Notes

Axiom
Law of thought
Correspondence theory of truth > Objections
Semantics (slippages in fixed meanings.

Systems of categories are not objectively out there in the world but are rooted in people's experience. These categories evolve as learned concepts of the world – meaning is not an objective truth, but a subjective construct, learned from experience, and language arises out of the "grounding of our conceptual systems in shared embodiment and bodily experience".[12] A corollary of this is that the conceptual categories (i.e. the lexicon) will not be identical for different cultures, or indeed, for every individual in the same culture.)
Non-classical logic (Intuitionistic logic, Fuzzy logic, Quantum logic)
Meme
Memetics
Dawkin's memetic semantics as a unit of cultural information transfer
Bayesian approach to beliefs

What does it mean when we use words? For example, let say you have a house key and just in case you lose it, you make a duplicate. Can you say they are the same? On some level, yes! They have the same shape, they both fit into and open the same lock. On the other hand, no! They can't have EXACTLY the same shape; there are bound to be at least a few atoms off that cause slight deviations of the two in terms of shape. They would have differences in atomic impurities as well. If you want to be so strict, they don't share the very same atoms or very same subatomic particles, and don't occupy the same position in spacetime! Or even, if the duplicate key was made with a different metal, its material might be totally different! Yet at some level you still can say they are the same.

Classical logic breaks down at some point. Imagine one fine day you're just driving along, well within the speed limit, when a policeman stops your car and interrogates you, "Did you know that you were speeding?". Applying classical logic, what should be the truth value to the statement "I knew that I was speeding"? True would mean that "I did know that I was speeding". False would mean that "I did not know that I was speeding". But both of these are false, because you were not speeding in the first place! Both "I did know that I was speeding" and its negation as well are false because the truth value of these two are both conditional upon you having sped!
Law of excluded middle (Many modern logic systems replace the law of excluded middle with the concept of negation as failure. Instead of a proposition either being true or false, a proposition is either true or not able to be proven true)
Negation as failure
Alternatively, if your logic system instead came in the form of "It is the case, that I knew that I was speeding" and "It is not the case, that I knew that I was speeding", the latter applying for all possible cases that are not the former, then it would be able to account for the condition of you actually not having sped.

You are free.
So, I am free to do anything?
Yes.
But, of everything I can do, what _should_ I do?
I don't think you understand what that word means. Free. FREE.
...Oh.
[Morpheus free your mind scene.jpg] You know where this is going next. He jumps and proceeds to free his mind all over the sidewalk.

--THE END--