Arch of Aristotelain Logic


"Sentences are logical images of reality."

Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein

Chinese charater for logic

"It has been known for some years that we cannot speak sense about man in the old language. Although Wittgenstein proved this point, he did not show
us the way out
. The way out is simple. We must form a new vocabulary."

Alfred Korzybski

Deductive logical reasoning is a basic form of valid logical reasoning.

Deductive logical reasoning, deduction, starts out with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examines possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion.

In deductive inference, we go from the general to the specific.

Inductive logical reasoning is the opposite of deductive logical reasoning.

Inductive logical reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations.

In inductive inference, we go from the specific to the general.

Valid inductive or deductive inference requires observation until a pattern is discerned.

At that point we infer a generalization as an explanation, hypothesis or theory.

inference in logic is:

- a proposition reached by a process of inference from assumed premises

- the process of deriving logical consequences of assumed premises.

- the process of arriving at a conclusion that, although not logically derivable from the assumed premises, possesses some degree of probability relative to the assumed premises.

Brains works by pattern matching not logic.

( i knew i was in trouble when i was told repeatedly i was too logical ! )

Due to the truth of the preceding statement it is imperative that pattern matches be based on a logic accurate assessment of reality including an accurate unbiased understanding of the world outside of personal experience.

If you subscribe to ANY belief system then you disallow yourself the ability to think in a rational logic manner.

Anyone who tries to convince you a belief system will save you is a snake.

Honest rational logical thought requires the sacrifice of SACRED COWS !!!

primary laws of logic

The law of (non-)contradiction states that no statement
(proposition, assertion, etc.) can be both true and not true (false).

The law of excluded middle is generally given as "A is B or A is not B;"
object (A) either has or lacks a given property (B).

An alternate formulation of this (with propositions instead of objects) is "p or not p" - but not both.

"There is nothing between asserting and denying." - Aristotle

The law of identity states that A equals A or "if any statement is true, then this statement is true."

The law of rational inference monitors inferences between premises and conclusions.

If A equals B, and B equals C, then A equals C.

"The law of rational inference teaches that if premise A and B are valid, then, by what Martin Luther called resistless logic, that conclusion C follows." - C. Matthew McMahon

These four primary laws of logic are essential to all coherent intelligible communication.

Logic is defined herein as:

A system of valid reasoning.

The branch of philosophy that analyzes inference.

The principles that guide reasoning within a given field or situation.

The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.

A branch of philosophy that deals with the formal principles, methods and criteria of validity of inference, reasoning and knowledge.

Logic, concerned with the study of the principles of reasoning, examines the structure of a statement as distinguished from the content of a statement.

Logic attempts exact reasoning through formal thought systems.

Symbolic logic, a meta-language concerned with truth, represents logical expressions through the use of symbols and variables.

Propositional logic, also known as sentential logic and statement logic, is the branch of logic that studies ways of joining and/or modifying propositions, statements or sentences to form more complex propositions, statements or sentences, as well as logical relationships and properties derived from joining.

Boolian logic deals with the basic operations of truth values: AND, OR, NOT and combinations thereof resulting in either a true or false answer.

Boolean logic is important for computer science because it fits nicely with the binary numbering system, in which each bit has a value of either 1 or 0.

Predicate logic contains the components of propositional logic, propositional variables and constants, but adds predicates and quantifiers.

Symbols, typically used in place of nouns and pro-nouns, are combined into sentences by means of predicates.

The rules of natural deduction describe how we may proceed from valid premises to valid conclusions, where the premises and conclusions are expressions in predicate logic.

The syntax determines which collections of symbols are legal expressions while the semantics determine the meanings behind these expressions.

Predicate logic, first-order logic, is completely formal so that it can be mechanically determined whether a given expression is true or legal.

modal logic

Modal logic is a type of formal logic primarily developed in the 1960s that extends classical propositional and predicate logic to include operators expressing modality.

A modal is a word that expresses a modality which qualifies a statement.

logical-philosophical tract - a treatise on logical philosophy
by Ludwig Wittgenstein, Vienna, 1918

This text will only be understood only by someone who has followed a thread.

This text deals with philosophy: the logic of language is misunderstood.

This text might be summed up in the following two sentences:

What can be said at all can be said clearly.

What we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.

The aim of this text is to reveal limits to the expression of thought.

(Although what can be said may be stated clearly and succinctly many times it is NOT in the interest of the speaker or writer to do so.

In the case of propaganda and deception - imperative.

To discern propaganda one must follow the logical thought thread of the proposition being presented.

This edited version of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is an attempt to show one logical thought thread in the Labyrinth of the Akashic Records.

All numbering and thoughts by Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Some dead ends of the logical thought thread of the Labyrinth of Ludwig, also known as rabbit holes, have been omitted for the sake of clearity and brevity.)


Reality is all that exists.


Substance that actually exists in logical space constitutes reality.

1.2 Reality is something that actually exists.


In logic nothing is accidental.


We are quite unable to imagine spatial objects outside space or temporal objects outside time.


If one is to thoroughly know an object one must know all its properties.


Objects make up the substance of reality.


In a state of affairs objects fit into one another like the links of a chain.


In a state of affairs objects stand in a determinate relation to one another.


The determinate way in which objects are connected in a state of affairs is the structure of the state of affairs.


The totality of existing states of affairs comprises the entire universe.


The totality of existing states of affairs also determines which states of affairs do not exist.


The existence and non-existence of states of affairs comprise reality.


States of affairs appear to be independent of one another.


From the existence or non-existence of one state of affairs it is impossible
to infer the existence or non-existence of another state of affairs.


The sum-total of reality comprises the universe.


An image is a model of reality - a snapshot of reality.


What any image, of whatever form, must have in common with reality, in order to be able to depict reality – correctly or incorrectly – in any way at all, is logical form, i.e. the form of reality.


Logical images can depict reality.


A thought is a logical image.


The totality of true thoughts is an image of reality.


A priori knowledge that a thought is true is possible only if its truth is recognizable from the thought itself.


In a statement a thought finds an expression that can be perceived by the senses.


The meanings of archetypical truths can be explained by means of elucidations.
Elucidations are statements that stand on the true knowledge of archetypical truths.


A archetypical truth is what can be perceived of a conceptual symbol without new knowledge.


In order to recognize a symbol by its archetypical truth we must observe how it is used.


Once we know what each individual archetypical truth signifies the rules of logical syntax follow.


Definitions are rules for translating one symbolic language into another. Any correct symbolic language can be translated into any other in accordance with such rules: it is this that they all have in common.


In geometry and logic alike a place in space is a possibility: something can exist in it.


A statement can determine only one place in logical space.


A propositional symbol, applied and thought out, is a thought.


A thought is a statement with a sense.


The totality of statements is language.


Man possesses the ability to construct languages capable of expressing materially related thoughts, without having any idea how each word has meaning or what its meaning is – just as people speak without knowing how the individual sounds are produced. Everyday language is a part of the human organism and is no less complicated than it. It is not humanly possible to gather immediately what the logic of language is.

Language disguises thought.

So much so, that from its outward form of language it is impossible to infer the form of the thought beneath it, because its outward form is not designed to reveal the form of the thought, but for entirely different purposes. The tacit conventions on which the understanding of everyday language depends are enormously complicated.


Most of the statements and questions of philosophers arise when a society experiences
a cultural wide failure to understand the logic of their own language.


A statement is an image of reality - a model of reality as we imagine it.


A gramophone record, the musical idea, the written notes, and the sound-waves, all stand to one another in the same internal relation of depicting knowledge that holds between language and culture. They are all constructed according to a common logical pattern.


There is a general rule, a common logical pattern, by means of which the musician can obtain the symphony from the score, and which makes it possible to derive the symphony from the groove on the gramophone record, and, using this first rule, to derive the score again. The common logical pattern is the general rule that creates the inner similarity between a musical score, a symphony and a gramophone record - things which are constructed in such entirely different ways but which produce identical results.


The possibility of all imagery, of all our pictorial modes of expression, is contained in the logic of depiction.


We understand the sense of a statement without it having been explained in detail through a commonly held logic of depiction.


A statement is a image of reality: if I understand a statement, I know the situation that it represents without having had its details explained to me.


A statement shows its sense. A statement shows how things stand if the statement is true.


A statement restricts reality to two alternatives: true or false. In order to do that, it must describe reality completely. A statement is a description of a state of affairs. Just as a description of an object describes it by its properties, so a statement describes reality by its properties. A statement constructs a reality with the help of a logical scaffolding, so that one can actually see from the statement how everything stands logically if the statement is true.


To recognize the truth of a true statement is to logically understand the noumenon.


When translating one language into another, translators do not proceed by translating each statement of the one into a statement of the other, but merely by translating the constituents of statements. (And the dictionary translates not only substantives, but also verbs, adjectives, and conjunctions, etc.; and it treats them all in the same way.) Therefore all translations will be corrupt.


The meanings of simple symbols (words) must be explained to us or defined for us if we are to fully understand them. With statements, however, we communicate a state of affairs.


It belongs to the essence of a statement that it should be able to communicate a state of affairs or a situation.


A statement must use old expressions (symbolic imagery) to communicate a situation.
For a statement to communicate a situation it must be essentially connected to the situation.


It is only in so far as a statement is logically articulated that it is an image of a situation.


A statement can be true or false only in virtue of being an image of reality.


Statements represent the existence and non-existence of actual states of affairs.


The totality of true statements is the whole of natural science (or the whole corpus of the natural sciences).


Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity. A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations. Philosophy does not result in 'philosophical statements', but rather in the clarification of actual statements. Without philosophy thoughts are cloudy and indistinct: Sophia's task is to make them clear and to give them sharp boundaries.


Philosophy defines the limits to the much disputed sphere of natural science.


Philosophy defines the limits to what can be thought; and, in doing so, to what cannot be thought. Philosophy defines the limits to what cannot be thought by working outwards through what can be thought.


Philosophy will verify what cannot be said, by presenting clearly what can be said.


Everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly. Everything that can be put into words can be put clearly into words. (Clarity is many times not an intent of the speaker or author.)


Statements can represent reality, but they cannot represent what they must have in common with reality in order to be able to represent it - the logical form of reality. In order to be able to represent the logical form of reality with statements, we have to be able to station ourselves as observers somewhere outside logic, outside reality.


Statements do not represent the logical form of reality:

the logical form of reality is mirrored in them.

Statements reveal the logical form of reality.


The existence of an internal relation between possible situations expresses itself in language by means of an internal relation between the statements representing those possible situations.


The simplest kind of statement, an elementary statement, asserts the existence of a state of affairs.


If a statement's is elementary there can be no elementary statement contradicting it.


An elementary statement consists of names. It is a nexus, a concatenation, of names.


It is only in the nexus of an elementary statement that a name occurs in a statement.


If an elementary statement is true, the state of affairs exists: if an elementary statement is false, the state of affairs does not exist.


If all true elementary statements are given, the result is a complete description of reality.


It immediately strikes one as probable that the introduction of elementary statements provides the basis for understanding all other kinds of statement. Indeed the understanding of general statements palpably depends on the understanding of elementary statements. (If elementary statements are misunderstood then a false understanding of reality will be forged.)

4.46 Among the possible groups of truth-conditions there are two extreme cases.

In one of these cases the statement is true for all the truth-possibilities of the elementary statements.

We say that the truth-conditions are tautological.

In the second case the statement is false for all the truth-possibilities: the truth-conditions are contradictory .

In the first case we call the statement a tautology; in the second, a contradiction.

4.461 Statements show what they say; tautologies and contradictions show that they say nothing.

A tautology has no truth-conditions, since it is unconditionally true: and a contradiction is true on no condition.

Tautologies and contradictions lack sense.

(For example, I know nothing about the weather when I know that it is either raining or not raining.)

4.46211 Tautologies and contradictions are not, however, nonsensical.

They are part of the symbolism of language, much as '0' is part of the symbolism of arithmetic.

4.462 Tautologies and contradictions are not images of reality. They do not represent any possible situations.

For the former admit all possible situations, and latter none .

In a tautology the conditions of agreement with reality – the representational relations – cancel one another, so that it does not stand in any representational relation to reality.

4.463 The truth-conditions of a statement determine the range that it leaves open. A tautology leaves open to reality the whole – the infinite whole – of logical space: a contradiction fills the whole of logical space leaving no point in logical space for reality.

Tautologies and contradictions are thus unable to determine reality in any way.

4.464 A tautology's truth is certain, a statement's possible, a contradiction's impossible.

Certain, possible, impossible:

the first indication of a scale to be used in the theory of probability.

4.465 The logical product of a tautology and a statement says the same thing as the statement.

This product, therefore, is identical with the statement.

It is impossible to alter what is essential to a symbol without altering its essence.

4.5 What is essential in the most general propositional form must be included in its description.

The existence of a general propositional form is proven by the fact that there cannot be a statement whose form could not have been foreseen.

The general form of a statement is: This is how things stand.


If I am in possession of a basic truthful understanding of all elementary statements then I can intuitively deduct from that library of elementary statements the actual conditions of reality. Out of that knowledge I can construct a structural definition of the limits of the common logical language pattern's ability to define reality accurately.


A statement is a truth-function of elementary statements.
(An elementary statement is a truth-function of itself.)


Elementary statements are the truth-arguments of statements.


Truth-functions arranged in series is the foundation of the theory of probability.


If God forged a reality in which certain elementary statements were true, then by that very act God would have also forged a reality in which all the statements that follow from those elementary statements are true.


A statement affirms every statement that follows from it.


The truth of one statement following from the truth of others can be seen in the structure of the statement.


The truth of one statement following from the truth of others, finds expression in the structural relation of the forms of the statements to one another. These relations exist independently of definitions, the relations are internal and their existence is an immediate result of the existence of the statements.


Contradiction is that common factor of statements which no statement has in common with another. Tautology is the common factor of all statements that have nothing in common with one another. Contradiction, one might say, vanishes outside all statements: tautology vanishes inside them. Contradiction is the outer limit of statements: tautology is the unsubstantial point at their center


In itself, a statement is neither probable nor improbable.
Either an event occurs or it does not: there is no middle way.


Suppose that an urn contains black and white balls in equal numbers (and none of any other kind). I draw one ball after another, putting them back into the urn. By this experiment I can establish that the number of black balls drawn and the number of white balls drawn approximate one another as the draw continues. Now, if I say, 'The probability of my drawing a white ball is equal to the probability of my drawing a black one', this means that all the circumstances that I know of (including the laws of nature assumed as hypotheses) give no more probability to the occurrence of the one event than to that of the other. What I confirm by the experiment is that the occurrence of the two events is independent of the circumstances of which I have no more detailed knowledge.


The minimal unit for a probability statement is this: The circumstances – of which I have no further knowledge – give such and such a degree of probability to the occurrence of a particular event.


It is in this way that probability is a generalization. It involves a general description of a propositional form. We use probability only in default of certainty – if our knowledge is not indeed complete. (A statement may well be an incomplete image of a certain situation, but it is always a complete image of a conceptualized situation.) A probability statement is derived from other statements.


All statements are results of truth-operations on elementary statements. A truth-operation is the way in which a truth-function is produced out of elementary statements. It is of the essence of truth-operations that, just as elementary statements yield a truth-function of themselves, so too in the same way truth-functions yield further truth- functions. When a truth-operation is applied to truth-functions of elementary statements, it always generates another truth-function of elementary statements. When a truth-operation is applied to the results of truth-operations on elementary statements, there is always a single operation on elementary statements that has the same result. Every statement is the result of truth-operations on elementary statements.


All truth-functions are results of successive applications to elementary statements of a finite number of truth-operations.


If there are primitive logical archetypical truths, then any logic pattern that fails to show clearly how those logical archetypical truths are placed relatively to one another to justify their existence will be incorrect.


If logic has primitive logical archetypical truths, they must be independent of one another.


The solutions of the problems of logic must be simple, since they set the standard of simplicity. Men have always had a presentiment that there must be a realm in which the answers to questions are symmetrically combined – a priori – to form a self-contained system. A realm subject to the law: Simplex sigillum veri.


It is clear that whatever we can say in advance about the form of all statements, we must be able to say all at once . An elementary statement really contains all logical operations within itself.


The general propositional form is the essence of a statement.


To give the essence of a statement means to give the essence of all description, and thus the essence of reality.


The description of the most general propositional form is the description of the one and only general primitive archetypical truth in logic.


Logic must look after itself. If a archetypical truth is possible , then it is also capable of signifying. Whatever is possible in logic is also permitted.


Occam's Razor is, of course, not an arbitrary rule, nor one that is justified by its success in practice: its point is that unnecessary units in a language mean nothing. Symbols that serve one purpose are logically equivalent, and symbols that serve none are logically meaningless.


It is clear that this is not a question of a number of primitive archetypical truths that have to be signified, but rather of the expression of underlying rule.


How can logic – all-embracing logic, which mirrors reality – use such peculiar crotchets and contrivances?
Only because they are all connected with one another in an infinitely fine network, the great mirror of Creation.


We can describe reality completely by means of fully generalized statements
without first correlating any name with a particular object.


A fully generalized statement, like every other statement, is composite.
The mark of a composite symbol is that it has something in common with other symbols.


The truth or falsity of every statement does make some alteration in the general conceptual construction of reality. The range that the totality of elementary statements leaves open for the construction of reality is exactly the same as that which is delimited by entirely general statements.


It is self-evident that identity is not a relation between objects.


To perceive a complex statement means to perceive that its constituents are related to one another in such and such a way. Contradictions arise when constituent elementary statements have been improperly conceptualized which explains the existence of apparent contradictions.


The 'experience' that we need in order to correctly understand logic is not that something or other is the state of affairs, but that something actually exists.


Clearly we have some concept of elementary statements quite apart from their particular logical forms. When there is a system by which we can create symbols, the system is what is important for logic and not the individual symbols. We need to understand what makes it possible for us to create those symbols.


There cannot be a hierarchy of the forms of elementary statements. We can foresee only what we ourselves can construct.


Empirical reality is limited by the totality of objects. The limit also makes itself manifest in the totality of elementary statements. Hierarchies are and must be independent of reality.


In fact, all the statements of our everyday language, just as they stand, are in perfect logical order. – That utterly simple thing, which we have to formulate here, is not a likeness of the truth, but the truth itself in its entirety. (Our problems are not abstract, but perhaps the most concrete that there are.)


The limits of my language set the limits of my reality.


Logic pervades reality: the limits of reality are also the limits of logic. We cannot think what we cannot think; so what we cannot think we cannot say either.


Reality is my world: this is manifest in that the limits of language are the limits of my world.


My world and my reality are one.


Thus there really is a sense in which philosophy can talk about the self in a non-psychological way. What brings the self into philosophy is the fact that 'reality is my world'. The philosophical self is not the human being, not the human body, or the human soul, with which psychology deals, but rather the metaphysical subject, the limit of reality – not a part of it.


The statements of logic are tautologies.


Statements of logic must be assigned a unique status among all statements.


Logical statements can be recognized as true immedialtely from the symbols alone, and this fact contains in itself the whole philosophy of logic. The truth or falsity of non-logical statements cannot be recognized from the statements alone. .


The fact that the statements of logic are tautologies shows the formal – logical – properties of language and reality. The fact that a tautology is yielded by this particular way of connecting its constituents characterizes the logic of its constituents. If statements are to yield a tautology when they are connected in a certain way, they must have certain structural properties. Their yielding a tautology when combined in this shows that they possess these structural properties.


It is clear that one could achieve the same purpose by using contradictions instead of tautologies.


The statements of logic demonstrate the logical properties of statements by combining them so as to form statements that say nothing. In a logical statement, statements are brought into equilibrium with one another, and the state of equilibrium then indicates what the logical constitution of these statements must be.


It follows from this that we can actually do without logical statements; for in a suitable notation we can in fact recognize the formal properties of statements by mere inspection of the statements themselves.


This throws some light on the question why logical statements cannot be confirmed by experience any more than they can be refuted by it. Not only must a statement of logic be irrefutable by any possible experience, but it must also be unconfirmable by any possible experience.


The general validity of logic might be called essential, in contrast with the
accidental general validity of such statements as 'All men are mortal'.


The statements of logic describe the scaffolding of reality, or rather they represent it.
If we know the logical syntax of any language, then we have already been given all the statements of logic.


It is possible – indeed possible even according to the old conception of logic – to give in advance a description of all 'true' logical statements.


Thus there can be no surprises in logic.


In logic process and result are equivalent. (Hence the absence of surprise.)


Proof in logic is merely a mechanical expedient to facilitate the recognition of tautologies in complicated cases.


All the statements of logic are of equal status: it is not the case that some of them are essentially derived statements. Every tautology itself shows that it is a tautology.


It is clear that the number of the 'primitive statements of logic' is arbitrary, since one could derive logic from a single primitive statement.


Logic is not a body of doctrine,
but a mirror-image of reality.
Logic is transcendental.


Mathematics is a logical method. The statements of mathematics are equations, and therefore pseudo-statements.


We make use of mathematical statements as inferences from statements that do not belong to mathematics to others that likewise do not belong to mathematics.

(In philosophy the question,
'What do we actually use this word or this statement for?'
repeatedly leads to valuable insights.


The logic of reality, shown in tautologies by the statements of logic, is shown in equations by mathematics.


If two expressions are combined by means of the sign of equality, that means that they can be substituted for one another. When two expressions can be substituted for one another, that characterizes their logical form.


The question whether intuition is needed for the solution of mathematical problems must be given the answer that in this case language itself provides the necessary intuition.


The process of calculating serves to bring about that intuition.


The method by which mathematics arrives at its equations is the method of substitution. For equations express the substitutability of two expressions and, starting from a number of equations, we advance to new equations by substituting different expressions in accordance with the equations.


The exploration of logic means the exploration of everything that is subject to law . Outside logic everything is accidental.


The mathematical law of induction cannot possibly be a law of logic, since it is obviously a statement with sense. - Nor, therefore, can it be an a priori law.


The law of causality is not a law but the form of a law.

{"All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature."- Ayn Rand

"If one thing the same in nature at different times, or two things the same in nature, are to act in situations the same in their nature, they must act on both occasions in the same way."- HW B. Joseph}


'Law of causality' - that is a general name. And just as in mechanics, for example, there are 'minimum-principles', such as the law of least action, so too in physics there are causal laws, laws of the causal form.


Indeed people even surmised that there must be a 'law of least action' before they knew exactly how it went. (Here, as always, what is certain a priori proves to be something purely logical.)


We do not have an a priori belief in a law of conservation, but rather a priori knowledge of the possibility of a logical form.


All such statements, including the principle of sufficient reason, the laws of continuity in nature and of least effort in nature, etc. - all these are a priori insights about the forms in which the statements of science can be cast.


Newtonian mechanics, for example, imposes a unified form on the description of reality. Let us imagine a white surface with irregular black spots on it. We then say that whatever kind of image these make, I can always approximate as closely as I wish to the description of it by covering the surface with a sufficiently fine square mesh, and then saying of every square whether it is black or white (pixelated). In this way I shall have imposed a unified form on the description of the surface. The form is optional, since I could have achieved the same result by using a mesh with a triangular or hexagonal mesh. Possibly the use of a triangular mesh would have made the description simpler: that is to say, it might be that we could describe the surface more accurately with a coarse triangular mesh than with a fine square mesh (or conversely), and so on. The different meshes correspond to different systems for describing reality. Mechanics determines one form of description of reality by saying that all statements used in the description of reality must be obtained in a given way from a given set of statements – the axioms of mechanics. As with the number-system we must be able to write down any number we wish, so with the system of mechanics we must be able to write down any statement of physics that we wish.


And now we can see the relative position of logic and mechanics. The possibility of describing an image like the one mentioned above with a mesh of a given form tells us nothing about the image which is true of all such images. But what does characterize the image is that it can be described completely by a particular size of white mesh with a particular arrangement of black spots. Similarly the possibility of describing reality by means of Newtonian mechanics tells us nothing about reality: what does tell us something about reality is the precise way in which it is possible to describe reality by these means. We are also told something about reality by the fact that it can be described more simply with one system of mechanics than with another.


Mechanics is an attempt to construct according to a single plan all the true statements that we need for the description of reality.


The laws of physics with all their logical apparatus speak about the objects of reality.


We ought not to forget that any description of reality by means of mechanics will be of the completely general kind.


Although the spots in our image are geometrical figures, nevertheless geometry can obviously say nothing at all about their actual form and position. The network, however, is purely geometrical; all its properties can be given a priori. Laws like the principle of sufficient reason, etc. are about the mesh and not about what the mesh describes. (The principle of sufficient reason states that anything that happens does so for a definite reason.)


If there were a law of causality, it might be put in the following way: There are laws of nature.


We cannot compare a process with 'the passage of time' – there is no such thing – but only with another process (such as the working of a chronometer). Hence we can describe the lapse of time only by relying on some other process. Something exactly analogous applies to space: e.g. when people say that neither of two events (which exclude one another) can occur, because there is nothing to cause the one to occur rather than the other, it is really a matter of our being unable to describe one of the two events unless there is some sort of asymmetry to be found. And if such an asymmetry is to be found, we can regard it as the cause of the occurrence of the one and the non-occurrence of the other.


Kant's problem about the right hand and the left hand, which cannot be made to coincide, exists even in two dimensions. Indeed, it exists in one-dimensional space in which the two congruent figures, a and b, cannot be made to coincide unless they are moved out of this space. The right hand and the left hand are in fact completely congruent. It is quite irrelevant that they cannot be made to coincide. A right-hand glove could be put on the left hand, if it could be turned round in four-dimensional space.


The procedure of induction consists in accepting as true the simplest law that can be reconciled with our experiences. Occam's Razor suggests this.


Using Occam's Razor rentlessly has no logical justification, only a psychological one. It is clear that there are no grounds for believing that the simplest eventuality will in fact be realized as a belief does not declare actuality.


It is an hypothesis that we will see the sun will rise tomorrow: we do not know whether we will see it rise. (From past experience we can expect the sun to rise and when we understand the actual motion of the planets in relation to the sun we have faith that, yes indeed, the sun will rise tomorrow but we have no guarantee that we ourselves will be standing there alive to witness the sun emerging over the horizon.)


Reality is independent of human will.


Even if all that we wish for were to happen, still this would only be a favor granted by fate. The human will's desire to modify reality has no actuality.


Just as the only necessity that exists is logical necessity, so too the only impossibility that exists is logical impossibility.


For example, the simultaneous presence of two colors at the same place in the visual field is impossible, in fact logically impossible, since it is ruled out by the logical structure of color.

It is clear that the logical product of two elementary statements can neither be a tautology nor a contradiction.

The statement that a point in the visual field has two different colors at the same time is a contradiction.


All statements are of equal value.


An understanding of reality must lie outside reality. In reality everything is as it is, and everything happens as it does happen. Only by understanding that human will fails to have any material effect whatsoever on reality are we freed.


Ethics cannot be put clearly into words. Ethics is transcendental.


There must be some kind of ethical reward and ethical punishment, but they must reside in the action itself.


The reality of the happy man is a different one from the reality of the unhappy man.


Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present.


It is not how things are in reality that is mystical, but that reality actually exists.


When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words.


Scepticism is not irrefutable, but obviously nonsensical, when it tries to raise doubts where no questions can be asked. For doubt can exist only where a question exists, a question only where an answer exists, and an answer only where something can be said.

Trendy Skepticism : The Badge of The Emotionally Unfit & Intellectually Bankrupt

We feel that even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched. Of course there are then no questions left, and this itself is the answer.


The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of the problem. Is not this the reason why those who have found after a long period of doubt that the sense of life became clear to them have then been unable to say what constituted that sense?


There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words.
They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.


What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

adapted from Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Ludwig Wittgenstein

Spock for President

Weltanschauung is the conceptualization that all ideologies, beliefs, political systems - variations on rational logic systems of thought - are limited and defined by the schemata of common linguistic understanding - in other words they are conditional truths.

"There is no such thing as absolute truth in logic and mathmatics. The best that one can do is talk of the truth of statements given a set of rules of reasoning. It is quite possible to have statements that are true in one logical system but false in another." - John D. Barrow

"Mathematics is inadequate to describe the universe, since mathematics is an abstraction from natural phenomena." - Ludovico delle Colombe

thou shall not commit logical fallacies !

logical fallacies

an illustrated book of bad arguments

thou shall not commit logical fallacies


unique library index

This web site is not a commercial web site and is presented for educational purposes only.

This website defines a new perspective with which to engage reality to which its author adheres. The author feels that the falsification of reality outside personal experience has forged a populace unable to discern propaganda from reality and that this has been done purposefully by an international corporate cartel through their agents who wish to foist a corrupt version of reality on the human race. Religious intolerance occurs when any group refuses to tolerate religious practices, religious beliefs or persons due to their religious ideology. This web site marks the founding of a system of philosophy named The Truth of the Way of Life - a rational gnostic mystery religion based on reason which requires no leap of faith, accepts no tithes, has no supreme leader, no church buildings and in which each and every individual is encouraged to develop a personal relation with the Creator and Sustainer through the pursuit of the knowledge of reality in the hope of curing the spiritual corruption that has enveloped the human spirit. The tenets of The Truth of the Way of Life are spelled out in detail on this web site by the author. Violent acts against individuals due to their religious beliefs in America is considered a "hate crime."

This web site in no way condones violence. To the contrary the intent here is to reduce the violence that is already occurring due to the international corporate cartels desire to control the human race. The international corporate cartel already controls the world economic system, corporate media worldwide, the global industrial military entertainment complex and is responsible for the collapse of morals, the elevation of self-centered behavior and the destruction of global ecosystems. Civilization is based on cooperation. Cooperation does not occur at the point of a gun.

American social mores and values have declined precipitously over the last century as the corrupt international cartel has garnered more and more power. This power rests in the ability to deceive the populace in general through corporate media by pressing emotional buttons which have been preprogrammed into the population through prior corporate media psychological operations. The results have been the destruction of the family and the destruction of social structures that do not adhere to the corrupt international elites vision of a perfect world. Through distraction and coercion the direction of thought of the bulk of the population has been directed toward solutions proposed by the corrupt international elite that further consolidates their power and which further their purposes.

All views and opinions presented on this web site are the views and opinions of individual human men and women that, through their writings, showed the capacity for intelligent, reasonable, rational, insightful and unpopular thought. All factual information presented on this web site is believed to be true and accurate and is presented as originally presented in print media which may or may not have originally presented the facts truthfully. Opinion and thoughts have been adapted, edited, corrected, redacted, combined, added to, re-edited and re-corrected as nearly all opinion and thought has been throughout time but has been done so in the spirit of the original writer with the intent of making his or her thoughts and opinions clearer and relevant to the reader in the present time.

Fair Use Notice
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, human rights, political, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information see: If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Dedicated to the establishment of knowledge, truth, justice and a clear understanding of reality as the American way!
Copyright © Lawrence Turner
All Rights Reserved