Elemental Crisis

Ideas come and go. Much like the bio-organisms who entertain them, ideas are born, struggle to know their purpose, and then eventually, return into the void. The prism like quality contained within every idea matches the function of life in that what is operating below the surface mostly goes unnoticed. Taken for granted, sometimes ignored, or often mistaken as something else, traces of a cosmological constant can be observed throughout the complexities and conformity of everyday, day-to-day experience. Our best ideas may be those ideas, which are re-evaluated, re-worked, re-considered, re-assimilated and then re-shaped back into a similar, if not identical idea. But the question arises: Is this process somehow responsible for the creation of original though? If so, does this imply that before an idea is born in the mind it already exist, independently, somewhere else, separate from both mind and body?

Apparently, there is no ready-test designed to confirm or deny any such assumption. The data necessary for any proof would be impossible to gather, and the language necessary to argue any theorem would be dependant on subjective opinion of experiential reality. When scrutinized further, the question itself seems to become misappropriated, having no real worth or any fundamental logic worth exploring. Any statement lying outside the system of logic can be reduced to one simple equation:

x=x, x≠x

Commenting on this situation Aristotle once stated, "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.”  The principle behind this statement, formally known as the law of non-contradiction, developed simultaneously both from and into systems of analysis. Despite apparent conflicts, statements suggesting x and not x are contained within logic by providing the error of logic. Simplified, the following statement demonstrates how logic is contained within an error in logic:

Jill does not like anything Jack does not like. Jack dislikes cake. Jill likes cake.

Logically, as reasoned, this statement always will be unequivocally false. The function of logic is contained within all that is illogical. Similarly, coherence is broken when questions do not include or lie out-side the required variables necessary for proof:

Does Jill like anything Jack likes? Jack likes cake.

When information is incomplete or misaligned, there can be no determination of logic. Here logic cannot relate an error of logic, but demonstrates an illogical illogic function. A simple remedy is an additional variable or modifier:


Does Jill like cake? Jack likes cake and Jill likes everything Jack likes.

or

Does Jill like anything Jack likes? Jack likes cake. Jill likes cake.

Here, restored and unimpeded, logical determinations are now possible. Logical proofs are based on symmetries of varying degree and complexity, which valid or invalid mandate the same conformity. Within this symmetry, logic is contained within all that is logical or illogical. Yet what appears to be a breakdown of logic is either the function of logic contained within all that is illogical, or a disparity of logic in the breakdown of everything that is illogically illogical.

Jill eats cake. Everyone who eats cake is over 9’ tall.
Jill is smaller than Jack. Jack is 6’ 7” tall.

We may reasonable induce that Jill cannot be shorter than Jack and maintain the truth of all cake eaters. The determination of sequential logic is determined to be false when it is devoid of logic or the logic it contains is faulty. The above statement operates within logic, only that it forms the egress from it. Breakdown of logic may also occur when logic fails to determine illogic, even when logical. Here the example might be seen as illogically logical:

The world will end if countries cannot assure safety to their citizens. One countries safety destabilizes another countries ability to provide safety.

Sadly, here, the end of the world remains a logical conclusion. If the higher function of logic is human reason, then such a statement is easily concluded to be illogical. A mechanical function of logic must be trumped by its rational function. Such a statement can be seen as illogically logical. Incompleteness determining a failure of logic, remains outside the system of logic, and is an example of what is illogically illogical.

Some ice skaters wear blue. All ice is either blue or white. Some ice skaters wear white.

Here there is no means of determining logic or illogic. What is illogically illogical is determined, not through logic but by absence of any logical conclusion or reasoning.

If an idea exists, but only after it has been destroyed and then re-created, will an idea, which is identical to it, exist in the same capacity as before it was destroyed?

Here we find the god equation (can a God create a object, which God cannot move?) The logic within a god equation, as it first might seem, is not a function of a proof, but a determination of direction, flow or potentiality of logic. The fate of noncontradiction could now be, at best, described in terms of quantum function. A principle of nonexclusion would contain the properties of noncontradiction, but also would allow proofs to remain in superposition, both true or false, and logical or illogical within the same respect and within the same time. A Law of Nonexclusion can be formulated as:

(p ^ q) ⇒ (p ^ q) ^ ¬ (p ^ q) ^ ¬(¬p ^ ¬ q)
or
(p) ^ ¬ (p) ^ ¬(¬p)

Invariably, principles of nonexclusion will conclude that thought is generated internally within the mind, exists externally as an independent agent in both past and future, and does not exist at all. Depending on our viewpoint, belief or preconception, a thought may be one or none of these things. It may be possible for our minds to see through higher logic or reasoning a consciousness and connectedness to all of these things, simultaneously.