Reality is a Reflexively True Tautological Framework

#1
First, let's take a look at the word tautology. Its meaning in the vernacular involves needless repetition or redundancy. But in logic, its meaning is more precise and more benign. It describes a statement which is analytic, or true solely by virtue of its logi­cal form. This reaches its limit in 2-valued prepositional logic: e.g., A v ~A (law of the excluded middle); ~(A & ~A) (law of non­contradiction). In this notation, variables are sentential; "A" stands for any complete formula or "predicate". Such tautologies are self-referential; we can let "A" stand for the whole tautology in which it appears (e.g., A v ~A --> (A v ~A) v ~(A v ~A)). Since logic is entirely developed by deductive substitution from initial tautologies - as is a geometry from its axioms - these tautologies form what you'd call a "reflexively true tautological framework". They are "highly resistant to outside contradiction" because, in order to be comprehensible, any such contradiction must be formu­lated in terms of propositional logic and therefore submit to the very tautological rules it purports to "contradict".

For the rest see: http://megasociety.org/noesis/76/05.htm

If reality is a reflexively true tautological framework, then it is a tautology. And since it is a tautology, it models itself by logical distinctions between its objects, which are reality themselves. Including the spacetime syntax to which it formulates itself by. As we learned in the previous thread, this syntax of reality divides itself. That means without it, nothing exists as itself. This is a void in which no information can exist. Or freedom from constraint. Objects and sets are synonymous with each other, which means reality itself  forms the most general syntax to which objects refer. 
Reply
#2
Reality Seen as a Holistic Self-Reflexive Tautology

Professor Kenneth Inada proposes that Buddhism is a grand tautological ontology. Most significantly, Inada proposes that "the profound nature of things" (ie, reality) has the same tautological structure. If so, then Buddhism and reality are isomorphic in this way. Inada may be the first philosopher to incorporate tautology as a meaningful component of a metaphysical system and furthermore to propose an identity between reality and tautology. Inada sees this tautological framework as the profound holographic, interconnected field inherent in Buddha's parable of the Jewel Net of Indra. Now here's Inada:

Sprinkled throughout the Buddhist Canons there are profound doctrinal accounts invariably expressed in similes, metaphors, analogies, and myths. These are faithful to the spirit of Buddhism but, being succinct and extremely abstract statements, oftentimes mislead the uncritical reader into accepting supernatural or super­normal realms. They even lead one to gross nihilism. But if we are to see Buddhism in a consistent naturalistic framework, then each and every doctrine will have to be critically examined and seen within such a framework. This will no doubt entail a good deal of effort in the search for the pure or original concepts of Buddhism and, perhaps, the time is most opportune for a reappraisal.

The naturalistic framework that I propose requires a bold meta­physical assertion. It is that Buddhism, or its philosophical basis, can be stated to be a grand tautological ontology. It is grand because any and every element in nature is included and also because there is the character of extensiveness throughout nature. It is tautological because any and every element is inter-related or inter-penetrative with any and every other element. It is ontology because any and every element must have relevance, however insignificant, to the existential nature or status of the individual. The three terms put together reveal the profound nature of things, i.e. the mutually inclusive and mutually reflective natures. From this, we are able to appreciate the real significance of the famous metaphor of Indra's Net, that all elements are mutually identifiable and mutually penetrative. Nature is jewellike or an endless lacing of jewels strung seemingly at random but each and every jewel capable of illuminating every other jewel as well as being illuminated by every other.

Source: Inada, Kenneth K. "Buddhist Naturalism and the Myth of Rebirth." International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 1.1 (1970): 46-53.

http://www.iangoddard.com/tautology.htm
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Mathematically, what exhibits true expression is reality Ostronomos 1 138 Feb 25, 2019 04:29 PM
Last Post: Ostronomos



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)