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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
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: 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
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: 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: 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
