List: Their exist many forms of formal logics.
One of the several concepts important to logic is an ancient concept: If antecedents, then consequences. In recent decades, the concept of para-consistent logic has emerged. It has found many applications, particularly in the cybernetics of control systems. Para-consistent logics are tolerant of apparent or so-called "inconsistencies" among several premisses. Para-consistent logics are worth studying as they motivate consequences from antecedents. One key author is Graham Priest. One of the principle questions that para-consistent logics raise is "How does one compose premisses?" not necessary dependent on the geometric metrics rules of a line. Cheers Jerry On Oct 20, 2014, at 6:44 AM, Karl Javorszky wrote: > Workshop on the Combinatorics of Genetics, Fundamentals > > > In order to prepare for a fruitful, satisfying and rewarding workshop in > Vienna, let me offer to potential participants the following main innovations > in the field of formal logic and arithmetic: > > > > 1) Consolidating contradictions: > > The idea of contradicting logical statements is traditionally alien to the > system of thoughts that is mathematics. Therefore, no methodology has evolved > of appeasing, soothing, compromise-building among equally valid logical > statements that contradict each other. In this regard, mathematical logic is > far less advanced than diplomacy, psychology, commercial claims regulation or > military science, in which fields the existence of conflicts is a given. The > workshop centers around the methodology of fulfilling contradicting logical > requirements that co- exist. > > > > 2) Concept of Order > > We show that the pointed opposition between readings of a set once as a > sequenced one and once as a commutative one is similar to the discussion, > whether a Table of the Rorschach test depicts a still-life under water or > rather fireworks in Paris. The incompatibility between sequenced and > commutative (contemporaneous) is provided by our sensory apparatus: in fact, > a set is readable both as a sequenced collection and as a collection of > commutative symbols. We abstract from the two sentences “Set A is in a > sequential order” and “Set A is a commutatively ordered one” into the > sentence “Set A is in order”. > > The workshop introduces the idea and the technique of sequential enumeration > (aka “sorting”) of elements of a set, calling the result “order”, and shows > that different sorting orders may bring forth contradicting assignments of > places to one and the same element, resp. contradicting assignments of > elements to one and the same place. > > > > 3) The duration of the transient state > > We put forward the motion, that it is reasonable to assume that a set is > normally in a state of permanent change – as opposed to the traditional view, > wherein a set, once well defined, stays put and idle, remaining such as > defined. The idea is that there are always alternatives to whichever order > one looks into a set, therefore it is reasonable to assume that the set is in > a state of permanent adjustment. > > We look in great detail into the mechanics of transition between Order αβ and > Order γδ, and show that the number of tics until the transition is achieved > is only in the rarest of cases uniform, therefore partial transformations and > half-baked results are the ordre du jour. > > > > 4) Standard transitions and spatial structures > > The rare cases where a translation from Order αβ into Order γδ happens in > lock-step are quite well suited to serve as units of dis-allocation, being of > uniform properties with respect to a numeric quality which could well be > called an extent for “mass”. > > These cases allow assembling two 3-dimensional spatial structures with > well-defined axes. The twice 3 axes can even be merged into one, consolidated > space with 3 common axes, the price of the consolidation being that every > 1-dimensional statement has in this case 4 variants. The findings allow > supporting Minkowski’s ideas and also some contemplation about 3 > sub-statements consisting of 1-of-4 variants, as used by Nature while > registering genetic information in a purely sequenced fashion. > > > > 5) Size optimization and asynchronicity questions > > The set is the same, whether we read it consecutively or transversally. The > readings differ. We show that the functions of logical relations’ density per > unit resp. unit fragment size per logical relation are intertwined, making a > change between the representations of order as unit and as logical relation a > matter of accounting artistry. (“If I want more matter, I say that I see 66 > commutative units; if I want more information, I say that I see 11 sequences > of 6 units.”) > > The phlogiston (or divine will) fueling the mechanism appears to be the > synchronicity of steps of order consolidation happening. Using the concept of > a-synchronicity we can understand that we can, for reasons of epistemology, > perceive only that what is asynchronous, and as a corollary to this, perceive > not that what is synchron, which we have reason to call dark matter or dark > energy. > > > These are the main ideas to be presented at the FIS meeting 2015. Hopefully, > the main event, dealing with Society’s answer to change in fundamental > concepts of information, will find the proceedings revolutionary enough to > merit observation from close quarters. > > > > Karl > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis