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 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 Cooper says that all sentences have substans. The logic asumption is that there are some that have not and are timless. LN --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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?
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 is inconsistent, i.e. the axioms and rules of inference allow everything to be a theorem. I disagree. The main lesson provided by the works of of Tarski and Godel has shown us how far truth and consistency are different. By the second incompleteness theorem: (with PA = Peano Arithmetic Theory) PA + PA is consistent is both consistent and correct PA + PA is not consistent is consistent, but hardly correct! I will come back on this. But if you recall that Consistent(p) = ~B~p, then remember that all the followings are not equivalent from the (1 and 3) point of views of the machines: Bp, Bp p, Bp ~B~p, Bp ~B~p p. (if you prefer: p is provable, p is provable *and* p is true, p is provable and p is consistent, p is provable and p is consistent and p is true. 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. Logician are interested in correctness, and relative correctness. The whole of model (not modal!) theory concerns those matter. 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. I agree if you talk of some minimal informal logic, like children seems to develop in their early years. (cf Piaget, for examples). Now concerning the many logics, it is different. There is a continuum of logics ... each having apparently some domain of application. Fields like Categorical Logic provides tools for many logics. Linear logic take into account resources. For example, the following is classically, intuitionisticaly and quantum logically valid: If i have one dollar I can buy a box of cigarets If I have one dollar I can buy a box of matches Thus If I have one dollar I can buy a box of cigarets and I can buy a box of matches. ALL logics, when studied mathematically, are studied in the frame of classical mathematics. You will never find a treatise on Fuzzy logic with a theorem like It is 0,743 true that a fuzzy set A can be represented by a function from A to the real line. (ok a case could be made for intuitionist logic, due to the existence of an intuitionist conception of math). 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. ... called Platonia. Narrow? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: 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 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
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: 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
SV: Only logic is necessary?
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... LN -Ursprungligt meddelande- 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 : 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 constant, timeless and universal. Of course logical laws are true in all logically possible worlds is a (logical) tautology. An X-possible world is just a hypothetical state of affairs that does not contradict X-rules (X is usually logic or physics). Where do the laws of logic come from? he asks the absolutist. Bruno First you have to ask if they could possibly have been different. Then you have to ask what notion of possibility you are appealling to... --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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?
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 sounds incoherent to me...how can you even define population models without assuming various things about math and logic? Do you think the (mathematical) laws of population genetics have some sort of objective existence outside the human mind, but laws of math and logic themselves do not? 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?
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. -Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Jesse Mazer 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 laws are dependent on which population model they refer to. Of course that goes for the notion of possibility also... That sounds incoherent to me...how can you even define population models without assuming various things about math and logic? Do you think the (mathematical) laws of population genetics have some sort of objective existence outside the human mind, but laws of math and logic themselves do not? 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?
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 laws are dependent on which population model they refer to. I have no doubt that whatver rules can be reverse-engineered from practical problem-solving tend to vary. I doubt that de facto problem-solving defines or constitutes logic. There are psychological tests which show that most people, 80%-90% , get certain logical problems worng. Of course the notion of right and wrong logic that is being appealed to here comes from the textbook, not from the study of populations. If populations defined logic, the majority couldn't be wrong (by textbook logic, anyway). If popular practice 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 22:38 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 : 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 constant, timeless and universal. Of course logical laws are true in all logically possible worlds is a (logical) tautology. An X-possible world is just a hypothetical state of affairs that does not contradict X-rules (X is usually logic or physics). Where do the laws of logic come from? he asks the absolutist. Bruno First you have to ask if they could possibly have been different. Then you have to ask what notion of possibility you are appealling to... --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: 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 evolutionary advantage. Bruno This is precisely the notion Cooper undermines in his book... LN --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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?
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 to. Of course that goes for the notion of possibility also... That sounds incoherent to me...how can you even define population models without assuming various things about math and logic? Do you think the (mathematical) laws of population genetics have some sort of objective existence outside the human mind, but laws of math and logic themselves do not? I agree with you. 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. I think you are confusing language and theory. I agree that the language belongs to human inventions, but even and especially in math (and numbers) we use those languages to build theories *about* truth which should be, and mostly are, independent of the choice of the languages. You are defending a conventionalist philosophy of math. I don't think that conventionalism is coherent either with (simple) mathematics or with metamathematics. There is nothing conventional in the distribution of the primes. There is nothing conventional in the fact that the set of total computable function is not recursively enumerable. Etc. It seems to me. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: 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 laws are dependent on which population model they refer to. I have no doubt that whatver rules can be reverse-engineered from practical problem-solving tend to vary. I doubt that de facto problem-solving defines or constitutes logic. There are psychological tests which show that most people, 80%-90% , get certain logical problems worng. Of course the notion of right and wrong logic that is being appealed to here comes from the textbook, not from the study of populations. If populations defined logic, the majority couldn't be wrong (by textbook logic, anyway). 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. 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: 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, specifically the way gene frequencies change over time in response to natural selection. Surely these events were obeying the same mathematical laws even before we could describe them as doing so using whatever specific mathematical symbols we use to represent these laws, in just the same way that the earth is round is a statement describing a fact that was true before we came up with the words earth, round, etc. In other words, it's the specific mathematical symbols we use to represent mathematical truths that are analogous to italian or some other human language, but they represent truths that have been true all along, just like the earth has been round all along even before humans came up with the language to describe it (or don't you believe it makes sense to say that?) 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?
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 actual events in the real world, specifically the way gene frequencies change over time in response to natural selection. Surely these events were obeying the same mathematical laws even before we could describe them as doing so using whatever specific mathematical symbols we use to represent these laws, in just the same way that the earth is round is a statement describing a fact that was true before we came up with the words earth, round, etc. In other words, it's the specific mathematical symbols we use to represent mathematical truths that are analogous to italian or some other human language, but they represent truths that have been true all along, just like the earth has been round all along even before humans came up with the language to describe it (or don't you believe it makes sense to say that?) Jesse That the Earth is a spheroid (WGS84 ?) is a model and the *model* obeys certain mathematical laws - because the mathematical laws are just rules of a language we invented for talking about such things. The Earth, understood as some not completely knowable object in reality, doesn't obey anything. Same with gene frequencies. Gene frequencies are part of the map (theory of natural selection) not the territory. It's easy to fall into confusing the map and territory because we have only maps to refer to and describe the territory. Positivists recognized this and decided we should stop assuming that there is any territory - but this doesn't work because a map is only a map if it's a map *of* something. 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: 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 case we are using mathematics to describe actual events in the real world, specifically the way gene frequencies change over time in response to natural selection. Surely these events were obeying the same mathematical laws even before we could describe them as doing so using whatever specific mathematical symbols we use to represent these laws, in just the same way that the earth is round is a statement describing a fact that was true before we came up with the words earth, round, etc. In other words, it's the specific mathematical symbols we use to represent mathematical truths that are analogous to italian or some other human language, but they represent truths that have been true all along, just like the earth has been round all along even before humans came up with the language to describe it (or don't you believe it makes sense to say that?) Jesse That the Earth is a spheroid (WGS84 ?) is a model and the *model* obeys certain mathematical laws - because the mathematical laws are just rules of a language we invented for talking about such things. The Earth, understood as some not completely knowable object in reality, doesn't obey anything. Same with gene frequencies. But to me, obey simply means that *if* there had been someone around in the past to observe the earth/gene frequencies and compare with the model, they would have matched up with it at all times, even times when there wasn't actually anyone there to make such a comparison. And really, can we make any statements about what external reality is or was really like without using models? If we want to say that back in the Cretaceous, T. Rexes were larger than dragonflies, isn't the concept of bigger than just as much based on a model of sorts as the concept of roundness? Maybe we're getting into the territory of Kantian philosophy here, with the question of whether we can say anything about reality in itself without using various a priori mental concepts such as numbers. In any case, it still seems incoherent to me to imagine that uncovering the evolutionary history of these a priori concepts should somehow undermine our belief in them as genuine truths, since we are completely dependent on them in our understanding of evolutionary history or anything else involving external reality. 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?
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 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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?
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 of course. But in this case we are using mathematics to describe actual events in the real world, specifically the way gene frequencies change over time in response to natural selection. Surely these events were obeying the same mathematical laws even before we could describe them as doing so using whatever specific mathematical symbols we use to represent these laws, in just the same way that the earth is round is a statement describing a fact that was true before we came up with the words earth, round, etc. In other words, it's the specific mathematical symbols we use to represent mathematical truths that are analogous to italian or some other human language, but they represent truths that have been true all along, just like the earth has been round all along even before humans came up with the language to describe it (or don't you believe it makes sense to say that?) Jesse That the Earth is a spheroid (WGS84 ?) is a model and the *model* obeys certain mathematical laws - because the mathematical laws are just rules of a language we invented for talking about such things. The Earth, understood as some not completely knowable object in reality, doesn't obey anything. Same with gene frequencies. But to me, obey simply means that *if* there had been someone around in the past to observe the earth/gene frequencies and compare with the model, they would have matched up with it at all times, even times when there wasn't actually anyone there to make such a comparison. That's your second-order model, i.e. a model in which you embed the earth/gene model - I take their past validity to simply be part of the (first-order) model. And really, can we make any statements about what external reality is or was really like without using models? No, we can't. That's why positivists tried to get rid of the notion that models were models *of* anything. But the essence of a model is that does assume an underlying something, or in other words it presumes to be able to predict beyond just the data on which it was based. It's more than curve-fitting or cataloging. If we want to say that back in the Cretaceous, T. Rexes were larger than dragonflies, isn't the concept of bigger than just as much based on a model of sorts as the concept of roundness? Maybe we're getting into the territory of Kantian philosophy here, with the question of whether we can say anything about reality in itself without using various a priori mental concepts such as numbers. In any case, it still seems incoherent to me to imagine that uncovering the evolutionary history of these a priori concepts should somehow undermine our belief in them as genuine truths, Are you talking about the truths of mathematics - which I regard as just rules of consistency for talking about things, i.e. constructing models that are not internally inconsistent. Or are you talking about the Kantian concepts like round and prime, which I regard as existing only in our models and are neither true nor false. since we are completely dependent on them in our understanding of evolutionary history or anything else involving external reality. But we're not completely dependent on them. Some of them are essentially hardwired into us by our evolution, but we can go beyond them. For example our intuitive understanding of probabilities is very poor - but we can go beyond it by forcing ourselves to be consistent (mathematical) in discussing probabilities. I think the difficulty in interpreting quantum mechanics arises because intepretation essentially means giving Newtonian picture of what happens and we feel that we can't really understand a picture unless it is Newtonian - even though we have a perfectly consistent model that isn't. 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?
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. 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: 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: Only logic is necessary?
Le 06-juil.-06, à 21:49, Lennart Nilsson a écrit : x-tad-biggerBruno;/x-tad-bigger x-tad-biggerAccording to Cooper classical analysis is plain bad biology, /x-tad-bigger ? x-tad-biggerand not a matter of subjective judgement or philosophical preferens (such as taking atithmetical truth for granted). /x-tad-bigger ?? x-tad-biggerI think this is where he would say your whole castle in the sky tumbles, and that has nothing to do with trying to find a fault in your argument /x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggerJ /x-tad-bigger ??? I don't understand what you are trying to say at all. Perhaps you could elaborate? What do you or Cooper mean by classical analysis is bad biology? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Only logic is necessary?
I see from your questionmarks that an idea like Coopers, that logic is a branch of biology (the subtitle of the book The Evolution of reason) is out of bounds. Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] För Bruno Marchal Skickat: den 7 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 preferens (such as taking atithmetical truth for granted). ?? I think this is where he would say your whole castle in the sky tumbles, and that has nothing to do with trying to find a fault in your argument J ??? I don't understand what you are trying to say at all. Perhaps you could elaborate? What do you or Cooper mean by classical analysis is bad biology? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Only logic is necessary?
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 castle in the sky tumbles, and that has nothing to do with 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 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 in all possible worlds, making logical laws constant, timeless and universal. Where do the laws of logic come from? he asks the absolutist. Bruno? If you believe in the more primary notion of arithmetical truth (for example if you believe that proposition like 317 is prime are independent of you) then you can justify classical logic by the Plato Realm (perhaps limited to numbers and their relations), and the many logics will be filtered through the mind of the consistent extension of machines. Classical logic is the best tool machines can have to go beyond classical logics. But logic and logics are not fundamental, with comp those emerge from numbers. And nobody knows where numbers come from, and with comp, we can understand what it must be so. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Only logic is necessary?
We are a quite sinple system (depicted in 3+1 D), so our logic is also pretty simple (one-way pragmatic). Actually Cooper shows that even our simple system is not classically logical... -Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 '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' to the body we deal with. I reformulated this latter as: the mind is limited by the 'material' tools we use. Other tools? - maybe other logic, other math. A uiniverse IMO is structured by the ingredients it started with in the unlimited variability of infinite BigBangs (my narrative) consequently the relations of those different ingredients (universe-system, call it universe consciousness etc.) may evolve different self reflective complex conglomerates (like here: it is us humans) with accordingly shaped mentality (logic, math, etc.) We are a quite sinple system (depicted in 3+1 D), so our logic is also pretty simple (one-way pragmatic). Other universes may be more sophisticated and I have pity for those poor fellow (simpleminded) humans who may 'teleport' or 'duplicate' into such - much more sophisticated worlds and may become there their stupid bumsG with their memory-experience-logic luggage. John M --- Lennart Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 constant, timeless and universal. Where do the laws of logic come from? he asks the absolutist. Bruno? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
