While struggling with formal logic I decided to model something that I can build a new form of logic off of so that I can alleviate my ills with the idea. A problem I found with formal logic was its reliance on the idea that a truth-value can be found for a proposition. My issue came with relativity. How can you be sure of a referential if you have to observe it to be true? If every predicate can remain unknown by the fact that there's a shift in time before believing a fact and observing a fact to be true, won't all forms of logic be best guesses?

So I'm going to use this opportunity to LARP logical writing, and create something pointless. Who knows it may mean something.


I don't know how to write formal philosophy so bear with me:

(1) Sensor: There exists a sensor that holds an image of a single type.

The sensor here can be any type of sensor, literally something that senses or has experience. I can call it the "self" or the "mind" or "bob" but I choose to forego formal labels for more specific ones because it expands later. Image takes to mean qualia, literally. It means sensory experience, transduction, the translation of one form of energy into the sensor. I enjoy it imagined as a single light-sensing cell in a primitive animal.

(2) Change: There exists an iterative process, change, such that an image of a single type is replaced with a different image of the same type.

From this, immediately we can find some important attributes but only after we create an Axiom.

(T1) Two images of the same type can be compared.

Probably something in type theory, who cares. Next, we can then create this concept:

(3) Constancy: If (2 and T1), then it entails the existence of constancy, the measure of difference/similarity between the images.

Constancy is basically just the difference in between every experience that streams through your mind. Imagine a movie where each frame is an image, as a horse gallops they pass by, the constancy is the each difference between the frame. It occurs fast enough that your mind doesn't process it consciously.

Now the wonderful part, the creation of the observer:

(4) Observer: An observer is an object if and only if it holds a sensor (1), and is able to hold constancy (3)

How the observer compares images is none of our concern. If the observor saves the first image, then performs an algorithm on the next changed image to find differences, or it uses neurons so that each receptor processes the receptor for a single object to be saved, it doesn't matter. All we care for is the fact that the observor can hold constancy.

Onto the final one that I made for this day, which finally creates the outside world for the observer to observe:

(5) Structure: If there exists constancy (3) then it entails the existance of the concept called structure as the seperate process by which constancy is determined.

While the observer measures constancy, its determiner, as in that which determined the differences/similarities and thus the content of the images, is what I named the structure. It means the same things as nature, the environment, the context, the Absolute, etc. I like the name structure though.


That is the beginning of it. I want to try and include time here, but it will likely be a redefinition. The point is to create a theory based entirely on the fact that we can't escape our perspective or mind. We're stuck in this concept of self that we can't escape, and so everything is compressed through this one point.