{
  "author": "Maclain Hunter",
  "title": "Irrelevant Acceptance",
  "identifier": "hunter-irrelevant-acceptance",
  "sourceKind": "authored-foundational-record",
  "content": "Irrelevant Acceptance by Maclain Hunter\n\nPremises: \n\nP: Logic is Logic by Logic and the Law of Identity coherent with Logic and Logos (Logic’s self-grounding; Logic based in Logic). \n\nQ: The acceptance or denial of Logic as logically is by humans or contingent entities reasoning (ie - AI; computers; animals able to think logically) is required for Logic to be Logic. (Note: this is a false premise used in the negative sense formally. It is not intended or used as true.)\n\nR: Acceptance of Logic and Logos as Logic and Logos are by Logic is part of being logically coherent, as Logic accepts Logic and Logos as Logic and Logos are (and not as they are not). This aligns well with Feynman’s “Integrity Principle” but disambiguates logically what it means to “not fool yourself”.\n\nProof: \n\n{P, P -> P, (P -> P) -> ~(Q -> P), P -> R} |= (P & ~Q) & R\n\nConclusion: {P, ~Q, R}: \n\nThe conclusion we can draw from this includes that Logic is independent of contingent acceptance and that this applies to all of Logic including concepts of proof and premises, where alignment with Logic is what matters. \n\nLogical validation of Logic, proof, and logical concepts cannot be a matter of imagining what every school of thought might try to say to justify ignoring Logic or denying premises they haven’t refuted but just “don’t accept”. \n\nIt is illogical to defer to contingent authorities or minds instead of going by Logic as Logic is logically. \n\nThe person who accepts Logic for what it is instead of trying to shape Logic and Reality with arbitrary denial/acceptance is set up to be much more coherent with Logic than the person who does not respect that Logic is self-made and self-defined, not to be twisted externally. Feynman’s insights align well.\n\nThis is effectively (though not necessarily exhausting) what P, not Q, and R say, grounded in Logic. \n\nTruth Table Analysis:\n\nTTT⎪T TTT  TTT FF TTT  TTT  TFFT FT\nTTF⎪T TTT  TTT FF TTT  TFF  TFFT FF\nTFT⎪T TTT  TTT FF FTT  TTT  TTTF TT\nTFF⎪T TTT  TTT FF FTT  TFF  TTTF FF\nFTT⎪F FTF  FTF TT TFF  FTT  FFFT FT\nFTF⎪F FTF  FTF TT TFF  FTF  FFFT FF\nFFT⎪F FTF  FTF FF FTF  FTT  FFTF FT\nFFF⎪F FTF  FTF FF FTF  FTF  FFTF FF\n\n(Valid)\n\nQED\n",
  "formal": null,
  "structuredAuthoredProof": null,
  "authoredSteps": null,
  "recordedAt": "2026-10-03T01:29:53.136Z",
  "originalAuthoredAt": null,
  "propositionMeaningBoundary": "Atomic identifiers retain their meanings in the exact source. No arbitrary truth assignment establishes an ontological or empirical premise; the formal witness checks the written inference."
}