New Milestone!

Stephen Yablo, known as 'Yablo diablo' for publishing many papers all at the same time, has recently viewed one of my documents on Academia. I thought I'd share that. He's in the Top 2% on Academia:

Here is a link to my Academia page: http://www.southernct.academia/NathanCoppedge

3000 monthly views on the blog for the first time!

Yay!

Now a Most-Viewed Writer in Logic

On Quora:

 

Most Viewed Writers in Logic

The 10 writers with the most answer views in the last 30 days.

   

 • Endorse

Views

Jos Buurman

View 6 Answers • Endorse

Views

Alan Bustany, Trinity Wrangler, Pure Mathematician

View 66 Answers • Endorse

Views

Joshua Engel

View 57 Answers

Views

Neil Coleman, PhD in Philosophy of Science and Logic

View 14 Answers • Endorse

Views

Nathan Ketsdever

View 191 Answers • Endorse

Views

Dan Piponi

View 21 Answers • Endorse

Views

David Joyce

View 114 Answers • Endorse

Views

Quinn Rusnell, specialized in logic and language in philosophy

View 81 Answers • Endorse

Views

Marcus Geduld

View 43 Answers • Endorse7

Views

Nathan Coppedge, Aspiring Systemologist.

View 40 Answers

QUOTES EARLY JANUARY 2016

"Efficiency is modular 2 in all universal systems of logic that do not concern lies."
---Nathan Coppedge

"What ruins history is distractions." ---Nathan Coppedge

"The new variable becomes the new formalism in three-point logic." ---Nathan Coppedge

"In four-point logics, the product is five." ---Nathan Coppedge

"Possibility seems to pose a kind of materiality. Even if it is not probability." ---Nathan Coppedge

"It is clear enough that what Kant meant by transcendent was that something
belonged to someone's senses, the 'zero' of things, where what Kant meant
by empirically extended things was applications given  by extended
space or energy that does not belong distinctly to consciousness,
and what is meant of external is a conceptual thing unless it is real
in the same reason that all other things are real."

---Nathan Coppedge, Response to G.E. Moore's defense of 'things exist in space'.


"Logical atomism in the sense that Bertrand Russell meant it, was the density
of symbols, what I now call 'complexity'. This concept immediately
pre-figures the physical concept of black holes."

---Nathan Coppedge, Reaction to Bertrand Russell's Lecture on Logical Atomism.


"For every x = y, contrary to modern philosophers such as Putnam, it is not
necessary that x = y, because there could be some specialized property that
serves as evidence of a growing contradiction (relativistic semantics in
Einstein's sense). For example, x = y does not always implicate x = y, only
x = y under some condition. Therefore, there is nothing absolute about
x = y. The only absolute is absolute (x, y, z, etc.) or absolute x ~= y
(an unambiguous relation called an entity, a measurable non-relation called
a difference, an ambiguous degree called an application, or a condition of
absoluteness in which absoluteness can be unambiguously measured, such as
by containment, infinity, typology, or realism)."

---Nathan Coppedge, Reaction to Kripke's Identity and Necessity.


"Can a similar identity be different in an otherwise identical world illustrates determinism? No, because differences are determined by the will... There may be no difference between reason and the will, if the will can be determined, and will may be more significant at times than a given person's potential for reason..."

---Nathan Coppedge, tangent on Hilary Putnam's Meaning and Reference
(Putnam is a man BTW. Really. Check Wikipedia).


"People say I.Q. is paradise. But the corollary is disillusionment. With this insight, I could hypothesize that I was a brain-in-a-vat, beginning in the 1980's. My father, too, might be a brain in a vat. With this kind of interpretation, the first level is metaphysics."

---Nathan Coppedge


"Maybe is like mathematics. It's kind of difficult." ---Nathan Coppedge

MORE QUOTES: http://www.poemhunter.com/quotations/famous.asp?people=Nathan Coppedge

"DIVINE" LOGIC EXAMPLE

Expressed for reasons of pure logic...

Imagined Thoughts of God

Nathan gives me some affirmation of information which might be important.

That's perfect, because it allows me to survive...

Because I know the secrets of how to construct the next universe...

But, if I don't know how to make the new universe now...

Then Nathan's knowledge might be more divine than I realized at first...

The result is exponential, like an expanding universe...

Or at least affirms that Nathan has importance...

More Articles Related to Omni-Science at: http://www.southernct.academia.edu/NathanCoppedge

GENIUS KNOWLEDGE PROGRAM ---- OZY GENIUS AWARDS

ozygeniusawards.hscampaigns.com/entry/192 

PHILOSOPHICAL KNOWLEDGE COULD BE THE NEXT BIG THING IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY!

PHILOSOPHY SYSTEM THAT COULD CHANGE THE TECHNOLOGY WORLD!

GENERALISTIC 'OMNI-SCIENCE' ABOUT DATA!

NEW LOGICAL CONSTITUENTS FOR UI AND IT.

'PSYCHIC' INFORMATION AND PRACTICAL DECISION-MAKING.

VOTE FOR MY OZY GENIUS IDEA EVERY DAY BEFORE APRIL 23RD, 2015:

ozygeniusawards.hscampaigns.com/entry/192 

The Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit (2013, 2014, 2015) currently has a Bestseller Rank on Amazon

• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #538,010 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
• #67 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Nonfiction > Politics & Social Sciences > Philosophy > Reference

It may be found on Amazon HERE.

My Amazing Philosophy Book has a Bestseller Rank Right Now

THE DIMENSIONAL PHILOSOPHER'S TOOLKIT (published 2013, 2014)

• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #679,197 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
• #86 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Nonfiction > Politics & Social Sciences > Philosophy > Reference

It may be found on Amazon HERE, and Barnes & Noble HERE.

Over 4200 views to my academic articles

at AcademicRoom.com.

Link to my profile HERE.

Early Method Re-Discovered and Expanded

I re-discovered an early method from my philosophy, and it's almost as if it came from a past life!

The simple process involves creating opposites around an eight-pointed star, and combining the neighboring points of the star.

Because all the points are equally valid, and there are so many of them, one is free to combine them in many possible ways, so long as a sequence is followed.

Formally speaking, one should begin at the beginning and follow  the circle counter-clockwise.

Thus, the first truths involve the figure as a whole, while the last truth involves bridging between the last and the first.

Interestingly, the method applies itself equally to overlapping asymmetrical figures, so long as they are regular polygons. Thus, the system implies greater flexibility with asymmetry than I have achieved with the later systems.

The phrase 'Thaumoctopus Rhodedendron' is the inspiration for the method.

Statements on the Square of Opposition

Recently I discovered a link to a device very similar to the Semiotic Square. I immediately became interested in disproving the logical device's purported logical validity.

Here is what I wrote in criticism (note especially the second paragraph):

[At Left: The Square of Opposition, which I intend to criticize, and Below: the Categorical Deduction diagram that I mean to defend].

[In reference to the Square of Opposition,] The graphical design alone is one of the simplest symbols in philosophy, logic, symbolics, and semiotics: it simply means 'modifying something', and in my view it is a rather incomplete notion of coherence. For example, if we have the categories they grant of 'None', 'All', 'Some', and 'Some not', we could add 'ambiguously some', 'ambiguously all' 'arbitrarily some' 'arbitrarily all' etc. This shows a clear pattern of incoherence in the formula, since in my view, although arbitrariness and ambiguity might apply to all cases, they are themselves in some sense, opposites. In other words, how do we know that 'some' are not 'all' by qualification, let alone whether ambiguous cases are arbitrated on the level of 'everything' versus on the level of 'nothing'? There is a deep need to find exclusion, a tool the square of opposition does not use well. Where is the logic? It is a little unfair, but I think the answer is categorical deduction, using opposites.


On the other hand [still referring to the Square of Opposition as opposed to Categorical Deduction], I can see how the diagram is inspired to create an exclusive set, it's just that it takes a kind of spiral pattern which does not easily return to its point of origin. Performing a categorical deduction on the set, we would conclude that 'Something is not nothing where everything is something' OR 'Something is not something where everything is nothing'. I'm afraid these statements do not hold up, because 1. In the first statement, it is the wrong kind of conservatism. We shouldn't need to prove everything is true to prove SOME things are true. 2. In the second case, instead of being conservative, it is the wrong type of generalization. There is no necessary connection between irrationalist statements of contradiction and the abnegation of all properties. Indeed, irrational properties may exist, under the right semantic conditions. So, the square of opposition rests on two fallacies, namely A. generic assumptions and B. A specific form of the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Added to this is the reality that I've virtually invented the complexity of the diagram in order to analyze it. Remember, the categorical deduction diagrams are different, even if they seem more simple, they usually involve more substantive data (i.e. opposite words), and a more coherent---perhaps the only simple and coherent----logical method.

Alternate method: Re-arranging the Square of Opposition to fit the standard of categorical deduction arguably yields the order (All, None, Not Some, Some), because the alternate order (All, None, Some, Not Some) yields trivial cases (1. Everything is nothing that is not something, and 2. Everything that is not something is not something,) , and the alternate order (All, Some, Not Some, None) does not complete a cycle, and amounts to quantification (what I call the quantification fallacy, a case in which data cannot return to itself or self-reflect, due in this case to beginning with everything and ending with nothing). Accepting the chosen order, the categorical deduction is different, but I suspect it is equally problematic due to the flawed choices. 1. Everything is nothing when something is not something, and 2. Everything is something when something is not something. Instead of being trivial, this example is purely relativistic, and in a coherent context, that doesn't hold up. The categorical deduction is neither relative, nor trivial, nor problematic, and so it must be the method that is preferred.

----Nathan Coppedge

Originally comments on Facebook.com/dimensionism

In response to the SEP: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/square/

The Book of Paradoxes: Including Problems Encountered in Nathan Coppedge's Philosophy

BOOK DESCRIPTION

This author has authored numerous philosophical books. In this brief treatise, questions of knowledge are broached through the lens of twenty-four compound paradoxes. The fields covered by these writings are broad: theory, metaphysics, ethics, and systemology. Coppedge’s thesis is that all problems reduce to essentialism and causality. Solutions are proposed to a line of paradoxes which lead to the paradox of essence and cause. Finally, a kind of solution to essence and cause is provided. Also included in this book is a valuable list of problems discovered by the author in investigating the realm of philosophy, even beyond paradoxy.

The book may be found on Amazon HERE.

Update: up to 19th from 28th in a search for 'book of paradoxes' on Amazon books.

Also 363 for "paradoxes". Oh well.

Some Recent Contributions

I commented at: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/caleb-scharf-explains-how-investigations-into-life-on-other-planets-help-us-to-understand-earth-s-challenges on the subject of Copernican Revolutions.

There is also my earlier post Observations on Modal Realism, providing a critique amounting to the following: .1. Indefinable degrees of difference, especially via degrees of relevance for an initial proper term, 2. Causally, some objects may be more logical than logic, even irrationally, 3. Facts or definitions must be accepted in relationship-terms, or else in logical terms, or as entities: one of these must be the earliest point of an a posteriori, 4. Since the choice is pure logic, or else logicifying something, the conclusion is that the entire method of logic in Modal Realism assumes itself infallible.

I have also published a number of other articles at Academia.edu and Academicroom.com:


Towards a Mathematics of Qualities
The Proto-Critical Diatribe of Philosophy

And, just for fun, or to preserve civilization:

Communicating with Extra-Terrestrials