Any way, lets address the traditional 0/1 excluded-middle reasoning, as follows:
For those wondering, that translates to "let's talk about the idea that propositions are either true or false".
Apparently, doronshadmi believes this is not true.
<snip table>
As can be seen Unity is the substance of the 16 logical connectives between the 2 propositions p and q, which is not bounded p,q or anyone of the 16 logical connectives.
The table means nothing, and the rest is gibberish.
For those wondering, doronshadmi is constructing a rudimentary
binary tree. Trace any particular string of numbers down the length of the tree and you get a string of four numbers. The string "0011" is referred to as
p, while "0101" is
q. Yes, these values are completely arbitrary; they're just ones that give a pretty table.
All the stuff like "p AND q", "p XOR q", and so on is just pointing out which strings of numbers correspond to what
bitwise operations between those two values. "0001" is what you get if you perform the AND operation on p and q, when he talks about implication he's talking about bitwise logic implementation, and so on. It's actually fairly basic, and all correct so far as actually performing the operations and getting the right values goes.
But it doesn't actually mean anything.
Like I said, the values of p and q in this example are arbitrary. Aside from that, putting the word "unity" at the base of the tree is worse than meaningless. The tree uses binary values - zero and one - because it is talking about comparing strings of bits; a non-binary, non-numeric value as the root is incoherent, unless doronshadmi means to imply that "unity" means "any string of binary values of any length", and the two values being compared are simply differing ends to the string. Which would be valid, but doesn't help his other arguments much, since his whole "unity/multiplicity" thing can't take that as its definition.
There's also his placing the values "tautology" and "contradiction" at differing ends of the tree. Like the use of "unity" as the root, this
can make sense if you substitute the right values, but it still doesn't mean anything for the rest of his arguments. "Tautology", in this context, must be said to mean "I performed any string of bitwise operations that resulted in a result of 1111", while contradiction is the same but for the string "0000". Again, not technically wrong, but unnecessarily complicated, and not helpful to the rest of his arguments.
It also doesn't "address the traditional 0/1 excluded-middle reasoning". Or, rather, it does, but not in the way he wants it to.
Keep in mind that this tree is a demonstration of bitwise operations. It's computer programming, and, in programming, "true" and "false" are represented by 1 and 0, respectively. Bitwise operators - AND, OR, XOR, and so on - all work by comparing two bits (that is, values of 0 or 1) and "returning" (giving the answer) 0 or 1. That is,
bitwise operations only function explicitly because they work on the principle that doronshadmi claims they can disprove.
As for the strings they return, well, that's just doronshadmi failing to distinguish between 0 and 1 as truth values - which are called
Boolean variables, in programming - and as simple strings of bits which can mean anything depending on how they are processed.
So no. He hasn't addressed anything. He's just constructed a fairly simple binary tree showing, grabbed two arbitrary strings of bits, and then worked out where each bitwise operator is expressed on the tree. He then slaps on three terms that don't really make sense in the context unless taken in the loosest way possible (but which look
very impressive, dontcherknow) and claims he's proven something.
We can use 0/1 tree in order to demonstrate Unity as the substance of Materialism and Idealism
You can't, actually.
Putting aside literally everything that I said above, and ignoring for the moment that trying to represent materialism and idealism as binary 0 or binary 1 is a category error,
and letting slide for now the fact that you still don't have a definition of "unity", there's another problem here.
Literally all you have done is build a binary tree with an invalid value as its root and said "materialism = 1, idealism = 0".
This doesn't mean anything. This means
less than nothing. It is
un-learning things from my brain.
By the logic presented here, you could substitute literally any two things you wanted into this tree and prove that "unity" is the root of both. I could use this diagram to say unity is the root of teddy bears and the color purple. If this table is valid, you still haven't proven anything. You have, in fact,
un-proven everything, ever.
Try again. And this time, don't assume that your audience is completely ignorant of computer science and unable to call you out on your nonsense.
And, once again, misrepresented and incoherent programming-related pseudomath is a staple of doronshadmi's posts.
