Re: [Fis] Commutativity

[Joseph Brenner]

Dear Karl and All,

I believe I have right to this message at the start of a new week. Apologies if 
this is not the case.

Unfortunately, while I am glad to agree with some of Karl's remarks, I must 
categorically reject others as 'dead fish', both those that are attributed to 
me and some which are not:

You wrote:
1. ...whether one is more attracted to monotheistic or rather polytheistic 
general explanations of reality. The model’s algorithms proposed are of the 
polygenetic school of thought: aspects of a+b=c are in an eternal battle of 
pre-eminence among each other.
Tokens are but symbols . . . 

I can accept this approach provided a, b and c are no longer considered 
'tokens'. What Logic in Reality does is to define the evolution of this battle 
in energetic logical terms, where a, b, and c are elements of processes.

2. We will certainly agree on a Pythagorean basis, that meditating on the 
relations among numbers will educate the open-minded about main properties of 
Nature.
The model builds on cyclic permutations being the fundament of thinking and 
counting, therefore the basic fundament of imaginations about Nature.

I disagree radically with these statements. If that makes me closed-minded so 
be it.

3. The picture resulting will by all means benefit from a bit of getting used 
to, but on the other hand, it is free of contradictions, consistent in itself, 
appears to model Nature quite well

For the reasons stated in 3., these statements are also unacceptable. 
Consistency and freedom from contradiction are characteristics of abstract 
logic, mathematics and number theory, not of Nature, including information and 
probability. I suggest they stay where they belong.

I do not want anything I say to be accepted as 'God's gift to information 
theory'. That principle should apply generally.

Thank you.

Joseph


- Original Message - 
  From: Karl Javorszky 
  To: Joseph Brenner 
  Cc: Terrence Deacon ; fis ; John Collier ; Gyorgy Darvas ; Bob Logan ; Andrei 
Khrennikov ; raf...@capurro.de 
  Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 10:22 AM
  Subject: Re: Commutativity


  Dear Joseph,



  your well-chosen words about the logical obsolescence of commutativity as a 
basic rule express the idea on a verbal level. My approach was on the level of 
combinatorics. Common is to both conceptions of the same problem that an era 
has come to an end. We have to confront a new concept of reality.



  The model investigates how logical conflicts will be consolidated. The 
logical conflicts do not appear visible until one imposes sequential order on 
the elements. The main idea is that we enter a field of schizophrenia: logical 
systems do not contain contradictions but we have here a logical system that 
does contain contradictions. Is the reality full of contradictions? Is it 
possible to create a consistent, logical picture of the world that is 
self-contradictory? How is it possible to have a logically sound current moment 
in life while the process in which each transversal moment is logically true, 
nevertheless the same process is, at least at times, along a longitudinal axis 
logically inconsistent and ends in discontinuities?

  The answer lies in the steps of transition from one sequence into a different 
sequence. This is a very basic way of creating a picture of reality. Pythagoras 
would have introduced it and Euclid had written a book on it – if they had had 
computers at their disposal. One needs computers to deal with the sheer 
quantity of numbers. No human brain can keep track of the complicated patterns 
that stitch the elements of reality together.

  The reorganisations weave a grid-cum-web of the patterns of movements of 
parts. There are typical patterns of movements if one reorders logical tokens 
that are individually numbered. The tokens are but symbols, like the symbols 
one gives to one’s teddy bears or dolls or tin soldiers. Now one enters a 
detailed dreamery about which teddy bear changes place with which other token. 
One will want to make use of a computer to follow this exercise of imagination 
through to the very end. The tokens are themselves devoid of movement. It is 
the human brain that imagines that they move from a place to a different place 
while the assembly is being reordered.

  Your question, to which general concepts of the world will be of no use a 
model that depicts Nature as being of a dual character, always in a compromise 
between conflicting requirements: this question is comparable to a meditation 
about whether one is more attracted to monotheistic or rather polytheistic 
general explanations of reality. The model’s algorithms proposed are of the 
polygenetic school of thought: aspects of a+b=c are in an eternal battle of 
pre-eminence among each other and agree or do not agree on the occupation of 
available places by transitory elements. It shows a much more Hindu variant of 
a basic concept of the world than the monoideistic ones. 

  We will 

Re: [Fis] Commutativity

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Joseph,



your well-chosen words about the logical obsolescence of commutativity as a
basic rule express the idea on a verbal level. My approach was on the level
of combinatorics. Common is to both conceptions of the same problem that an
era has come to an end. We have to confront a new concept of reality.



The model investigates how logical conflicts will be consolidated. The
logical conflicts do not appear visible until one imposes sequential order
on the elements. The main idea is that we enter a field of schizophrenia:
logical systems do not contain contradictions but we have here a logical
system that does contain contradictions. Is the reality full of
contradictions? Is it possible to create a consistent, logical picture of
the world that is self-contradictory? How is it possible to have a
logically sound current moment in life while the process in which each
transversal moment is logically true, nevertheless the same process is, at
least at times, along a longitudinal axis logically inconsistent and ends
in discontinuities?

The answer lies in the steps of transition from one sequence into a
different sequence. This is a very basic way of creating a picture of
reality. Pythagoras would have introduced it and Euclid had written a book
on it – if they had had computers at their disposal. One needs computers to
deal with the sheer quantity of numbers. No human brain can keep track of
the complicated patterns that stitch the elements of reality together.

The reorganisations weave a grid-cum-web of the patterns of movements of
parts. There are typical patterns of movements if one reorders logical
tokens that are individually numbered. The tokens are but symbols, like the
symbols one gives to one’s teddy bears or dolls or tin soldiers. Now one
enters a detailed dreamery about which teddy bear changes place with which
other token. One will want to make use of a computer to follow this
exercise of imagination through to the very end. The tokens are themselves
devoid of movement. It is the human brain that imagines that they move from
a place to a different place while the assembly is being reordered.

Your question, to which general concepts of the world will be of no use a
model that depicts Nature as being of a dual character, always in a
compromise between conflicting requirements: this question is comparable to
a meditation about whether one is more attracted to monotheistic or rather
polytheistic general explanations of reality. The model’s algorithms
proposed are of the polygenetic school of thought: aspects of *a+b=c *are
in an eternal battle of pre-eminence among each other and agree or do not
agree on the occupation of available places by transitory elements. It
shows a much more Hindu variant of a basic concept of the world than the
monoideistic ones.

We will certainly agree on a Pythagorean basis, that meditating on the
relations among numbers will educate the open-minded about main properties
of Nature. We also agree that rules can be changed and that the time seems
to have come to question the usefulness of the commutativity doctrine. The
actual tool I respectfully put forward for the use of the scientific
community is a positive, constructive contribution to the dissonance you
have so elegantly addressed. We say as a chorus: it is time to do away with
commutativity. Then you say about how this affects the teachings, and I
say: ok, and this is what we shall do to replace and improve on
commutativity. Let us take a collection of tokens and sequence them. Then
we resequence. Then we observe the place changes. The rest is a simple
continuation of this, like the repeated applications of rules of elementary
algebra, or even elementary arithmetic, will give rise to mighty tools of
decision-making calculations. The basis is indeed very simple. The
literature knows the artefacts of reorderings under the name “cyclic
permutations”. The model builds on cyclic permutations being the fundament
of thinking and counting, therefore the basic fundament of imaginations
about Nature. The picture resulting will by all means benefit from a bit of
getting used to, but on the other hand, it is free of contradictions,
consistent in itself, appears to model Nature quite well and demonstrates
how a change in a sequence of 4 symbols on 3 positions will affect the
properties of multidimensional assemblies. To my understanding, this is
what was needed. Here it is, now.

You have spoken out clearly – and the elite understands you, because you
talk their language – that something new has to come now that commutativity
is as credible as a dead fish. Thank you for being the first to stand up
and declare that a long era of simplified thinking has come to an end.



Karl



2016-11-05 11:15 GMT+01:00 Joseph Brenner :

> Well, Karl, it still takes some reading of what I have written to find
> important points of agreement as well as disagreement. In my 2008 book I
> noted that /both/