Why is there only true and false in validating an argument? I mean why can't there be like a superposition of the two?
Can intuition be used in logic where truth and false can only be probable for only some of the required premises are attained?
If we worked the premises as variables in an equation, can I have 3 of 4 variables and solve for the fourth? This is ofcourse assuming that I know there are only 4 premises to be attained, but perhaps I can just know this because I have the conclusion already, or is there a way to devise it without the conclusion?
You know how you can find two variables by having two equations represented in the same system, inference, rules, whatever...
Well I suppose this would only work for a known/closed set of variables/premises if I wanted to find two premises by knowing only the rest, but there is only one equation or sentence where there are premises, essentially.
So, can I say ok: I have two statements which I know belong to the same sort of system (which I am lost on how to define such the closed system is, perhaps a book?, a mind?, a reality?). And in each of these statements I have 2 premises that need finding, and I don't have the conclusion; but rather, I have the axiom that defines the system the statements are expressed in.
Does the axiom have value, because it is a closed system, even if lets say, I can only have an intuitive grasp on it. (Or does it become undefined because intuitive systems must by open, because not all the information can ever be known, once the info is all known, then it is converted to a different system that would not be intuitive, rather instictual I presume).
Also, lets say I can label each statement I have by a theme
And lets say that one is able to intuitively grasp all the themes (ex. morality, pride, love, duality, reprisal) required in the system (again, back to mind, reality, book), because all one may want to do is come to a conclusion of the intermingling of the themes that can be found out through the matrix of statements they create on one another.
And... dang it!:brickwall::brickwall::brickwall: I just lost my train of thought that made sense to me a second ago. :depressed:
I wanted to show something like how if I had all the themes represented as statements that intuitively one could grasp the parallel effects they actually have on one another as the connectives in the statements,...
then, with only the connectives
, and 1 theme
, and of course the names of the themes
I wanted to find meaning to, I could reason any themes and their matrix of statements I wanted.
Hmm... does anybody understand what I might be trying to deal with here?, because I have stumped myself, and probably don't understand the basics of logic to come to these seemingly absurd terms.