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 yo

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

SV: SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

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

Re: SV: 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 ?

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

Re: SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

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

Re: SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

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

Re: SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

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

RE: SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

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

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

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 j