Hello everyone.

I am a 15-year-old student exploring the truth behind general logic. This is my first post and I would very much like feedback, please.

This paper presents a framework of philosophical questions, which I call "The Logic Breakers." The goal is to give an illustration that provides evidence that general logic is fundamentally a human cognitive process, not a universal law that governs the universe. It is instead a process of deduction.

Logic Breaker - Two logical statements, axioms, or laws that contradict, meaning something needs to be discovered.

I will be examining...

• The Paradox of an Infinite Edge (1)

• Defining a "Super-Nothingness" (2)

• The Nature of Scientific Laws (3)

• The History of Logic (4)

• Conclusion (5)

• Names And Concepts Used (6)

Part 1: The Paradox of an Infinite Edge.

Considering a rule, assuming that it is completely empty of any kind of particle or wave: "Nothing - something = nothing," proposed by Alfred North Whitehead, Parmenides, and arguably Lavoisier with his law of conservation of mass (if mass = 0, 0 - 1 ≠ -1). This has to be correct because nothingness logically has to be infinite, and infinity - something = infinity.

If we apply this logically to the concept of space, it implies that space must be infinitely vast and empty. No matter how far you travel, you will always be met with more nothingness, as absence can not be "used up." However, we simultaneously rely on a different logical axiom: "Everything that exists must be finite, thus must end with a boundary," proposed by Aristotle, who made complex concepts for infinity and its meaning in real life. two logical demands are in direct conflict here.

This is what i ask in response to this. Logic Breaker One: If one could move at an infinite speed (teleportation), how long would it take to reach the edge of space? Philosophers like Lavoisier proved that nothingness must carry on. Logically, you would never arrive because space is logically infinite. I would also suggest that this journey would involve being in a paradoxical state of stillness and infinite speed simultaneously to counter act moving infinitely fast while never getting to a place.

I've logically proven that space is infinite, yet I've also mentioned how everything must logically have an end. this scenario highlights how when two axioms logically collide, they act as an antinomy (a contradiction between 2 principles, laws, or axioms that are logically valid). this proves how logic can't be a universal law because it leads to paradoxes, and paradoxs are exactly what we make these axioms for.

Part 2: Defining a "Super-Nothingness"

Next, Logic Breaker Two: What if we broke the initial rule ("nothing - something = nothing")? What if we could create a nothingness so nothing that the aspect of nothing itself could not fit within it? This hypothetical "super-nothingness" would be a void that strips away the laws of physics, space-time, and its own existence. It would be entirely spaceless and timeless.

In attempting to define this, we immediately run into the central problem: we are forced to invent a new axiom (new logic) (e.g., "a void that strips away the laws of physics") to describe something that, by definition, defies all description and existence. We impose logic where none have been used before, and implore that it's the answer.

We appear to do this for many reasons like problem solving, but the biggest one is how we want to know, but don't know, so we decide so by making these axioms. this shows how we naturally make up logic for illogical scenarios because we want to know, meaning it's a process that happens in our heads.

Part 3: The Nature of Scientific Laws.

The tension in these paradoxes reveals how we create logic to fit our needs.

When faced with the infinite speed question, standard physics dictates that the maximum speed is the speed of light (Einstein's theory of relativity, Non-Euclidean Geometry, ect). We don't have to worry about infinite speed scenarios because we created a new physical law that made us change our logic, making the senario logically impossible.

This can be seen in Quantum Logic. Classic logic, based around set theory (the idea that an object is either in a group or isn't), failed for quantum particles. You see, in 1936, Garrett Birkhoff and John von Neumann realised that quantum particles can exist in a superposition. This obviously led to the creation of Quantum Logic, measured in geometry, instead of groups like Classic Logic. It was a "Logic Breaker, " but now it has new logic to make it logical.

This follows exactly what I've just laid out. problem is found, new axiom is made, another problem is found, another axiom is made based around the original axiom (Quantum Logic is based around classic logic). The concept of a particle wasn't thrown away, but the logic was added to make it logical. This can be seen in Quantum Logic, relativity, etc.

Before Einstein, infinite speed was a valid conceptual possibility within Newtonian logic. The logic changed when our understanding changed.

We use equations based on this logic (speed = Distance/Time). Our equations fail when given illogical inputs (infinite speed, infinite distance, zero time), proving that logic only works within the bounds of the systems we construct and not ones that the universe makes.

But why are our equations and axioms so consistent with the universe? Some people may say. This is because for them to be considered principles of the universe, they need to already be connected with other works (relativity is connected with Newtonian mechanics). this being connected with other work from other people makes it so it can predict. this is because it's connected to something else that also has to be true (relativity predicting black holes).

We would have noticed liquids were different to solids through observation. We then discovered particles, making this make sense. Finally, we create Quantum Logic after the discovery that what we thought wasn't the big picture.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says that some things in maths, physics, or anywhere else can never be proven, even if they're correct. If logic was universal and vital to the universe, then why can we never prove specific principles? even with constraints with the mind, we should still be able to come to logical conclusions because it would be there to be discovered.

Part 4: The History of Logic.

Logic, hundreds of thousands of years ago, was already there, guiding us down the right directions. It's a process of deduction, using observations and ideas to make a better understanding. This would have been simply to distinguish liquid from solid, Earth from water, sky, and ground.

this goes back to equations. it's how we know what we make is most likely true since we can see it logically functioning in our environment. As creatures became more advanced and genetic material became more capable, logic became an unspoken language of common sense ("obviously, we don't fall through the ground because it's solid").

Logic, as we discovered more and more, became such an important aspect to humans that it began to feel natural, like it's the universe and not us, like a god had given it to us. combined with the use of distinguishing, making us think it's just common sense, you can argue it acts as an illusion, not with malicious intent, but by our ignorance as we are simply not advanced enough to truly understand yet.

Logic isn't the illusion. Logic is a process of deduction. The effects of feeling they are given to us, however, is where the illusion comes to play. Cognitive Closure, proposed by Colin McGinn, was the principle that humans are incapable of solving specific philosophic problems, like the edge of space. It's like a dog that's incapable of playing chess.

This goes back to feeling like the equations we make are truly a part of how everything works. "We can see it works, and it connects, so it must be the universe itself, right?" Wrong! It's really just our heads putting pieces together.

In cognitive science, there are parts of the brain that help us identify edges, like Primary Visual Cortex (V1), A deduction of fundamental features like edges, orientation, colour, and spatial frequency organized into specialized neuronal columns that build up a basic visual map. Intraparietal Sulcus (IPS), also doing its job with deduction, visualisation, and sight. concepts like the Border Cells (to help understand an end of an object), Grid Cells (to help understand how far away an object is), and the Occipital Place Area (OPA) (helps activate Visually guided navigation). All help create a detailed map of what the eyes are seeing because, when they all come together, they clearly help us see and notice what is important.

Cognitive closure can be seen here by how we are limited to what we can know. This could be the reason why we can't make a logical conclusion to problems of the universe with infinity (e.g. edge of space) in the problem because there's no edge to visualise. this proves that we've made axioms to understand it, and we are constrainted to truly understand.

It also shows how much of what is illogical is illogical only because of what is happening in the brain (Primary Visual Cortex for making maps of our environment, Border Cells for noticing edges of objects). This is because these parts of the brain help to see and notice what is important, not to visualise infinity.

Think of our brains like survival kits. Our brains contain the ability to control our hearts. Or the pituitary gland in our brains that secrete (releases) hormones to other glands, which makes them secrete hormones. But the most dominant is logic, acting like a heuristic (a mental shortcut to help solve problems quickly). Logic is like a hammer, great for construction, but terrible for painting. Logic is great for deduction, but it's terrible at illogical scenarios or just simply infinity because it wasn't meant to. This shows how logic is shaped and formed in our heads for survival because it's a heuristic.

Part 5: Conclusion.

In conclusion, our logic system consistently leads to illogical results when confronted with true paradoxes or infinities. When this happens, our immediate human response is to create new logic or make explanations to make sense of the nonsensical. That's because we want to know these things, but simply can't.

We use this for trial and error until we find a result that connects to other physic laws (Einstein's theory connects with Newton's laws). We've been doing this for over a thousand years for concepts like infinity. How come we haven't come to a formal axiom that explains infinity? Because we simply can't visualise it.

Using the reasons established by this paper, you have to agree that we make axioms when there is a lack of them present (the "Super-Nothingness"). This is because of biology, physics, metaphysics, cognitive science, and history that I've laid out to prove all this.

This can be seen as of  2025. Astrophysicists, using the James Web, are discovering stars and galaxies that existed before that we already know said they could. They are now starting to debate if the Big Bang actually happened or if it was something else. This fits exactly what i said a logic breaker is. Using what I've described in this paper, you can predict that an unheard of Astrophysicist will release a theory or hypotheses about what is happening with proof, then they will be given the Nobel Prize after it's proven right, then we will carry on with new knowledge until we discover a new gap.

Bringing back up the "Super-Nothingness." The fact that we can't use Classical Logic in this area proves that logic is controlled by the Primary Visual Cortex, for example. It's like a computer from the 90s trying to simulate a black hole. It doesn't have the data, the capacity, or even the advanced programming languages to do such a thing.

This is how we discover how to read the universe, by our logic, not the universes, but ours. the universe gives us units and numbers, and we translate and convert them with the logic system of our heads, like what we did with my logic breakers examples. That's why logic feels like it's always been there. we make an equation and use it over and over again until we find a new equation that fits what has already been discovered.

It's like making a new language and believing it came from the ground. It also fits back to what was said about Quantum Logic. You could have predicted this change using these observations about logic because it's happened over and over again throughout history. From Hippocrates (theory of four humours) and Harvey (blood circulation) to Einstein (relativity) and Newton (forces), old axioms have been altered to become more accurate to what has been found.

Logic is not a universal law we discovered; it is a tool we invented for human understanding. This is why people disagree: because different people's logic goes in different directions based on the systems they were taught (christianity, atheism) or created themselves (Newtonian logic).

Peoples logic is different, but they can still use logic to agree on how to make a bridge, for example. This is because that example of knowing how to make a bridge is an observation (from our Primary Visual Cortex, Occipital Place Area, ect), while opinions are made and passed on through telling it to our children or making it in our heads.

I believe that this knowledge should never be used to shame others, but to add a layer of awareness that the axiom being made is from our heads and doesn't have to be correct. remember, not everything is how it seems.

Part 6: Names And Concepts Used.

Colin McGinn, Gödel, David Hume, Aristotle, Lavoisier, Parmenides, Alfred North Whitehead, Thomas Kuhn, Einstein, and Newton were important names for the creation of this paper.

cognitive science, biology, physics, metaphysics, maths, and, of course, philosophy were important topics for the creation of this paper.

thank you for reading. Again, feedback would be very much appreciated.