Multiple Form Logic

Stahis 2003 – Multiplicity in Multiple Form Logic

A is an entire expression, "X#1,Y".

See Stathis 2003 – Multiplicity in Multiple Form Logic :

The Axioms of Multiple Form Logic:

(A1) 1 , X = 1
("All is One, and All contains any distinction")

(A2) A # X # X = A
("A distinction distinguishing itself, is no distinction")

(A3) A , X # (A , B) = A , X # A
("What is real we may imagine, but need not imagine what is real")

With Stathis we can reduce the Pile_Object A to the logical expression "X#1,Y".

X,Y <=> Ui = Cp0 ' Cp1

A# <=> Cp2

The combinative pointers Cp0 and Cp1 are located side by side. The Cp2 "is" the "one-inside-another"-relation.

multiforms-Cp012.png

Advertisements

6 Gedanken zu „Multiple Form Logic“

  1. Hi Ralf,

    I spend several hours reading material about „Pile“ and many of your own postings and articles…

    My feeling is intense fascination. There is also one rather obvious thing, you may have also realized, long ago, about the connections between Multiple Forms and Pile: The fact that both systems deal with relations (or distinctions) which are (1) Multiple, and (2) based on undefined _distinct_ irreducible external entities, which are never assumed to be the same. In these systems, in both these systems, the logic of True and False can only be a construction, rather than something already given.

    It’s the human mind, which -by making… piles of associations- (hehe, pun intended) was able to generate the illusion of an Absolutely True and an Absolutely False logic state. My axiom 1 shows this…

    I’m still at the beginning, but your Pile system has made my mind work in new directions that can only be positive.

    More later
    George

  2. Intriguing material, but I realized there may be a small mistake in the way you understood my original MF expression, when you wrote:

    A is an entire expression, „X#1,Y“.

    Well, no, no, no… I wasn’t at all referrring to A, when I wrote this in the MFL site.
    🙂
    In that web-page I stated

    „the Multiple Form Logic expression „A #(X#1,Y),B“ can be depicted as follows, with a (green) boundary around A, which is (in reality) an entire expression, „X#1,Y“:

    (and the picture you gave followed).

    So I was not referring to A, but to the BOUNDARY XORed with A, when I wrote that it (the boundary) is an entire expression. The BOUNDARY itself can be an expression, of equal citizenship to any other expression. The expression „X#1,Y“ is _not_ A, but the boundary (with which A is xored).

    It probably isn’t important, as regards the rest. However, if you think about it closely, it’s extremely similar to the „flat“ nature of Pile relations; the idea being that any boundary can consist of an entire bundle of boundaries (internally)…

  3. Hi Ralf, I got involved in TOO many things, TOO many activities, and have also lost my account in yahoo because of some hacking invasion into it, etc.

    The reason I write this here, instead of a private e-mail, is to disclose for others too, who might be interested in these topics, my new e-mail

    omadeon AT hotmail.com

    Recently I also did a lot of… music, here in Greece, e.g. „mikis-trance,“ the new trance club we’re starting with friends and other DJ’s in central Athens, etc.
    (and also indulged in the… Greek blogging disease; simply TOO much -hehe).

    I wish you all the best
    George

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s