Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

In three different posts, Brent Meeker wrote : > I'm not sure that logic in the formal sense can be right or wrong; > it's a set of conventions about > language and inference. About the only standard I've seen by which a > logic or mathematical system > could be called "wrong" is it if it i

SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

-Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Brent Meeker Skickat: den 10 juli 2006 23:04 Till: everything-list@googlegroups.com Ämne: Re: SV: Only logic is necessary? I'd say the decision to use classical logic is an assumption

Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

John M wrote: > --- 1Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > > > > Brent Meeker wrote: > > > (Skip to 1Z's reply) > > > > If you want to judge what is better in terms of > > survival, > > you need to use logic. > And then you may be still wrong, things sometimes > occur (in our terms - see below) as "ill

Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Jesse Mazer wrote: > > Brent Meeker: > > >> >>Jesse Mazer wrote: >> >>>Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> 1Z wrote: >Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > >>1Z wrote: >> >> >> >>>Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> You mis

Re: SV: SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Lennart Nilsson wrote: > You seem to think that evolution (or matter, or the multiverse) must adapt > to a preordained logic. No, no , noo ! I am trying to get away from the idea that logic needs to be propped up by some external authority. The validity of logic comes about from the lack of any

Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Brent Meeker: > > >Jesse Mazer wrote: > > Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > > >> > >>1Z wrote: > >> > >>>Brent Meeker wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > 1Z wrote: > > > >Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>You misunderstand "population models". It's not a question of

Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Jesse Mazer wrote: > Brent Meeker wrote: > > >> >>1Z wrote: >> >>>Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> 1Z wrote: >Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > >>You misunderstand "population models". It's not a question of what >> >>members of a species think or >> >>vote f

Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Brent Meeker wrote: > > >1Z wrote: > > > > Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > > >>1Z wrote: > >> > >>>Brent Meeker wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > You misunderstand "population models". It's not a question of what >members of a species think or > vote for; it's a matter of whether their logic will

Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

1Z wrote: > > Brent Meeker wrote: > > >>1Z wrote: >> >>>Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> You misunderstand "population models". It's not a question of what members of a species think or vote for; it's a matter of whether their logic will lead to their survival in the evolution

Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

--- 1Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > > Brent Meeker wrote: > (Skip to 1Z's reply) > > If you want to judge what is better in terms of > survival, > you need to use logic. And then you may be still wrong, things sometimes occur (in our terms - see below) as "illogical" or even: "counterproduct

SV: SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Till: Everything List Ämne: Re: SV: SV: Only logic is necessary? Lennart Nilsson wrote: > Cooper says that a formalist, with only formal constraints on his logic > (such as consistensy) is at the mercy of the formalism itself. Meaning what ? That the formalism might not be giving answer

Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Brent Meeker wrote: > 1Z wrote: > > > > Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > > >>You misunderstand "population models". It's not a question of what members > >>of a species think or > >>vote for; it's a matter of whether their logic will lead to their survival > >>in the evolutionary > >>biological se

Re: SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Lennart Nilsson wrote: > Cooper says that a formalist, with only formal constraints on his logic > (such as consistensy) is at the mercy of the formalism itself. Meaning what ? That the formalism might not be giving answers that are "really" right ? How would we tell ? using some other logic ?

Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Le 09-juil.-06, à 14:21, Lennart Nilsson a écrit : > This is precisely the notion Cooper undermines in his book... Note that comp makes already logic a branch of biology, but then biology is a branch of psychology/theology itself branch of number theory. See perhaps my paper "amoeba, planar

SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

: den 10 juli 2006 03:06 Till: everything-list@googlegroups.com Ämne: Re: SV: Only logic is necessary? Brent Meeker wrote: > > >1Z wrote: > > > > Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > > >>You misunderstand "population models". It's not a question of

Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Brent Meeker wrote: > > >1Z wrote: > > > > Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > > >>You misunderstand "population models". It's not a question of what >members of a species think or > >>vote for; it's a matter of whether their logic will lead to their >survival in the evolutionary > >>biological sense.

Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

1Z wrote: > > Brent Meeker wrote: > > >>You misunderstand "population models". It's not a question of what members >>of a species think or >>vote for; it's a matter of whether their logic will lead to their survival in >>the evolutionary >>biological sense. So the majority can be wrong. >

Re: SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Jesse Mazer wrote: > Brent Meeker wrote: > > >> >>Jesse Mazer wrote: >> Lennart Nilsson wrote: We use mathematics as a meta-language, just like you kan describe what >> >>is >> said in latin by using italian. That does not make italian logically/evolutionary prior to latin

Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Brent Meeker wrote: > You misunderstand "population models". It's not a question of what members > of a species think or > vote for; it's a matter of whether their logic will lead to their survival in > the evolutionary > biological sense. So the majority can be wrong. Cooper is making vali

Re: SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Brent Meeker wrote: > > >Jesse Mazer wrote: > >>Lennart Nilsson wrote: > >> > >>We use mathematics as a meta-language, just like you kan describe what >is > >>said in latin by using italian. That does not make italian > >>logically/evolutionary prior to latin of course. > > > > > > But in this c

Re: SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Jesse Mazer wrote: >>Lennart Nilsson wrote: >> >>We use mathematics as a meta-language, just like you kan describe what is >>said in latin by using italian. That does not make italian >>logically/evolutionary prior to latin of course. > > > But in this case we are using mathematics to describe a

RE: SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

>Lennart Nilsson wrote: > >We use mathematics as a meta-language, just like you kan describe what is >said in latin by using italian. That does not make italian >logically/evolutionary prior to latin of course. But in this case we are using mathematics to describe actual events in the real world

Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

1Z wrote: > > Lennart Nilsson wrote: > >>No, you have the burden of showing what possible worlds could possibly mean >>outside a real biological setting. > > > I have shown that; HYPOTHETICAL states-of-affairs which do not > contradict > any laws KNOWN TO US. > > >>Cooper shows that logical

Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Le 09-juil.-06, à 10:07, Jesse Mazer a écrit : > > Lennart Nilsson wrote: > >> >> No, you have the burden of showing what possible worlds could >> possibly mean >> outside a real biological setting. >> >> Cooper shows that logical laws are dependent on which population >> model they >> refer t

SV: Only logic is necessary?

-Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Bruno Marchal Skickat: den 9 juli 2006 14:10 Till: everything-list@googlegroups.com Ämne: Re: Only logic is necessary? Numbers per se are what make If "being able to count" an ev

Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

e defined logic, people wouldn't have to learn logic. > Of course that goes for the notion of possibility also... > LN > > -Ursprungligt meddelande- > Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För 1Z > Skickat: den 8 juli 2006 22

Re: Only logic is necessary?

Le 08-juil.-06, à 22:14, Brent Meeker a écrit : > Cooper says that numbers "come from" the evolutionary advantage of > being able to count. But he clearly talk about Human's numbers. Numbers per se are what make If "being able to count" an evolutionary advantage. > Of course > that doesn't e

SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Skickat: den 9 juli 2006 10:08 Till: everything-list@googlegroups.com Ämne: RE: SV: Only logic is necessary? Lennart Nilsson wrote: > >No, you have the burden of showing what possible worlds could possibly mean >outside a real biological setting. > >Cooper shows that logical law

RE: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Lennart Nilsson wrote: > >No, you have the burden of showing what possible worlds could possibly mean >outside a real biological setting. > >Cooper shows that logical laws are dependent on which population model they >refer to. Of course that goes for the notion of possibility also... That sound

SV: Only logic is necessary?

- Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För 1Z Skickat: den 8 juli 2006 22:38 Till: Everything List Ämne: Re: Only logic is necessary? Brent Meeker wrote: > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Le 05-juil.-06, à 15:55, Lennart Nilsson a écrit : > > > > > >&g

Re: Only logic is necessary?

Brent Meeker wrote: > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Le 05-juil.-06, à 15:55, Lennart Nilsson a écrit : > > > > > >>William S. Cooper says: "The absolutist outlook has it that if a logic > >>is valid at all it is valid period. A sound logic is completely sound > >>everywhere and for everyone, no except

Re: Only logic is necessary?

Bruno Marchal wrote: > Le 05-juil.-06, à 15:55, Lennart Nilsson a écrit : > > >>William S. Cooper says: ”The absolutist outlook has it that if a logic >>is valid at all it is valid period. A sound logic is completely sound >>everywhere and for everyone, no exceptions! For absolutist logicians

SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

juli 2006 16:11 Till: everything-list@googlegroups.com Ämne: Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?   Le 06-juil.-06, à 21:49, Lennart Nilsson a écrit : Bruno; According to Cooper classical analysis is plain bad biology, ? and not a matter of subjective judgement or philosophical

Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Le 06-juil.-06, à 21:49, Lennart Nilsson a écrit : Bruno; According to Cooper classical analysis is plain bad biology, ? and not a matter of subjective judgement or philosophical preferens (such as taking atithmetical truth for granted). ?? I think this is where he would say your whole

SV: Only logic is necessary?

trying to find a fault in your argument J   Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] För Bruno Marchal Skickat: den 6 juli 2006 11:53 Till: everything-list@googlegroups.com Ämne: Re: Only logic is necessary?   Le 05-juil.-06, à 15:55, Lennart

Re: Only logic is necessary?

--- Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > John M wrote: > > Dear Lennart, > > I did not read Cooper's argumentation, but would > like to learn (I don't > > believe he explained that) with what kind of > logical system is he capable of > > thinking except for the ONE which our mind > pr

Re: Only logic is necessary?

Le 05-juil.-06, à 15:55, Lennart Nilsson a écrit : William S. Cooper says: ”The absolutist outlook has it that if a logic is valid at all it is valid period. A sound logic is completely sound everywhere and for everyone, no exceptions! For absolutist logicians a logical truth is regarded as ‘true

Re: Only logic is necessary?

John M wrote: > Dear Lennart, > I did not read Cooper's argumentation, but would like to learn (I don't > believe he explained that) with what kind of logical system is he capable of > thinking except for the ONE which our mind provided - within the > circumstances and evolutionary process (I c

Re: Only logic is necessary?

for the book). John M - Original Message - From: "Lennart Nilsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 11:47 AM Subject: SV: Only logic is necessary? " We are a quite sinple system (depicted in 3+1 D), so our logic is also pretty simple (one-w

SV: Only logic is necessary?

ECTED] För John M Skickat: den 5 juli 2006 17:30 Till: everything-list@googlegroups.com Ämne: Re: Only logic is necessary? Lennart: J.Cohen and I.Stewart in their chef d'oeuvre "Collapse of Chaos" play around with aliens who they call Zarathustrans, and who display a different &

Re: Only logic is necessary?

Lennart: J.Cohen and I.Stewart in their chef d'oeuvre "Collapse of Chaos" play around with aliens who they call Zarathustrans, and who display a different 'alien' logic. It is quite refreshing. You say: Sound? brings up the tune of the Latin maxim: mens sana in corpore sano assigning the 'mental'

Only logic is necessary?

William S. Cooper says: ”The absolutist outlook has it that if a logic is valid at all it is valid period. A sound logic is completely sound everywhere and for everyone, no exceptions! For absolutist logicians a logical truth is regarded as ‘true in all possible worlds’, making logical laws