Replying to first to Joe, then to John, then to Karl (my first for the week) -
Joe Brenner said:
>Dear Group,
>
>I am interested to see that logic has returned as an issue, something I
>referred to in an earlier posting. The problem I see with this latest
>exchange is that logic is again taken to have an extremely limited scope.
S: I think this is far too modest! Our
entire modern constructed world of machines is
based in logic. Unless we get lost in the woods,
we are embedded in logical constructions, as.
e.g., in the Internet at this very moment.. What
Western(ized) culture does is construct machines
based in logic.
> It
>is basically that of classical bivalent logic, somewhat fuzzifed and
>modalized perhaps but still restricted to questions of the truth of
>propositions. Intuition is the paradigm concept of the non-scientific,
>non-rational etc.
S: I have been suggesting that we try to
realize Charles Peirce's call for a 'logic of
vagueness' to get closer to The World and
actuality. (I myself am not up o this task.)
>
>I now respond to John and Stan at once: a logic that is a logic of all real
>complex phenomena, starting from the self-duality of quantum entities,
>provides a basis for order that is independent of human cognition. As the
>latter "inherits" the properties of its physical substrates of which it is
>composed, it follows the same logic, including both "hard" knowledge and
>intuition seen as processes. One spends more time "doing" (making inferences
>from) knowledge than intution, but both are real, without any need for
>panpsychism.
S: I note "independent of human cognition"!
I'm afraid, I don't see who constructed all these
'complex phenomena' if not Western cognition!
ESPECIALLY QM phenomena (an oxymoron, since all
QM observations in this field are the careful
constructs of experiments.) Even phenomenology
is a human cognitive construct! It exists in
texts, which, if they weren't logical would not
have made it into print. (I leave aside poetry
and such as having made little contribution to
modernism.)
>
>I wonder if anyone would care to comment on this tentative extension of
>logic.
S: As above,
-----------------------------
John said:
Replying to John --
John Collier said:
>
> At 05:24 PM 01/06/2008, you wrote:
>>John said the below.
>>
>>SS: I take exception to the claim that order is not a projection from our
>>own experience and creations (notably logic). Nature, our scientific
>>model of The World is orderly by reason of its having a logical
>>skeleton. Naively perceived orders in The World, like the succession
>>of day and night, depend upon the locale, scale, and senses of the
>>observer. Thus, aspects of The World may seem orderly TO US, and we
>>take advantage of this relationship, which itself depends upon logic.
>
>See the book by my student Scott Muller, Stan. The arguments
>you give indicate at best that the order we perceive is not all the
>order. If you can beat Scott's arguments, I would be willing to listen,
>but frankly I am finding this construction of knowledge position
>increasingly vapid.
S: Well, I find it to still be fruitful in
my pursuit of Natural Philosophy. Thus,
{Physico-chemical constraints {biological
constraints {logical constraints}}}, with each
higher level constraint a refinement of those
below it. This seems to point to
physico-chemical and biological orderlinesses,
but these are the products of scientific
investigations, which are guided largely by
logic. This does not lessen the need to
understand these physico-chemical and biological
orders. the construction of knowledge position,
like the semiotics of von Uexküll, merely points
out that we the observers are entangled with
physics, chemistry and biology.
>
>>I also take issue with the idea that there is no power of intuition,
>>simply from my own experience, which is convincing (to me). Indeed,
>>I think that quantum mechanics has now cleared the way to introduce
>>intuition even into Nature.
>
>Read the Pierce articles. If you can reply to them cogently,
>I might listen. Otherwise, your experience and your interpretation of
>it is fallible,
S: Isn't every position? I never claimed
infallibility. I leave that to the Pope!
> and I would say that it must have failed you, or else
>you didn't get the idea that all thought is in signs.
S: In my interpretation (forthcoming in
Semiotica) signs are CO-constructions of a system
of interpretance and the external object.
>If not, there
>is such a thing as pure thought that is not representational. I see
>no reason QM allows that.
S: In a view I find congenial, intuition
(for lack of a more exact term) is entangled with
local events before they unfold.
-----------------------------------------
Attempting to respond to Karl --
>The conceptualisation of the "info problem" has
>made several steps forward. In fact, the concept
>behind "information" appears to be transmitted
>by the diversity properties of a symbol.
>
>We traditionally disregard the diversity
>property of symbols in the way of thinking we
>are used to call "rational". Rational is in
>reality that what can be expressed by such means
>that both sender and receiver of the rational
>communication can rely on the exact denotation
>of the communication. This restricts the
>connotation alternatives. (While "happiness" has
>many connotations and it is unsure, what sender
>means by saying "happiness", "23" has fewer
>connotations and in theory sender and receiver
>should use identical denotations of "23".)
S: Modern poetry makes great use of connotations and polysemy.
>
>Taking, for example, the difference between two
>summands of a sum as a relevant aspect of the
>addition, one arrives at a more complex logic,
>in which terms like "information" become
>extremely well delineated.
S: In this way many summand pairs become
subsumed under one difference. We have lost some
information.
>
>Stating that the concurrent use of the
>differences alongside the similarities when
>conducting an addition yields just as an aside a
>unified field theory may have sounded grand.
>Yet, this is very well the case.
>
>The material and the spatial component of an
>addition a+b=c can be shown to be interwoven by
>using u=b-a, i=u-a and expressing c=a+b=3u-2i.
>The spatial (linear) arguments connected to u
>and i can be shown to increase and decrease with
>a. (The linear arguments come from observing the
>succession of ai+bj=ck. Where a specific pair of
>a,b comes to lie in the process depends on the
>order, that is, neighbourhood relations. The
>neighbourhood relations of a sequence are the
>elements of N in an order. There are 6 ways of
>ordering a collection of ai+bj=c. We express
>i=f(a) and a=f(i) and find a slight bias as we
>observe the change i,i+1 vs. a,a+1. Then, we
>have more, sufficient and less than necessary
>space available for the material arguments.) The
>table is just a bit more complicated but no less
>rational.
S: The Real World of Logic (my Nature) can
be made as complicated as you wish, but science
has traditionally tried to make it as simple as
possible so that it's findings can be used to try
to control, dominate, or at least predict the
Actual World.
>
>In fact, the Bose-Einstein condensate appears as
>the first step of the differentiation of the
>space-material mix of arguments. The physicists
>put the B-E-C at the "end" of a progress. The
>phaenomenon becomes easily understandable as it
>appears as the "first" of the steps that lead to
>a well-diferentiated, almost stable
>collection. The stable elements of this
>collection are greeting us a physical concepts
>of "chemicsal elements". These are such
>complexes where the non-existing and the
>existing are symmetrical on the same collection
>of space segments. There are 8 main classes of
>such which come in 10 periods. The assembly of
>the periodic table of elements from chemistry is
>making good progress, only this table is in
>accounting-speak "congruences between phase and
>space related positional and material densities"
>and has 136 rows and - presently - some 36
>columns.
>
>One is lead to understand that the concept of
>"temperature" is mirrored in the tables as
>"movement" and "diversity", or as a sub-property
>of "different".
>
>The job of assembling a truly rational picture
>of the world is very interesting and
>fruitful. There are more interesting things
>to baptise and codify than one ever needs.
S: This is why they are put up to plague pragmatics!
> The problem is not that there exists no simple
>and rational tool to generate concepts with. The
>problem is one's reluctance to change background
>and foreground. We think the rational world to
>be built on similarities and the irrational,
>biologic world to be built on something
>mysterious other than rational.
S: The discourse, Biology, is just as
rational as any other of our scientific
discourses, all based in logic.
> It is better to think the rational world to be
>built of similarities and dissimilarities, and
>within this concept to easily accomodate the
>functioning of our brain. (We are, after all,
>rational beings.) It is easy to accomodate quite
>many findings of physics in a mathematical logic
>that treats the diversities as equally
>legitimate to the similarities.
S: But what pragmatic goal is thus satisfied?
STAN
----------------------------------
>Prior posting:
>
>From: "Stanley Salthe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[email protected]>
>Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 9:24 PM
>
>
>I take exception to the claim that order is not a projection from our
>own experience and creations (notably logic). Nature, our scientific
>model of The World is orderly by reason of its having a logical
>skeleton. Naively perceived orders in The World, like the succession
>of day and night, depend upon the locale, scale, and senses of the
>observer. Thus, aspects of The World may seem orderly TO US, and we
>take advantage of this relationship, which itself depends upon logic.
>
>I also take issue with the idea that there is no power of intuition,
>simply from my own experience, which is convincing (to me). Indeed,
>I think that quantum mechanics has now cleared the way to introduce
>intuition even into Nature.
>
>STAN
>
>
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
[email protected]
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
