Logos

Steven Kowalski 2011

i Disclaimer: You may know how to rewrite something Ive written. Please dont give me answers. I want to gure it out on my own. My posting of these copies is a gift to you. If you wish to use my ideas, make sure to reference me. Furthermore, I am CLAIMING this thesis. If you have any questions as to what I mean by that, read my Copyright Notice at http://logos-logic.wikispaces.com/Index

ii In the beginning was LOGOS and LOGOS was with God and LOGOS was God. . . . Load{LOGOS}

. . . Ergo, TODOS

Contents
0 Principle Foundations 0.0 Assumptions . . . . . 0.1 Tools and Resources 0.1.1 Tools . . . . . 0.1.2 Resources . . 0.2 Format . . . . . . . . 0.3 Introduction . . . . . 1 . 2 . 8 . 8 . 9 . 10 . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 13 13 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 22 22 23 24

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 Mathematical Foundations 1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0.1 Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0.2 Axioms and Assumptions . . . 1.0.3 Philosophy and History of Math 1.1 Sets and Relations . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Operations and Groups . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Building Arithmetic . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Logic 2.0 History and Use of Logic . 2.1 Foundation of Logic . . . . 2.2 Ways to Prove Something 2.2.1 Direct Proof . . . . 2.2.2 Indirect Proof . . . 2.2.3 Counter-Example . 2.3 Theories . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii

CONTENTS 3 The 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Theory of Everything (TOE) Story of TOEs Creation . . . . . . . Construction of the Theory . . . . . Physical Space . . . . . . . . . . . . Quasi-Abstract and Abstract Spaces Classication of Information . . . . . The Supernatural Realm . . . . . . .

iv 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 35 35 36 37 38

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 God and Persons 4.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Theories About God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 God does not Exist . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 God Exists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Proofs of Gods Existence . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 The Story of God, the Point . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Perspectives of God and Gods Relation to the

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . World

Chapter 0 Principle Foundations

CHAPTER 0. PRINCIPLE FOUNDATIONS

Disclaimer: You may know how to rewrite something Ive written. Please dont give me answers. I want to gure it out on my own. My posting of these copies is a gift to you. If you wish to use my ideas, make sure to reference me. Furthermore, I am CLAIMING this thesis. If you have any questions as to what I mean by that, read my Copyright Notice at http://logos-logic.wikispaces.com/Index

0.0

Assumptions

Denition 0.0.1: A denition is an explicitly stated meaning of a word, symbol, or variable. Denition 0.0.2: An assumption of X is an ability to perform X. Assumption 1: Assumptions Listed

1. Let us assume that assumptions exist and that those listed in Section 0.0: Assumptions are true throughout the book. 2. Assume the assumptions in each section.

Denition 0.0.3: A chire is a base unit of writing (e.g., c, , , 3, etc.). Denition 0.0.4: A letter is a chire used to spell words (all units in the alphabet, if it exists). Denition 0.0.5: A word is an un-spaced string of letters that has a meaning. Denition 0.0.6: A symbol is a chire or inseparable combination of chires (other than a word) that stands for an idea.

CHAPTER 0. PRINCIPLE FOUNDATIONS Denition 0.0.7: A number is a symbol that stands for a value. Assumption 2: Use of Words and Symbols

1. Assume the ability to use all words as dened in Websters Dictionary and in this book. (a) If a word is dened in a dierent manner in Logos, assume the Logos denition. 2. Assume (1)standard sentence structure in American English and (2)structure of words and symbols dened in Logos. 3. Assume the symbols dened in the book.

Denition 0.0.8: Given two things, X and Y , a condition states X Y . Denition 0.0.9: 1. Given a condition, A, which states B C, not A (or A) B C, and thus... 2. Given a conjecture, Y , which states X Z, not Y (or Y ) X Z. A term word. Assumption 3: Principle of Non-contradition

1. Given conjectures or conditions, X and Y , X is true X (not X) is false; and Y is true Y is false.

Denition 0.0.10: An axiom is an assumption of the existence of conditions, {X1 , X2 , ...}.

CHAPTER 0. PRINCIPLE FOUNDATIONS Denition 0.0.11: Given X and Y are conditions, a conjecture X implies Y means if X is satised, then so is Y , or Xs existence constitutes the existence of Y . This can be stated Y is an implication of X. Assumption 4: Logical Implications of Assumptions and Axioms

1. If an Axiom of a Theory asserts the existence of X, we may assume that X exists. 2. If an Assumption of X, is made, X may be performed. Denition 0.0.12: A conjecture is (1)a statement that can be proven true or false. (2)Given sets of conditions, A and B, A B is a conjecture. (3)In general, for a set of conditions, A, and a conjecture, X, a conjecture would say A X. (4)Given two conjectures, X and Y , X Y is a conjecture. Denition 0.0.13: A theorem is a conjecture logically implied by assumptions and axioms that can be proven to be true. Denition 0.0.14: A lemma is a theorem used to prove a part of the main theorem. Given a set of lemmas, L, and a main theorem T , L T . Denition 0.0.15: A corollary is a subsequent theorem logically implied by the main theorem. Assumption 5: Logical Implications of Theorems 1. Given conditions C := {X, Y ,...} and given a conjecture, Z, if proven that {X,Y ,...} imply Z (C Z) then when supplied with C ={X, Y ,...} we may automatically assume Z. In other words, [(C Z) C] true Z true. (a) This general theorem would read: Given {X, Y , ... } , Z, Let {X, Y ,...} then Z, If {X, Y ,...}, then Z, or {X, Y ,...} Z. Making use of C, we would say C Z.

CHAPTER 0. PRINCIPLE FOUNDATIONS

2. Given a theorem, A := C Z and a theorem B := Z W , there is a new theorem, D := C W 3. Given a condition, X, X X Theorem 0.0.1: For true statements, X, Y , Z, we see that [X Y Z X] [X Y Z] Proof. Two parts () Let [X Y Z X]. X Z and Z X so X Z. Furthermore, since Z X and X Y , Z Y . Thus Y Z. Since Y Z and Z X, Y X. Therefore, [X Y Z]. () Let [X Y Z]. Since Z Y and Y X, Z X. Therefore, [X Y Z X]. Theorem 0.0.2: Given conjectures, X and Y , if X Y is true X false. Y is

Proof. Let X and Y be conjectures and let Theorem A:= X Y be true. Then A= X Y is false. Theorem 0.0.3: X is true (X) is true. Proof. Two-part proof () Let X be true. Then X:=Y is false. Since Y is false, Y is true. Thus Y =(X) is true. () Let (X) be true and let Y := X. Then (X)=Y is true. Thus Y =X is false. Therefore, since X is false, X is true. Denition 0.0.16: Let X1 , X2 , ... , Xn be conjectures. X1 X2 ... Xn (X1 or X2 or ... or Xn ) forms a new conjecture A; thus, A is either (1)true or (2)false. 1. X1 X2 ...Xn is true an m between 1 and n inclusive Xm is true. 2. X1 X2 ... Xn is false m {1, 2, ..., n}, Xm is false.

CHAPTER 0. PRINCIPLE FOUNDATIONS Denition 0.0.17: Let X1 , X2 , ... , Xn be conjectures. X1 X2 ... Xn (X1 and X2 and ... and Xn ) forms another conjecture, A, which must be either (1)true or (2)false, and so we will dene and as: 1. X1 X2 ... Xn is true m {1, 2, ..., n}, Xm is true. 2. X1 X2 ...Xn is false an m between 1 and n inclusive Xm is false. Theorem 0.0.4: Given a conjecture, Y , [Y Y ] is false.

Proof. Y is a conjecture, so it is (1)true or (2)false. Case 1: Y is true. Then Y is false. Thus by denition of and, Y Y is false. Case 2: Y is false. Then Y is true. So, by the reasoning in the rst case, Y Y is false. Therefore, for any conjecture, Y , it would be false to make a claim that states that both Y and Y are true. Lemma 0.0.5: Given a true conjecture, X, and any conjecture, Y , only one of the following can be true: X Y or XY . Proof. Y is (1)true or (2)false. So, (1) suppose Y is true. Then X Y is true; and since Y is false, XY is false. And, (2) if Y is false, so is X Y . Furthermore, Y is true, so XY is as well. Therefore, since for both cases the implication holds true, either XY is true, or X Y is true. Lemma 0.0.6: Given X logically follows from a set of axioms, [X Y ] being a theorem [X (X Y )] is a theorem. Proof. () X Y is true. By assumption of X, X is true. Hence, X X is true as well. So, X both X and Y . So, X [X Y ]. () [X (X Y )] is true. So, X X is true, and X Y is true and therefore a theorem. Lemma 0.0.7: [X Y ] is a theorem [(X Y ) Y ] is a theorem. Proof. Let X Y be a theorem. Y Y is also a theorem. Thus X and Y both imply Y . Therefore, it is true to say that [(X Y ) Y ]. Theorem 0.0.8: Let X, Y , Z be true. Then, A := [X Y Z] true B := [(X Y ) Z] true C := [X (Y Z)] true.

CHAPTER 0. PRINCIPLE FOUNDATIONS

Proof. Three-part: (A B) [X Y Z] is true. So, D := (X Y ) is true and so is D Z. Thus [(X Y ) Z] is true. (B C) [(X Y ) Z] is true. So (C A) Lemma 0.0.9: X Y and X Z are theorems. X is true implies X Z Y is true. Proof. Two part () Suppose X Y and X Z are true. Then A := X Z is true. Since X Y , we know that Y is true as well. Thus X Z Y is true. Theorem 0.0.10: Suppose X is true and a conjecture, A, states that X implies Y . If Y is false, then A is false. Proof. Let X be true and let a conjecture, A := X Y . Suppose Y is false. Then Y is true. We know that X is true, so XY is true. Thus [[X Y ] X] [X Y : A] is false (WRONG!!! REDO!).

Indirect Proofs: If were given a conjecture, X Y based on conditions C, then there are two ways to prove: directly and indirectly. To prove something directly based on the assumed C, we assume X C and prove that Y is a logical consequence. We can also prove something indirectly. Two ways to do this is by proving that the contrapositive of a statement is true and by using a proof by contradiction. A contrapositive proof is a direct proof of the negated and ipped statement. This type of proof is dierent from the proof by contradiction. Proof by contradiction assumes the conditions, C, the hypothesis, X, and the negated, Y . And by the assumption of Y , a contradiction of C or X must be drawn to prove that Y follows from X. Theorem 0.0.11: Non-Contradiction of theorems Given a theorem, X Y and supplied with X, (1)(X Y ) is true and (2)X Y is false.

CHAPTER 0. PRINCIPLE FOUNDATIONS

Proof. Two parts: A := X Y is a theorem. So there exists a set of conditions, C, which exist as implied by the axioms such that C A. Let C be satised. Then, X Y is true. So, given X, X Y is true. Thus X Y is not true. Thus to state X Y := B would be false (proved (2)) and since B is false, B = X Y is true. Theorem 0.0.12: Equivalence of Theorems and their Contrapositives!!! [X Y ] is true [(Y X)] is true. Proof. Two part: () X Y is true based on conditions C. Let C be satised. Then, C and X Y are both true. So, supplied with X, (X Y ) would yield Y , making X Y true. Given our conditions and theorem, suppose Y is assumed. We know that X Y is false, thus X Y is false, meaning that since Y is assumed true, X is false, making X true. Thus, Y X is true. If you look at what has been done, youll see that by supposition of Y , X is yielded. Therefore, rewritten, Y X. () Y X is true based upon conditions, C. Assume X is supplied. We know that Y X is false. So, Y X is false. Thus, since X is true, Y is false, making Y true. Therefore, supplied with X, we get Y ; using symbols, weve proven X Y . Q.E. friggen D. Theorem 0.0.13: Given conditions C, a conjecture Z := [X Y ] is theorem because (Y C X is false. Proof. content...

CHAPTER 0. PRINCIPLE FOUNDATIONS

Disclaimer: You may know how to rewrite something Ive written. Please dont give me answers. I want to gure it out on my own. My posting of these copies is a gift to you. If you wish to use my ideas, make sure to reference me. Furthermore, I am CLAIMING this thesis. If you have any questions as to what I mean by that, read my Copyright Notice at http://logos-logic.wikispaces.com/Index

0.1

Tools and Resources

Denition 0.1.1: A tool, X, is something used to create a product, Y .

0.1.1

Tools

Suppose Y is Logos. There are three general tools I shall use: X1 : my mind, X2 : my body, and X3 : my computer. My mind To create or recreate ideas, I must use the components of my mind. Generally stated, these include my sense of imagination and sense of reason which base themselves on my memory. These components are related to my brain and hence my body. Thus,... My body I use verbal communication (mouth and voice), body movement, sense of hearing (ears), and sense of vision (eyes) to create a resource based on memory, which forms itself by expressing and witnessing ideas and actions with/of others and myself (REWRITE!!!). I use my vision to read words and add to the aforementioned resource. And, in typing, I use my manual digits (movement) to record information as well as my sense of vision to read what I type. My computer To create the words, equations, and diagrams in this book, I shall use the hardware of the computer (i.e. keyboard, mouse, monitor, A etc.). In addition, I shall use L TEX, a program used to create documents, which uses packages that provide the capability to type information, create equations, and include diagrams. The diagrams will be created using Microsoft Oce or Adobe Illustrator .

CHAPTER 0. PRINCIPLE FOUNDATIONS

10

Denition 0.1.2: A resource,X, of a product, Y , is a raw supply used to create Y .

0.1.2

Resources

The resources I shall use in creating this work are: words, symbols, depictions, and mind content. Words To express ideas, I choose to use words in the English language and in other languages. For the foreign and focal words I use, I shall supply a denition. Symbols For recurring concepts (such as an imply), broad concepts (such as plus (see Section 1.3)), and relative concepts (such as variables), I may wish to use a symbol. I will dene the symbols used. Depictions Sometimes depictions, such as diagrams, express a concept better than words and symbols. In addition, diagrams aid in a persons comprehension of an idea expressed using these words and symbols. Thus, as a visual aid, I will supply diagrams to help in this area. Mind Content Its possible to put together a random conguration of words and symbols and to include an irrelevant drawing. However, my goal is to use these three resources to express my knowledge database of information. This database is a product of my experience in learning concepts and ideas of others. In addition to this personal experience, I have developed concepts and theories of my own making using my senses of reason and imagination. All of these concepts, theories, and ideas are either recorded in my memory or to be developed through writing this dissertation. Therefore, in [THE PART ON RECOGNITION], I will recognize key minds and products of minds used to develop this work.

CHAPTER 0. PRINCIPLE FOUNDATIONS

11

0.2

Format

Given a Unit of Information [book, chapter, section], the unit composes itself with subunits of information [chapter, section, subsection]. Thus, for structure, we shall make a given Unit of Information, X: [Unit] [m] (m is non-existent for book) submit itself to the following outline. 1. Subunit m.0 (m 0) Outline of the Unit Assumptions in the Unit Introduction to the Unit A Philosophical and Historical Overview of the Unit 2. Subunit [m.(n + 1)] for the most previous n {n : n Zandn 0} Denitions used in Assumptions Axioms and Assumptions General Denitions Theorems Paragraphs and Proofs

CHAPTER 0. PRINCIPLE FOUNDATIONS

12

0.3

Introduction

Chapter 1 Mathematical Foundations

13

CHAPTER 1. MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS

14

1.0
1.0.1 1.0.2 Outline

Introduction

Axioms and Assumptions

Meaning is or does not

Symbol / through symbol Logic := A i s.t. (or ) Sets : {x : x is [attribute(s)]} (or ) (or ) \ = (A, B) Relations

is dened as A implies itself implies because is logically equivalent to if and only if (same as ) for all there exist(s) such that not (i.e. the exact opposite of) and or

where The set containing all elements with [attribute(s)] [is/are] (an) element(s) contained in contain(s) the element(s) is (strictly) a subset of is a set containing all elements of (but is not the same as) complement minus is exactly the same set as united with (union) intersected with (intersection) {(a, b) : a A and b B}

CHAPTER 1. MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS Logic Sets Functions Arithmetic Functions f :AB f (A) f 1 f g(A) or f g(A) A or (A, U) Operations ab Logic Arithmetic + or / or Sets AB AB A\B Groups A < A; , > (A, , ) , , , , =, , , , = same as sets =, , >, , <

15

function f mapping from set A to set B function f of A function f s inverse function f of function g of A As complement in relation to U

(a, b) and or plus minus multiplied by divided by Union of A and B Intersection of A and B Set A where set B is not

A implies self (self-generating concept) a, b A, a b, a b : A Group A under operations and , where A =< A; , >

1.0.3

Philosophy and History of Math

CHAPTER 1. MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS

16

1.1

Sets and Relations

Denition 1.1.1: A set is a collection of whatever denoted as a listing between a { and a }, separated by a comma, with no repeated elements. Axioms 1.1: There exist sets. Denition 1.1.2: Given two elements, X and Y , the relation, , of X to Y , if one exists, is the ordering principle between the two elements (e.g. =, =, , ). We write X Y to denote that X relates to Y .

CHAPTER 1. MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS

17

1.2

Functions

CHAPTER 1. MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS

18

1.3

Operations and Groups

CHAPTER 1. MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS

19

1.4

Building Arithmetic

Chapter 2 Logic

20

CHAPTER 2. LOGIC

21

2.0

History and Use of Logic

CHAPTER 2. LOGIC

22

2.1

Foundation of Logic

CHAPTER 2. LOGIC

23

2.2
2.2.1

Ways to Prove Something

Direct Proof

Deduction Induction

2.2.2

Indirect Proof

Proof by Contradiction Proof by Contraposition

2.2.3

Counter-Example

CHAPTER 2. LOGIC

24

2.3

Theories

CHAPTER 2. LOGIC

25

2.4

Systems

Chapter 3 The Theory of Everything (TOE)

26

CHAPTER 3. THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING (TOE)

27

3.0

Story of TOEs Creation

CHAPTER 3. THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING (TOE)

28

3.1

Construction of the Theory

CHAPTER 3. THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING (TOE)

29

3.2

Physical Space

CHAPTER 3. THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING (TOE)

30

3.3

Quasi-Abstract and Abstract Spaces

CHAPTER 3. THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING (TOE)

31

3.4

Classication of Information

CHAPTER 3. THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING (TOE)

32

3.5

The Supernatural Realm

Chapter 4 God and Persons

33

CHAPTER 4. GOD AND PERSONS

34

4.0

Introduction

CHAPTER 4. GOD AND PERSONS

35

4.1

Persons

CHAPTER 4. GOD AND PERSONS

36

4.2
4.2.1

Theories About God

God does not Exist

Our existence is a process of haphazard occurrences. These occurrences stem from a source that spontaneously and haphazardly brought them about. But wait... That cant happen! For this source must have also been caused by a source. And this pre-existing source from which all sources stem would have to have spontaneously created them... meaning this source has either been programmed to function this way by itself or by some intentional system with the ability to program the source, which would imply a creative and intelligent minds existence before the time everything was set into motion. Sounds too much like God. OK... Everything was just mysteriously here ever since the beginning of time; and time started... by some haphazard occurrence... Alright, third times a charm. There was no beginning. There is no end. Everything that exists has always just existed from time extended from negative innity to the present. There is no reason for our existence. Objects in motion have always been in motion. It is only by the principle of serendipitous chance that life exists, that I am capable of reason, and that Math, the product of pure logic, is parallel to the Laws of Physics. My sense of reason is probably askew, but theres no way of knowing this because I am conned to my mind, an alternative reality serendipitously created by neurons ring, and these neurons re from some serendipitous neuron ring mechanism which stems from... neurons ring (among other things). Oh how grateful I am, dear Serendipity!

4.2.2

God Exists

CHAPTER 4. GOD AND PERSONS

37

4.3

Proofs of Gods Existence

CHAPTER 4. GOD AND PERSONS

38

4.4

The Story of God, the Point

CHAPTER 4. GOD AND PERSONS

39

4.5

Perspectives of God and Gods Relation to the World