I would like feedback and critique over this work I made.

AN EMPIRICAL PROOF ON THE CONNECTION OF ORDER AND CAUSATION

By = anonymous yet

FOREWORD:

Many logicians often treat two rocks of logic as separate, order and causation. Yet after empirically testing it, I have found the two to be related.

BASIC RULES FOR HIERARCHICAL CAUSALITY LOGIC

1. If a is caused by b, then a cannot be bigger than b (b -> a = a < b. If b < a WRONG)

2. If a is smaller than c, then all things after a is bigger than a (a < c = ∀a > a)

3. If something is smaller than another, everything after the first thing must be bigger than the first thing. (a¹ < b² = ∀x > a¹)

To further explain this, we must explain step by step.

If a is caused by b, then a cannot be bigger than b, for if it is bigger than b, b will not have the capacity of the capability of causing a.
If a is smaller than c, everything after a is bigger than a. Since in the ordered hierarchy (1, 2, 3, so on, a, b, c, d, so on) a is the smallest in the ascending order, everything after it in the order must be bigger than a. So even if a < c, b > a is correct.
If a thing is smaller than another, then everything after the first thing must be bigger than it.

CONTINUATION

Therefore, under these three rules, we can conclude that a < c = c±?->a. This notation implies that if a is smaller than c, then c or everything after may or may not be the causer of a, because under the order, c > a in value, and using the belief that a < b < c and so on, and using the rule of causal bound, c or anything after/bigger than it may be the causer of a.

IMPLICATIONS

This aims to prove two things:

The being of that than which nothing greater can be conceived is logically the causer of all things.
The causer cannot be smaller than its creation, due to the first rule (if something is caused by another the “another” must not be smaller than the “something”).
Even if in a notation something is not stated, it may be logically true. For example: a < c = c±? -> a or a < c = ∀ax?-> a. The second notation means that if a is smaller than c, then for all after a must be the causer of a, and the question mark defines the definite indefinite. Henceforth with this notation, the statement a < c = b -> a would be correct.

CONCLUSION

Henceforth, this es...

Posts

Wikitag Contributions

Comments