-contradictory because the assertion of logical impossibility implies the existence of a transcendent context wherein the specific and practical implementation of the (conditionally, i.e. contextually specific) logically impossible movement (from one manifest position to another) is both possible and knowable. Were this not the case, logical impossibility would be inconceivable.
Prop 5 Ramifications by implication, this proposition posits a universe that is phenomenally (and therefore epistemically) open. The contrary to this proposition posits a universe that is phenomenally (and therefore epistemically) closed: if the assertion is made that the specificity and practical implementation of movement within the transcendent context, so conceived by implication via the assertion of a logical impossibility, cannot occur and therefore cannot be known, then the concomitant assertion of the assertion of logical impossibility is that the range of phenomenal possibility and its knowledge have absolute and final limits. This concomitant assertion entails an infinite range of ontological and epistemological limits that, in their totality, cannot be proven. Moreover, answers to questions pertaining to the implications of the human capacity to conceptualize logical impossibility will remain obscure.
Conclusion logical systems, being structured as overlapping, ascending contexts of possible movements, tell us that the universe is a temporal, animate hierarchy of graded fields of action. |