Hello,

More precision about logic and being rigorous in mathematics..

I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

So you have to be smart, since i am saying that the following
logical implication of [3] is false since you have to analyze it systemically,
since i am speaking about the independent system of [3] that is measured
by common sense and logic of reality:

[3] I take my umbrella -> The sky is not raining

More philosophy about being rigorous in mathematics..

I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i am inventing my following thoughts of my philosophy from my brain, so i said the following(read it below):

"I think logic in mathematics is really interesting and there is something happening in logic in mathematics that looks like the real numbers in mathematics, so i think by logically inferring the general rule of: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), is like making the general "concept" that applies to all the "particular" cases, so it also applies to causality since this general rule is like a general concept that permits to "model" all the cases in the truth table of the logical implication, so i think this way of doing by generalizing and making like a general concept is really powerful, this is why i think that real numbers in mathematics are like a concept that was made
to model all the cases of the reality(read my below thoughts about it)"

So i will be more rigorous so that you understand:

So notice the following truth table of the logical implication:

p q p -> q
0 0 1
0 1 1
1 0 0
1 1 1

Note that p and q are logical variables.

So i think that the truth table is setting all the cases that can hasppen in the reality, i give you an example:

If we take the following two propositions:

"I take my umbrella"

"The sky is raining"

So i think that the above truth table of the logical implication is like also putting and setting in the truth table all the cases that can happen in reality including the particular case of "causation", since we need the general rule that is logically inferred to work on all the cases in reality, but notice that we are also using our human common sense and human logic, since we can generate all the following cases from the truth table by using the above two propositions:

Note that -> means logical implication:

[1] I don't take my umbrella -> the sky is not raining

[2] I don't take my umbrella -> The sky is raining

[3] I take my umbrella -> The sky is not raining

[4] I take my umbrella -> The sky is raining

So now by using our human common sense and human logic
we can notice that the case [3] above is not logical
in reality, since if the sky is not raining the common sense
and human logic inferred from reality says that we have not
to take the umbrella , so this is why in the truth table
it is false, since as you already know that with the general rule logically inferred from the truth table we have to "measure" and "verify" the consistency of the system in the reality, it is how it is used, and when the other cases of the truth table are thus measured with common sense and human logic we notice that they are true, thus all the cases of truth table permits us to logically infer the general rule of:
(p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), and it permits
us to logically model the cases of the reality including the particular case of causation and to verify the consistency and/or to optimize,
so as you are noticing that with the truth table and the general rule
logically inferred from the truth table we are like making a general
concept, it is like the real numbers in mathematics that are like
the general concept, read my below thoughts about it:

More philosophy about logic in philosophy and mathematics..

I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i will continu to invent ideas from my brain, so I think logic in mathematics is really interesting and there is something happening in logic in mathematics
that looks like the real numbers in mathematics, since i think that
from the general truth table of all the cases of the logical implication we are getting a general law or general formula that is:

(p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q)

And p and q are logical variables.

And here is the truth table of the logical implication:

p q p -> q
0 0 1
0 1 1
1 0 0
1 1 1

So i think by logically inferring the general rule of: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), is like making the general "concept" that applies to all the "particular" cases, so it also applies to causality since this general rule is like a general concept that permits to "model" all the cases in the truth table of the logical implication, so i think this way of doing by generalizing and making like a general concept is really powerful, this is why i think that real numbers in mathematics are like a concept that was made
to model all the cases of the reality(read my below thoughts about it), so now we are understanding more that logic in mathematics permits to verify the logical consistency, so it is good for "reliability", and it also permits to optimize since for example one logical proof can be more "practical" or "faster" than another logical proof.

More of my philosophy about the human free will and more..

I think i am a philosopher that is smart, so if we ask
the following philosophical question:

Is there any free will ?

I think humans have no free will, since they have the strong tendency with there smartness to act by being more and more perfection since they have to adapt and to survive and they want to be great perfection so that to solve most of humans problems and it is the goal of morality to be this "perfection" at best, so i think that since humans have this strong tendency so i think it is like there is no free will.

Note that the English dictionary defines "perfection" as: "the act or
process of perfecting"

Read here:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfection

And i invite you to read my thoughts of my philosophy here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/YZSYxV41-qI

Also i invite you to read more of my thoughts of my philosophy here:

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.programming.threads/c/OjDTCDiawJw

Also i invite you to read more of my thoughts of my philosophy here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/ftf3lx5Rzxo

More philosophy about the real numbers in mathematics..

I will ask the following philosophical question:

Can we know more about real numbers in mathematics?

Notice that real numbers in mathematics is like a general "concept" that permits to generally represent quantities or such, so you are then noticing that this general concept has an independent life from the reality, since notice that we can find some parts of the real numbers in mathematics that are not real in reality but they are general and they ensure that real numbers in mathematics work in all the cases in reality, but notice that the real numbers in mathematics are also inferred from reality, it is like a concept that is also inferred from the reality, so when we say "1", i think that the "1" in real numbers is inferred from the reality, but we can find other real numbers that are not real and that generalize. It is like the concept of a "cat" or "dog", if we look carefully at those concepts you will notice that they are both the reality and not the reality, since a concept of a dog is an abstraction that is not the reality, but it is also a generalization that is the reality, so we are abstracting the concept so that to generalize.

More philosophy about relativity of time and relativity..

I think that i am a philosopher that is smart, and i think
that there Einstein special relativity that determines that time is relative, but i say that the zero in the axis of real numbers in mathematics that represents a meaning is also "relative", i mean we can say that we have zero "of" a thing, so you are then noticing that the axis of real numbers is like a general "concept", i mean it is like a general concept that permits to represent like a quantity or such, but since as i made you understand (read my thoughts below) that the law of causation doesn't apply to some things such as the wide space of the universe, so we can not say there is "zero" thing, since for example things such as the wide space of our universe or multiverse have always existed, read my thoughts below of philosophy so that to understand it.

More philosophy about time and space and matter and our universe..

I think i am a philosopher that is smart and now i will ask a philosophical question of:

From where come time and space and matter of our universe and why
our universe is fine-tuned for consciousness?

First you can read the following about science:

"The laws of thermodynamics say they always existed. Matter is created by energy. All matter consists of energy. This energy is electromagnetic. Light is electromagnetic energy when it decays it creates a background radiation to the universe. Energy cannot be created from nothing or destroyed to nothing, it mutates into another form. Without time there would be infinite space and without space there would be infinite time. Spacetime is a fabric with dimensions and is part of the physical universe. Space and time are inseparable. Everything that exists inside of it is part of it. Time has always existed with space the proportions are all that have changed. Science is trying to explain when the proportions changed."