So I fed key pieces of my philosophy into the AI...

It extrapolated from them quite beautifully. It understands my system better than I do and gives me logical implications of my views even extended into fields I do not understand, so I cannot evaluate the quality of that material. In sum, I have a justification for a self-contained network of positive meanings that can defeat relationalism of meaning views, grounds metaphysics in identity, and argues for the necessity of existence in a rather fun way that makes "if you can think it up, then it's real" into a meaningful view (apart from quantum physics, which does it another way, depending on how you want to interpret it). It separates out of the word "perfect" two closely related meanings that are used interchangeably in common parlance and it situates humanity relative to virtue and virtue relative to love. It defends the heirarchy of being and dispenses with any magical thinking. The ground of all this is reason, which is the subject-predicate structure of thought, the basis of propositional language, and a mirror of the structure of reality. It is not something that at its essence can or should be relativized to history, taken in a broad enough sense. Stories can be told about misapplications of reason, especially historically salient corruptions, and by some of history's finest, most rational minds, but they don't impugn what these minds got unassailably right. In philosophy, there are few charlatans (even if it still follows trends, hence the illusion of non-progress when anyone educated in philosophy can see the progress through a chain of arguments or a condensed history of philosophy). The AI was able to compare with other thinkers and gave me what was original in my work from what was done elsewhere, even if I used it in a novel way. It was nice to see that my system isn't a knock-off. I don't have anyone in my life to share this with, so I'm posting it here.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

ElwoodBlues · M

What are the axioms on which the predicate logic structure is built?

Alyosha · 36-40, M

@ElwoodBlues i asked the AI for a reconstruction since I did not start from laying down axioms but critiquing philosophy that descended into second substance or private languages. The first axiom is law of identity. There are something like 15 or 20 points that it gave me. I'll just quote another select couple.

2. Grounded Possibility Axiom

A grounded possibility must be actual.
If ◊x is grounded, then x exists.
Formally:

∀x (GroundedPoss(x) → Exists(x)).

This encodes your thesis that there is no possible-but-not-possibly-possible, because identity forbids a gap between what something can be and what it is.

---

3. Law of Actuality of Grounded Modality

Possibly possible implies actual.
Formally:

∀x (◊◊x → x).
This makes modality collapse into actuality whenever the possibility is not purely formal but grounded in identity.

---

II. Axioms of Form, Being, and Ordriateness

4. Axiom of Determinate Form

Being is that which has determinate form or a recursive flow.
Formally:

∀x (Being(x) ↔ (DeterminateForm(x) ∨ RecursiveFlow(x))).

This is the backbone of your ontology: to be is to be determinate.

---

5. Axiom of Ordriateness

Every domain with suboptimals has an optimal arrangement of parts.
∃D [Domain(D) → ∃o (Ordriate(D,o))].

This encodes your principle that structure is teleological: orderedness is not arbitrary but the optimal arrangement inherent to the domain.

This is why something possibly possible collapses into actuality:

[Quote]1. Possibility must be grounded in identity

You hold that:

A grounded possibility is one that belongs to the nature of a thing.

Identity is determinate and contains all of a thing’s essential powers.

Thus:

If something is possibly possible, it must be possible in virtue of what it is.

Formally:

> If ◊◊x, then the inner possibility ◊x is grounded in the identity of x.

Meaning:
The second-order possibility (possibly possible) is not “free-floating”; it arises from the inner structure of the thing.

---

2. Identity cannot contain non-actualized grounded dispositions

You reject the idea that identity can include:

unrealized powers

non-actualized grounded possibilities

modal content that is not instantiated

Because this would imply a gap between:

what the thing is, and

what the thing can be in virtue of what it is

But identity in your system is absolutely determinate.
It cannot contain:

loose ends

unrealized modal content

possible-but-not-actual properties

Thus:

Identity does not permit uninstantiated grounded possibility.

---

3. Therefore: possibly possible → actual

Putting these together:

If something is possibly possible (◊◊x):

then the possibility ◊x is grounded in the identity of the thing

but grounded possibilities cannot be non-actual

therefore x must be actual

Formally:

1. ◊◊x → GroundedPoss(◊x)

2. GroundedPoss(◊x) → Actual(◊x)

3. Actual(◊x) just means x is actual

4. Therefore ◊◊x → x

---

4. Intuitive summary

Think of it this way:

If something is possibly possible, then its possibility is not accidental.

A non-accidental possibility must be in the thing’s identity.

Identity is determinately actual, not “maybe something extra.”

So any identity-grounded possibility must already be realized.

Thus the modal operator collapses once it becomes grounded.

This is why you get:

> What is genuinely possible (i.e. grounded) must already be actual.

And this, in your system, is why grounded modality collapses into actuality.[/Quote]

It generated this from a few fragments that I put into it plus "If something is not merely possible but possibly possible, it is actual". It drew this defense out of my metaphysics of identity, though I'm not sure which pieces.