Logical Writing

Writing logically

Writing logically basically involves writing in a manner in which there is no other way of perceiving the written thing.

For example:

“There is no way to go faster than the speed of light.” 

In this sentence there is more than one possible meaning. The person could be talking entirely in the literal sense that it is simply impossible in the universe no matter the means, to travel at a speed greater than the speed of light, or they might instead mean that there is currently no means by which a person might travel faster than light, but that it may be that it is still unknown whether or not this is possible.

Writing logically as a concept eliminates this possibility for secondary or multiple meanings. Writing logically the statement might be something like the following:

 “Travelling faster than the speed of light is currently not plausible with humanity’s present technology.”


Logic Definition of Ethics

Logic definition of ethics

Ethics is based on a person’s actions and how it positively or negatively affects the person performing the action and the people affected by that action. Empathy is considered as the base of ethical conduct, as it is able to be applied consistently across individuals through autonomy; the wishes (freedom) of the people involved is therefore considered.

Ultimately freedom is the main thing that is attempted to be maintained in ethical practice.

Freedom is when a person is under no hindrance or control in terms of their intentions or will.

Acting ethically will therefore be to act without causing the freedom lost in others to outweigh the freedom you are exercising in order to perform that action.

Also, because the only way to know something is ethical or unethical is to have the physical representation of memory in the brain that suggests so, this is also taken into account. If an ethics system is isolated, there is no ethical value assigned to any action because no-one knows about it. Some examples:

Two people who are unknown by anyone else (no-one is expecting to see them, or has any wishes for them) are somewhere no person can observe them. One murders the other. In this case, while it is likely immoral that the murderer did what they did, there is no ethical value to be assigned as ethics is based on the effects of actions. Morality is the value an individual places on what memories of events they have. Ethics is the same, where the value is established systematically and the effects of the actions on all involved are considered.

In other words:

Acting ethically is to act without causing (memories of) freedom lost in others to outweigh the freedom you are (perceived to be) exercising in order to perform that action.

In practice:

Murder therefore is unethical as the person’s freedom to kill the person is not as great as the other person’s freedom to remain living, and the will of others for them to remain living.

Complete destruction of the human race is unethical only until there are no more people able to remember the events that make it unethical.

The murder of someone who has no links to any other person is not ethical, but is not assigned the ‘unethical’ tag either, as it is a matter of morality after they are gone.


Last modified 2015-03-10.

Private Use

You may use this and/or share it with absolutely anyone if the interaction is regarded private. You may do absolutely anything with it in this case, no matter what it is, regardless of the rest of this page.


You may redistribute this in any way you see fit, in accordance to the CC-BY license.

Commercial Use

You may profit from the information held in this site, but preferably only if it has been heavily modified. In accordance with a CC-BY license, you must provide attribution.

Number theories

There are several different ideas surrounding logic in mathematics.
Here are some of them.

Single Number Logic

This basically states that a thing can only have one answer. For example |x|=2 would normally have two answers, 2 and -2. This theory states that a thing can only be one other thing at one time, as the physical space it takes up wherever it is is not identical to the other answer’s space / position.
Basically this follows the logic that while |x|=2 gives positive and negative 2, positive 2 and negative 2 are not the same, thus cannot fit into the same category (x). X can be -2 or it can be 2, but it cannot be both.

Multiple Number Logic

This ideology states that something will always have many answers. For example x=1. x is 1 and 2-1 and 3-2 and 1/2 + 1/2 infinitely adding combinations. The idea is that 4+4 is not exactly the same as 2+6 simply due to the fact that, as with the above, they have different data, x+y =/= y+x due to its point in time and space, thus they are different answers. This only works in logic, not mathematics due to the fact that all possible operations are completed before the answer is given.

Mathematical or “Simultaneous” Logic

This is base mathematical logic, combining the above ideas. Something can be two things, yet it can only be those two things. |x|=2 gives 2 and -2 but not 2-4 or 1+1. Data has no unique position in time/space as such, instead it is seen ‘when needed’, as if it is dynamic in logic. There is no broad frame of reference as in Multiple Number Logic.

Elimination by logic loop paradox

Logic Loop Paradoxes

Firstly you have to understand why I call it a logic loop paradox instead of an ordinary one. The term logic loop paradox, as you can see, is made up of three words. Let’s deconstruct it.

Logic – Something that can only be one thing, if A is B, then A can’t not be B.
Loop – Something that alternates on ends, that “goes in circles”; Infinite loop.
Paradox – Something with two parts, that at first seems to contradict, but upon further viewing does not*.

*In this case, the italics are the part to ignore as we are talking about Logic paradoxes, not literary ones.

The type of paradox we’re talking about here is the kind that loops infinitely because it causes the other thing to be defined by the other, and vice versa.

And an example: “I am a liar” (with context that all liars must always lie, others always tell the truth).
I would recommend trying** to find an answer to this if you want to understand what this concept actually is.

The actual theory

Since these things can’t actually exist, we have to assume that anything that creates one is also not the answer.
This can narrow down the search for the answer to things by eliminating possibilities.


**There isn’t an answer, all possibilities create paradoxes. (apart from “the context is incorrect”)

An example of a discussion

Original idea

Black is a bright color.

Person one:

Black, (an absence of color/light) is considered dark, the opposite of “bright”. Something regarded as bright such as the color white, is the perfect inversion of black, therefore black is not a bright color.

Moderator edits the post to comply with the new logic:

Black, (the absence of light) is considered in normal society to be dark, the opposite of bright. Something regarded as bright such as the color white, is the perfect inversion of black on a color scale or in visual cues in humans.  Therefore by definition and human design, black is not a bright color.


Black is a bright color.

Note: the original is kept as reference, and before changes are made a comment containing the original (version before change) is made so as to keep context in comments about certain versions.

New Ideas

Hey there!

Chances are you got redirected here because you wanted to know how to get your idea into Infactual as a topic. You can also become a contributor so you can just cue an idea and we’ll let it post. Until we know a person can be fully trusted, they will use that method. Another way, without contacting a moderator to approve your contributor status is this:
Comment here on this post and use this sort of form:

  • What category it falls under (maths, social, fundamental etc.)
  • What the basic idea is (one sentence usually)
  • Why
  • What evidence you have for it (if there is none don’t worry too much)
  • If you want to be attributed to that version of it, say so

For example.

.Category -> defining
.The idea is that “infinite” has more than one value, or rather it is impossible to measure. It’s that because of this there is only one of infinite universe logic fact for each topic.
.As it is a base issue for other ideas
.Evidence is logic and mathematics
.No attribution