[MJA]

Thanks Melanie for sharing your lovely thoughts today,
But with regard to Aristolean logic, do you think his before mentioned equation is T or F?

Thank you,

=
MJA

[Mohan.C]

I am going obviously way to fast for some of you, so lets start again, shall we.
Aristotle demonstrated simplictic logic with his equation:
If A = B, and B = C, then A = C.
Is his logic equation true?
T or F?
I say T! How about U!
And if we can't get past this simple first step,
I can't show you the simple steps to TOE., and whoa is me!

=
MJA

MJA,
U were asking if we agree with you or Aristotle which means one of u is true and whom we should agree with. Now u are saying Aristotle is true, and nobody can deny that if a=b and b=c then a=c is false. But what are u saying?

[JAK]

Originally Posted by MJA

Is Aristotle's logic equation T or F?

=
MJA

Given A=B and B=C, then A=C.

This is T (true).

What's the next step for your TOE?

[MJA]

Thanks everyone for your interest in this simple thread on logic. My goal is to show or teach the solution to TOE with the help of Aristolean logic. I choose the tool of logic for its most like common sense, which for me is also most like truth.

I was upset yesterday by some of the less than serious responses to this thread because my goal of teaching TOE to the masses is perhaps beyond my capability, but as I truly understand TOE, I also understand it is my responsibility to share the truth that I have found, and to at the very least try. I cannot take on this sublime goal without being completely serious, or perhaps as time will tell, completely crazy, so without further ado, let’s continue down the logic path to TOE.

I must add one other thought about my original concept of this thread; I hoped it would be fashioned much like Socrates dialogs on his quest for truth. But alas, Socrates is dead, and perhaps I aim way to high.

The lesson:

So with total and absolute certainty, we can say that Aristotle's logic equation: if A = B, and B = C, then A = C, is true.

Then I must ask this question: is it OK, right, or equally true to substitute is for = in the logic equation. Does A = B = A is B? Are = and is synonymous?
I think if A = B, then A is B, what about you?

I ask only that you not over think these questions and this thread, for I have no capability for such complexity myself. I also am certain that it is those complexities that ultimately keep mankind from the simple truth, simply TOE.
= = is, or = is =, T or F?

Thanks again,

=
MJA

[JAK]

Originally Posted by MJA

Does A = B = A is B? Are = and is synonymous?

I will agree to "A=B" and "A is B" being synonymous.

However, I will caution that such substitutions can lead to linguistic fallacies (fallacy of equivocation or fallacy of amphibology, for example). I would prefer seeing set theory (union, intersection, etc.) which translates directly into Aristotelian/syllogistic logic. I believe it will produce a cleaner path to your TOE.

Nevertheless, I will agree to "A=B" and "A is B" being synonymous.

Press forward, my friend!

[MJA]

Originally Posted by JAK

I will agree to "A=B" and "A is B" being synonymous.

However, I will caution that such substitutions can lead to linguistic fallacies (fallacy of equivocation or fallacy of amphibology, for example). I would prefer seeing set theory (union, intersection, etc.) which translates directly into Aristotelian/syllogistic logic. I believe it will produce a cleaner path to your TOE.

Nevertheless, I will agree to "A=B" and "A is B" being synonymous.

Press forward, my friend!

Thanks for your input JAK,

I believe this thread is not only an attempt to show others the simple truth of equality that I see, but also a test of my own truth. Your concerns JAK are uncertain to me, Is Aristotle's original equation for truth, not linguistic in form? But being that you agree, lets move on.

There is one other substitution that I must make of Aristotle original equation, to show the path to equality or TOE, and that is to substitute nature into A, B, and C. For what is the good of Aristolean logic: if A = B, and B = C, then A = C; is it only the logic of the alphabet? I think not, Aristotle meant for his simple logic equation to be an example of the logic of everything. And everything is a key ingredient to TOE. Just to give another example of the substitution I need to make of A, B, And C; it would be the same as Einstien's equation of E = mc2. E = energy or synonymously E is energy, and thus my point. So do we all agree to proceed, or not?
Can I substitute A for everything?
Thanks again for any question or thoughts on this thread,
I need them and your help to continue.
Thanks again,

=
MJA

[JAK]

Originally Posted by MJA

... And everything is a key ingredient to TOE. Just to give another example of the substitution I need to make of A, B, And C; it would be the same as Einstien's equation of E = mc2. E = energy or synonymously E is energy, and thus my point.

It's not quite crystal clear to me, but I think I am still with you.

If you are saying that anything can be substituted for "A", then the formula should still work as long as the other substitutions are true. For your example of Einstein's equation (the Conservation fo Energy), the "E" and "energy" are interchangeable. Alternately, to format into the "if A=B and B=C, then A=C" pattern using Einstein's equation, I would expect: "E=mcc" (the "A" pattern) is equivalent to "E/m=cc" (the "B" pattern) which is equivalent to "1/m=cc/E" (the "C" pattern). Thus, "E=mcc equals E/m=cc" (or "A = B" pattern) AND "E/m=cc equals 1/m=cc/E" (or "B = C" pattern). Therefore, "E=mcc equals 1/m=cc/E" (or "A = C" pattern), and Aristotle's logic works its magic.

If, on the otherhand, you are saying that "A" is the universal set (everything), and "B" is the universal set, and "C" is the universal set, then "if A=B and B=C, then A=C" still holds true.

If you are saying something else, then you lost me.

Regarding linguistic fallacies, here is one using Aristotle's formula:
A tree is woody (or A=B). Woody was Woodrow Wilson's nickname (or B=C). Therefore, tree is Woodrow Wilson's nickname (or A=C).
Though the fallacy here is simple and obvious, many linguistic fallacies are not so clear. To escape this fallacy, your definitions henceforth must be razor sharp.

Please continue ...

[MJA]

Originally Posted by JAK

your definitions henceforth must be razor sharp.

Please continue ...

I'm getting nervous now!

Thanks again JAK for your help on this thread, I promise it is not a competition between us, but rather a collaboration between Aristotle, yourself and me, with the goal of TOE.

Referring to, as you say: "henceforth must be razor sharp", the only thing I can think of to match this precision you demand is the absolute or the certainty of truth. So rather than this logical process toward the goal of the Theory of Everything, we must agree that with such henceforth razor's edge certainty, our common goal will be the Truth of Everything.
Do you agree?
Thanks again,

=
MJA

[JAK]

Originally Posted by MJA

... we must agree that ... our common goal will be the Truth of Everything.
Do you agree?

I absolutely agree.

Though we haven't addressed a definition of truth nor a criterion, I believe we should move forward with your logic and your theory. I'll keep a watchful eye on our progress.

Press onward!

JAK

[MJA]

Originally Posted by JAK

Though we haven't addressed a definition of truth

JAK

And that my dear JAk, is exactly with your great help what we are going to do.
The reward of our work will be not only an absolute definition of truth, but the Truth of Everything!

So here we go again:

We have already come to an agreement that with care it is acceptable to give a value to the letters A,B & C in Aristotle's true logic equation. You had some reservations regarding the substitution of anything and that we must be razor sharp here. And I agree that your example of woody and Woody can alter the logical truth. I had mentioned earlier of giving the letters a value of everything, as everything is what we are after. But a definition of everything must be agreed upon first. Everything I believe is nature, the universe, the known and the unknown, the finite and the infinite, the past, the future, the now, the real, or the true.

Is that a simple enough definition of everything, do you need more?
Perhaps you could suggest a better definition; we must be razor sharp here.
Can we agree that everything is simply everything, that everything is best defined as everything?

Thanks again,
We're getting close to TOE.

=
MJA