For a cleaner version (format, tables, etc.), see the SubStack link.
Consider both aforesaid laws, Law of Consensual Unity and Law of Ethical Continuity, therefore the two logic gates, the AND gate as well embedded in the else (not consensual) clause the XOR gate, additionally their respective truth tables and Boolean algebraic (analytical) expressions. For distinction thus clarification between the two logic gates, symbols or variables A, B and C will be arrays A[1,2], B[1,2] and C[1,2] as shown below…
AND
gate…
. .
A[1] à | AND |
| |
à C[1] (conclusion)
B[1] à | gate |
A[1] B[1] C[1] (conclusion)
0 0 0
1 0 0
0 1 0
1 1 1
ƒ(A[1],B[1]) = A[1]*B[1] = C[1] (0,0,0,1)
XOR gate…
. .
A[2] à | XOR |
| |
à C[2] (conclusion)
B[2] à | gate |
A[2] B[2] C[2] (conclusion)
0 0 0
1 0 1
0 1 1
1 1 0
ƒ(A[2],B[2]) = A[2]+B[2]-2A[2]B[2] = C[2] (0,1,1,0)
Consequently, again consider the following comprehensive pseudo code, utilizing both logic gates, values (variables/arrays) of both truth tables as determined by both Boolean algebraic (analytical) expressions…
if consensual
(A[1] = 1 AND B[1] = 1)
then
unity
(C[1] = 1)
else (not
consensual)
(A[1] = 0 AND B[1] = 0)
(A[1] = 1 AND B[1] = 0)
(A[1] = 0 AND B[1] = 1)
not unity
(C[1] = 0)
if action
disregarding dissent
(A[2] = 1 AND B[2] = 0)
(A[2] = 0 AND B[2] = 1)
then
ethical dilemma
(C[2] = 1)
else
(A[2] = 0 AND B[2] = 0)
(A[2] = 1 AND B[2] = 1)
not an action disregarding dissent
not an ethical dilemma
(rather ethical continuity)
(C[2] = 0)
done
done/exit
To be clear, the point of such exercises is to
demonstrate the syllogism as logical hence consistent, the logical argument as
the critical prerequisite towards proposing then proving further the ethical
argument. To reverse engineer, if to propose any consideration as ethical as should
any consideration factual and truthful, then paramount during the observation then
determination must be consistency as a
primary characteristic, dynamic and/or element, else inconsistency then certainly something other than factual, truthful
as well ethical.
It is true that as the empty voids and the dismal wilderness belong to zero, so the spirit of God and His light belong to the all-powerful One.
Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (1646-1716)
Whence it is that the ultimate laws of Logic are mathematical in their form... It is not because we choose to assign to it such a mode of manifestation, but because the ultimate laws of thought render that mode possible.
George Boole (1815-1864)
Information: the negative reciprocal value of probability... Information is the resolution of uncertainty.
Claude Elwood Shannon (1916-2001)
It would be appropriate even prudent to declare again clearly, concisely the two aforesaid laws before proceeding to the next installment Laws, Gates, Tables and Expressions / Part 2, and prior to the third law yet proposed (see Proposition, Problem & Poem Nos. 231, 232)…
Law of Consensual Unity; if consensual among all then ethically determined unity, else rightful dissension among one or more then unavoidable disunity (see Proposition, Problem & Poem Nos. 225, 226).
Law
of Ethical Continuity; if an action disregarding dissent (non consensual) then an
ethical dilemma, else not an action disregarding dissent, not an ethical
dilemma rather ethical continuity (see Proposition, Problem & Poem Nos.
227, 228).
The chillness then frigidness, per cyclical ice ages,
repeated phases
Embracing illogic thus inconsistency as science’s
mantric phrases
While tantric praises tossed as laurels on heads of
jesters and kings
Lords and queens, their whores and fiends and depraved
offspring
O the brass rings o’er crass things as bellies swell
for lack of bread
Per empty racks, bare shelves tho’ barren more
themselves instead
Feasting on bone, fucking alone, fighting forlorn, no
coin, no corn
Worst than beasts in fields, old cocks on dunghills,
as forewarned
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.
No comments:
Post a Comment