Dear List Colleagues, Dear Steven, Much discussion has branched from Steven's first paragraph. This is my answer to his second.
If the "order we may discern in nature" refers to aspects of real interactive and emergent processes, then in my view no truth-functional propositional or predicate logic, even modal or paraconsistent forms thereof, can describe that order. One needs an extension to something like my logic in reality, where the terms refer to the actual alternating states of the processes, about which inferences can be made. Standard bivalent logic is adequate to handling changes and "oppositions" like changes in physical phase and the phases of the moon, not the dynamics involved in a shift from unacceptable government to an acceptable one. Yet I would like to see a certain order in this form of alternation also. The difference in complexity is crucial. Such non-repetition as exists between "day and night and day" is trivial. In processes of real interest, the concept of circularity, as sometimes used is discussions of autopoesis, is misleading Comments? Best wishes, Joe Brenner ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Ericsson-Zenith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Foundations of Information Science" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] list discussions Dear list, I like this question "Is nature orderly?" and agree that it is worthy of discussion. However, let me ask exactly how you would define an orderly nature, how you would detect an orderly nature and what do you think the implications are of it not being orderly? Joe, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "any order we may discern" and "logical in an expanded sense of logic"; surely any order we discern is a priori logical in any expanded sense. With respect, Steven On May 23, 2008, at 7:06 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote: > Dear FIS Colleagues, > > With due respect to Pedro, my first reaction to Stan's proposed > question is a positive "very useful". I believe that there are deep > issues of randomness or spontaneity, determinism and computability > that will emerge from its discussion. Another aspect is whether any > order we may discern can be, as I suggest, logical in an expanded > sense of logic. I would look forward to a discussion of this topic. > > Best wishes, > > Joe Brenner > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 5:56 PM > Subject: [Fis] list discussions > > Dear FIS colleagues, > > It is a long time that we do not have discussions in the list. I > have not been able to arrange any other "planned session" after Bob > Logan's one, due to work reasons (changing to a new job months ago). > It is not sure at all that in a few weeks there will be a new > session arranged. However, several weeks ago, Stan suggested > starting an open, informal discussion around a simple question: > > Is Nature Orderly? > > As a side comment (or response of sorts), I quote from P.M. Binder: > "The field of complex systems currently appears as an unfinished > mosaic. Many capable researchers are polishing and gluing the tiles > that may turn it into the queen of all sciences, the science of > synthesis and surprise. As we realize how much everything is > connected, both cooperation [or emergence] and dynamical frustration > can become important tools for our understanding of how the world > works." (2008, Nature, 320, pp. 320-21).. _______________________________________________ fis mailing list [email protected] http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis _______________________________________________ fis mailing list [email protected] http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
