SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?
Cooper says that a formalist, with only formal constraints on his logic (such as consistensy) is at the mercy of the formalism itself. Such a formalism is allways a special case, but Cooper warns of the danger that classical logic is not recognized as such. He calls for a relativistic evolutionary logic where classical logic only would be justified for certain special classes of problems. An evolutionary metatheory of logic would recognize which those problems are. LN -Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Jesse Mazer Skickat: 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 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 valid comments about *something*, but it isn't logic. Logic is what tells us the majority can be wrong Cooper is not talking about logic in the formal sense; he's talking about reasoning, making decisions, acting. This can be wrong in the sense that there is a better (in terms of survival) way of reasoning. 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 is inconsistent, i.e. the axioms and rules of inference allow everything to be a theorem. If this is all that Cooper is talking about, I probably wouldn't have any objection to it--but Lennart Nilsson seemed to be making much stronger claims about the contingency of logic itself based on his interpretation of Cooper. Jesse --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
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 ? Or empricial disproof ? But empirical disproof itself rests on the logical principle of non-contradiction. The only kind of logic that can be shown to be wrong is informal logic (e.g. the Wasson Test), which can be shown to be wrong using formal logic. He calls for a relativistic evolutionary logic where classical logic only would be justified for certain special classes of problems. An evolutionary metatheory of logic would recognize which those problems are. And would itself be ineveitably based on some kind of logic. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: SV: Only Existence is necessary?
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-juil.-06, à 17:15, Lennart Nilsson a écrit : I really think that we should infer both the substantial world and the numerical world from the middleground so to speak, from our observations. But why should we infer a substantial world? Substantial or primary or primitive matter is an incredible metaphysical extrapolation. It is a modest metaphysical posit which can be used to explain a variety of observed phenomena, ranging from Time and Change to the observed absence of Harry Potter universes. I still want to (re)study why Aristotle made that step, except as a tool for burying the mind-body problem. As opposed to the mind-mathematics problem. Sade is very clear on the role of matter and why linking consciousness to it: to make people believed their act have few personal consequences. La Mettrie also begin the celbnrate materialist dissolution of the first person, including its responsibility feelings. The modern materialist have to be a first person eliminativist. I doubt less about consciousness and the number 317 than about *stuffy* strings or waves, which are not even assumed in physical theories, except in the background for separating conceptual issues from practice. Stuffiness explains why the only one logical possibility is real. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Only Existence is necessary?
Bruno Marchal wrote: Would you agree that this imaginary 'substantial world' is a figment of our existing (math - comp based) logic and with another one it would be 'that way', not 'this way'? Inescabapbly!? I guess you know that the sum of the 100 first odd numbers is 100^2. If you really believe there is world where such a proposition is false, then I would agree that the comp-physics could be different there for the machines living in that world. The world of necessary logical truths is much larger than the wrord of phsyically possible universes, which is much larger than the observed world (the only one that deserves to be written without scare-quotes). The question is not whether there is a world beyond even logical possibility, but why the observed world is so much smaller than the Platonias. Matter answers that easily. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
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. So the majority can be wrong. Cooper is making valid comments about *something*, but it isn't logic. Logic is what tells us the majority can be wrong Cooper is not talking about logic in the formal sense; he's talking about reasoning, making decisions, acting. This can be wrong in the sense that there is a better (in terms of survival) way of reasoning. If you want to judge what is better in terms of survival, you need to use logic. 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 is inconsistent, i.e. the axioms and rules of inference allow everything to be a theorem. And since logic isn't wrong by that standard, it is correct. Any judgement made about logic will be made with logic. There is no higher court of appeal. (There are of course various fallacious forms of informal reasoning, but they do not deserve to be called logic). Logic ins't just correct --although it is -- it defines correctness. We have no other ultimate defintion. Logic might be wrong is incoherent. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Only Existence is necessary?
George Levy wrote: Stephen Paul King wrote: little discussion has been given to the implications of taking the 1st person aspect as primary or fundamental. Could you point me toward any that you have seen? Hi Stephen Alas, I am a mere engineer, not a philosopher. The only author I can point you to is John Locke who I was told had some view similar to the ones I expressed. I have formed my opinions mostly independently in the process of writing a book (unpublished :'( ) I think that science is moving gradually toward first person - starting with Galileo's relativity, then Einstein's relativity and finally with QM (MWI). As science had progressed, the observer has acquired a greater and greater importance. Extrapolating to the limit, I becomes central and its existence anthropically defines (creates) the world where it resides. Science may have moved close to making the observer central epistemically , but it has not room for the idea that observers are ontologically fundamental. Observers are people, homo sapiens, the product of millions of years of evolution. Scientifically speaking. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Only Existence is necessary?
Peter, would you consider to identify the 'observer'? (Maybe not as an O -moment...) Many think of The Observer AS me or fellow humans while there may be a broader view, like e.g. anything catching info which comes closer to (my) 'conscious' definition. The observer seems so fundamental in the views of this list (and in wider circles of contemporaryh thinking) that a more general identification may be in order. To Stephens question: the ongoing paradigmic change in views include the image of 'observing' (observER) as well, so I would not rely on older (published?) authors even as reputable as Locke to adjust to recent views. John --- 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: George Levy wrote: Stephen Paul King wrote: little discussion has been given to the implications of taking the 1st person aspect as primary or fundamental. Could you point me toward any that you have seen? Hi Stephen Alas, I am a mere engineer, not a philosopher. The only author I can point you to is John Locke who I was told had some view similar to the ones I expressed. I have formed my opinions mostly independently in the process of writing a book (unpublished :'( ) I think that science is moving gradually toward first person - starting with Galileo's relativity, then Einstein's relativity and finally with QM (MWI). As science had progressed, the observer has acquired a greater and greater importance. Extrapolating to the limit, I becomes central and its existence anthropically defines (creates) the world where it resides. Science may have moved close to making the observer central epistemically , but it has not room for the idea that observers are ontologically fundamental. Observers are people, homo sapiens, the product of millions of years of evolution. Scientifically speaking. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
SV: SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?
You seem to think that evolution (or matter, or the multiverse) must adapt to a preordained logic. Adjusting, approximately, to a fixed metaphysical truth. -Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För 1Z Skickat: den 10 juli 2006 15:58 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 answers that are really right ? How would we tell ? using some other logic ? Or empricial disproof ? But empirical disproof itself rests on the logical principle of non-contradiction. The only kind of logic that can be shown to be wrong is informal logic (e.g. the Wasson Test), which can be shown to be wrong using formal logic. He calls for a relativistic evolutionary logic where classical logic only would be justified for certain special classes of problems. An evolutionary metatheory of logic would recognize which those problems are. And would itself be ineveitably based on some kind of logic. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
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: counterproductive. Human logic is based on the 'part' of nature (in broadest terms) we so far discovered. Even only the reductionist representation of such. Further epistemic enrichment may change our views (our logic included). BM: 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 is inconsistent, i.e. the axioms and rules of inference allow everything to be a theorem. Inconsistent towards language and inference and more, all on a certain evolutionary level of human development - as we know AND acknowledge it. In devising future advancement in thinking I would go a bit further than what I've seen. 1Z: And since logic isn't wrong by that standard, it is correct. Any judgement made about logic will be made with logic. There is no higher court of appeal. (There are of course various fallacious forms of informal reasoning, but they do not deserve to be called logic). Wise inter-remark: by that standard. You are entitled to your opinion to call 'logic' whatever you define.. The 'Any judgement' is valid even towards yours. Including what you deem as deserve to be called. - What reminds me of the ongoing stupid debates about the so called (gay) marriage - a 'name' with ONE ancient definition,causing endless problems, while another 'name' or definition would eliminate the controversy. Logic ins't just correct --although it is -- it defines correctness. We have no other ultimate defintion. Logic might be wrong is incoherent. Withuin (BY?) our human logic we define 'correctness' as consistent within (by?) itself. Closing our minds to anything different. John John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
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 evolutionary biological sense. So the majority can be wrong. Cooper is making valid comments about *something*, but it isn't logic. Logic is what tells us the majority can be wrong Cooper is not talking about logic in the formal sense; he's talking about reasoning, making decisions, acting. This can be wrong in the sense that there is a better (in terms of survival) way of reasoning. If you want to judge what is better in terms of survival, you need to use logic. No, you just need to see who survives. Experiment trumps theory. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
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 lead to their survival in the evolutionary biological sense. So the majority can be wrong. Cooper is making valid comments about *something*, but it isn't logic. Logic is what tells us the majority can be wrong Cooper is not talking about logic in the formal sense; he's talking about reasoning, making decisions, acting. This can be wrong in the sense that there is a better (in terms of survival) way of reasoning. If you want to judge what is better in terms of survival, you need to use logic. No, you just need to see who survives. Experiment trumps theory. Brent Meeker Presumably Cooper used theory to show why certain types of reasoning are more likely to aid survival, no? Anyway, we still need assumptions about logic and math to make sense of statements about basic experimental observations like the individuals with trait X survived more frequently than those who lacked it. Jesse --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
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 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 valid comments about *something*, but it isn't logic. Logic is what tells us the majority can be wrong Cooper is not talking about logic in the formal sense; he's talking about reasoning, making decisions, acting. This can be wrong in the sense that there is a better (in terms of survival) way of reasoning. If you want to judge what is better in terms of survival, you need to use logic. No, you just need to see who survives. Experiment trumps theory. Brent Meeker Presumably Cooper used theory to show why certain types of reasoning are more likely to aid survival, no? Anyway, we still need assumptions about logic and math to make sense of statements about basic experimental observations like the individuals with trait X survived more frequently than those who lacked it. Jesse I don't understand assumptions about logic and math? We don't need to make assumptions about them because they are rules we made up to keep us from reaching self-contradictions when making long complex inferences. They are rules about propositions and inferences. The propositions may be about an observation like a species that used this kind of reasoning survived more frequently than those who used that kind. I might need logic to make further inferences, but I don't need assumptions about logic to understand it. Brent Meeker Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Only Existence is necessary?
John M wrote: Peter, would you consider to identify the 'observer'? (Maybe not as an O -moment...) No, I wouldn't care to. There are theories that talk about observations, measurement and so on (that's epistemology), but there aren't any that tell you what an observer *is* ontologically. (The observer of relativity could perfectly well be automated video-cameras for instance). Which is as it should be. If conscious observers had a special role in physics,. that would scupper the observation from other sciences that consciousness is a biological phenomenon, which has not exsited for most of the universes history. The no-metaphysical-role for observers rule is one that maintains the consilience of science. http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/quantum-quackery.html Many think of The Observer AS me or fellow humans while there may be a broader view, like e.g. anything catching info which comes closer to (my) 'conscious' definition. The observer seems so fundamental in the views of this list (and in wider circles of contemporaryh thinking) that a more general identification may be in order. No, no,nooo!!! It is far too general already. The list needs to be a lot more particualr about the difference between ontology and epistemology, between to be and to know. Then they would not slide from X cannot be known without an observer to X cannot exist without an observer. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
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 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 valid comments about *something*, but it isn't logic. Logic is what tells us the majority can be wrong Cooper is not talking about logic in the formal sense; he's talking about reasoning, making decisions, acting. This can be wrong in the sense that there is a better (in terms of survival) way of reasoning. If you want to judge what is better in terms of survival, you need to use logic. No, you just need to see who survives. Experiment trumps theory. Brent Meeker Presumably Cooper used theory to show why certain types of reasoning are more likely to aid survival, no? Anyway, we still need assumptions about logic and math to make sense of statements about basic experimental observations like the individuals with trait X survived more frequently than those who lacked it. Jesse I don't understand assumptions about logic and math? We don't need to make assumptions about them because they are rules we made up to keep us from reaching self-contradictions when making long complex inferences. Sure, but those rules still qualify as assumptions. For example, it's apparently possible to create paraconsistent logics where self-contradictions are not forbidden in all cases, but this does not entail that every proposition must be judged true--see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Priest for some more on this. And Cooper (judging from Lennart Nilsson's summary) seems to be saying that the rules of classical logic which we use are somewhat arbitrary, that we need a relativistic evolutionary logic where classical logic only would be justified for certain special classes of problems. Presumably in problems outside these special classes, rules of classical logic could be violated, which I'm guessing wouldimply violating the principle of non-contradiction or at least the law of the excluded middle (unless there are forms of logic which preserve these principles but still differ from classical logic, I'm not sure). They are rules about propositions and inferences. The propositions may be about an observation like a species that used this kind of reasoning survived more frequently than those who used that kind. I might need logic to make further inferences, but I don't need assumptions about logic to understand it. But if there are other versions of logic besides classical logic, then the decision to use classical logic is itself an assumption about logic, just like the decision to use euclidean geometry in a certain problem would be an assumption about geometry, since other non-euclidean forms are known to be possible. Jesse --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
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 basis to criticise it that doesn't presuppose it. That's epistemology, not metaphysics. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
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 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 valid comments about *something*, but it isn't logic. Logic is what tells us the majority can be wrong Cooper is not talking about logic in the formal sense; he's talking about reasoning, making decisions, acting. This can be wrong in the sense that there is a better (in terms of survival) way of reasoning. If you want to judge what is better in terms of survival, you need to use logic. No, you just need to see who survives. Experiment trumps theory. Brent Meeker Presumably Cooper used theory to show why certain types of reasoning are more likely to aid survival, no? Anyway, we still need assumptions about logic and math to make sense of statements about basic experimental observations like the individuals with trait X survived more frequently than those who lacked it. Jesse I don't understand assumptions about logic and math? We don't need to make assumptions about them because they are rules we made up to keep us from reaching self-contradictions when making long complex inferences. Sure, but those rules still qualify as assumptions. For example, it's apparently possible to create paraconsistent logics where self-contradictions are not forbidden in all cases, but this does not entail that every proposition must be judged true--see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Priest for some more on this. And Cooper (judging from Lennart Nilsson's summary) seems to be saying that the rules of classical logic which we use are somewhat arbitrary, that we need a relativistic evolutionary logic where classical logic only would be justified for certain special classes of problems. Remember Cooper is talking about reasoning, reaching decisions, and taking actions - not just making truth preserving inferences from axioms. Classical logic applies to declarative, timeless sentences - a pretty narrow domain. Presumably in problems outside these special classes, rules of classical logic could be violated, which I'm guessing wouldimply violating the principle of non-contradiction or at least the law of the excluded middle (unless there are forms of logic which preserve these principles but still differ from classical logic, I'm not sure). They are rules about propositions and inferences. The propositions may be about an observation like a species that used this kind of reasoning survived more frequently than those who used that kind. I might need logic to make further inferences, but I don't need assumptions about logic to understand it. But if there are other versions of logic besides classical logic, then the decision to use classical logic is itself an assumption about logic, just like the decision to use euclidean geometry in a certain problem would be an assumption about geometry, since other non-euclidean forms are known to be possible. Jesse Maybe we're just disagreeing about words. I'd say the decision to use classical logic is an assumption that you're applying it to sentences or propositions where it will work (i.e. declarative, timeless sentences), not an assumption about logic. Same for geometry. I use Euclidean geometry to calculate distances in my backyard, I use spherical geometry to calculate air-miles to nearby airports, I use WGS84 to calculate distance between naval vessels at sea. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
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 illogical or even: counterproductive. So much for the claim: If you use logic, you will never go wrong. I never made that claim. The claim I made was Whatever else you do, you'll be using logic. There is no standpoint outside of logic. No, not even evolutionary theory. Human logic is based on the 'part' of nature (in broadest terms) we so far discovered. Even only the reductionist representation of such. Further epistemic enrichment may change our views (our logic included). Nothing can chnage one part of our logic without using another. X contradicts our logic depends on the idea that contradictions are wrongwhich is logical. Withuin (BY?) our human logic we define 'correctness' as consistent within (by?) itself. Closing our minds to anything different. Relax the rules too far, and you don't just get something different, you get quodlibet -- everything. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Diagonalization (solution-sequel)
Tom Caylor wrote: OK. I noticed that you can get the Universal Machine (UM) to run for ever even without the + 1. If I think of the program for G as a big case statement with cases 1, 2, 3, to infinity, then the case for k will contain the code for, or better yet a call to (hence the name recursive?), Fk(k), but if we state by defining even G = Fn(n) (even without the + 1) then this is equivalent to calling G(k)... But then when we call G(k) we end up back in the k case again, calling G(k) again,... forever. This will happen even if we add the + 1. Personally I like this argument (running forever) better than the 0 = 1 argument that somehow concludes that the UM will crash. A UM crashing to me brings up pictures of physical machines that recognize an unallowed operation, and then stop themselves. And on the surface, it seems that the running forever because of self-reference argument is better because you don't need the + 1. It seems that it isn't the + 1 that makes the UM run forever, and conversely the UM runs forever even without the contradiction of 0 = 1. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Fermi's Paradox
I certainly didn't mean this as a criticism. I remember when I was8 or 9years old, reading about how animals developed this or that physical characteristic in order to cope with a particular environment. This was in the context of a discussion about evolutionary theory, but I didn't get it initially: *how* did animals adapt to their environment? If people needed to fly, does that mean they might one day grow wings? It seemed incomprehensible to me, and I assumed there must be some complicated magic going on that only scientists could understand (a lot of the world was like that at that age). Then it struck me. There wasn't any special process of adaption needed: each generation was born a bit different from the previous one just by chance, and those animals which were better suited to their environment survived and had more babies than the ones less well adapted. The fact that offspring were imperfect copies of their parents *had* to result in changes in species over time as their environment changed, and it would look like the animals were adapting to their environment. The point of this story is that I was very young and almost completely ignorant of biology, but despite this was impressed by what was a very simple and self-evident idea. Strictly speaking, I was wrong to call it a tautology or analytic truth like logical or mathematical statements, because it is contingent on an empirical fact: random variation in reproduction. But given this,evolutionary theoryfollows inevitably - even if God made the world yesterday. Stathis Papaioannou On Jul 6, 2006, at 10:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Destroying your species runs counter to evolution. I'll rephrase that:everything that happens in nature is by definition in accordance with evolution,but those species that destroy themselves will die out, while those species that don't destroy themselves will thrive. Therefore, there will be selection for the species that don't destroy themselves, and eventually those species will come to predominate. When you think about it, the theory of evolution is essentially a tautology: those species which succeed, succeed.Stathis Papaioannou As a biologist I can't let this go - this is a common misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. It contains a lot more than just "those species which succeed, succeed". From EvoWiki: "Grabbing one statement out of the whole evolution argument and calling it a tautology is like looking at a mathematical proof where the statement (a+b)*c = (a*c) + (b*c) is used, then denouncing the whole proof on the basis that (a+b)*c = (a*c) + (b*c) is a tautology. Tautologies are true. Therefore one can draw true conclusions from them. What is wrong with that?" --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
