Re: [Fis] FIS 2015, Workshop on Combinatorics of Genetics, Fundamentals
Karl,
I welcome the intent of your Workshop to deal with real contradictions but I
have some doubts that combinatorics by itself suffices. Earlier, you wrote:
Therefore, no methodology has evolved of appeasing, soothing,
compromise-building among equally valid logical statements that contradict each
other.
However, I would like to call your attention again to the fact that such a
logic and methodology exist, which I have designated as Logic in Reality (LIR).
LIR is non-linguistic and non-truth-functional, grounded in the physics of our
world, and can in principle do what you would like to do.
The reason I say 'in principle' is that the fact that neither standard, binary
logics nor paraconsistent logics can properly handle real phenomena does not
guarantee that one based on or describing 'sequences' or simple permutations is
capable of capturing the contradictorial characteristics of complex processes,
e.g. information. It is worth discussion but then the implications of Logic in
Reality - the logic of the included third term of Stéphane Lupasco and his
Principle of Dynamic Opposition - are also.
I think it is not so clear how to understand 'the logical contradictions that
exist' outside the linguistic or mathematical domain. It might be useful
(suggestion) to start out by discussing what the options here are.
Joseph
- Original Message -
From: Karl Javorszky
To: Bruno Marchal
Cc: fis Science
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS 2015, Workshop on Combinatorics of
Genetics,Fundamentals
The workshop goes far deeper than the excellent remarks raised by Bruno
discuss. We try to make the participants understand that the workshop deals
with contradictions, not para-consistent or inconsistent variants of logic.
The subject is elementary in such a degree, that participants run the risk of
not seeing the forest for the trees. Let me offer a very simple example:
In your class at University there are 20 students. Each student has 1 first
name and 1 family name. For official, administrative reasons, you have to work
the list down according to the family name. This is the sequence A (for
Administrative). Here, Arthur Treehouse comes after Christopher Bellini. Then
you have a list for your own use, where you remember the first name of the
students and have them in your phonebook according to their first name. This is
the sequence P (for Private). Here, John Napolitano comes before Susan Ardenne.
(Please expand the example until the problem becomes obvious. In the workshop
we shall work it out in detail, encouraging collaboration.)
Both sequences A and P have been achieved by repetitive applications of the
operator “<”, well known from elementary arithmetic. The logical operators
{<|=|>} are a part of logic. Their application should be free of contradictions.
Here, we see that the application of the logical operator “<” on sets yields
contradicting results.
The workshop will address the methodology of consolidating logical
contradictions. To this end we shall look more in detail into, how sequence
contradictions are resolved. The fact, that logical contradictions exist and
are easily demonstrable has been shown, therefore we shall not discuss it any
more.
As a preparation, one may want to ask his/her students to line up a) once
according to family name and b) once according to first name; c) each student
shall note in both cases the sequential number of his place, d) compare the two
numbers, e) if these do not agree, decide, which is his “right” place, f) if he
cannot do so, go to the alternative place, g) observe, whether the person who
is on his alternative place will exchange place with him directly, h) if not,
observe, how many students have to change places, i) compare the number of
exchanges within a closed loop.
After these exercises, one may want to discuss the concept of something
called a “quantum”, which could be interpreted as an elementary unit of being
dis-allocated (maybe [stepskilogrammdistance]).
Let me repeat, the subject the workshop invites the participants to direct
their attention to is way more fundamental than the level of “language
semantics”, “mind-body problem” or “origin of beliefs”.
Karl
2014-10-22 15:59 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :
On 20 Oct 2014, at 13:44, Karl Javorszky wrote:
Workshop on the Combinatorics of Genetics, Fundamentals
In order to prepare for a fruitful, satisfying and rewarding workshop in
Vienna, let me offer to potential participants the following main innovations
in the field of formal logic and arithmetic:
1) Consolidating contradictions:
The idea of contradicting logical statements is traditionally alien to
the system of thoughts that is mathematics. Therefore, no methodology has
evolved of appeasing, soothing, compr
Re: [Fis] FIS 2015, Workshop on Combinatorics of Genetics, Fundamentals
The workshop goes far deeper than the excellent remarks raised by Bruno
discuss. We try to make the participants understand that the workshop deals
with *contradictions, *not para-consistent or inconsistent variants of
logic.
The subject is elementary in such a degree, that participants run the risk
of not seeing the forest for the trees. Let me offer a very simple example:
In your class at University there are 20 students. Each student has 1 first
name and 1 family name. For official, administrative reasons, you have to
work the list down according to the family name. This is the sequence A
(for Administrative). Here, Arthur Treehouse comes *after *Christopher
Bellini. Then you have a list for your own use, where you remember the
first name of the students and have them in your phonebook according to
their first name. This is the sequence P (for Private). Here, John
Napolitano comes *before *Susan Ardenne. (Please expand the example until
the problem becomes obvious. In the workshop we shall work it out in
detail, encouraging collaboration.)
Both sequences A and P have been achieved by repetitive applications of the
operator “<”, well known from elementary arithmetic. The logical operators
{<|=|>} are a part of logic. Their application should be free of
contradictions.
Here, we see that the application of the logical operator “<” on sets
yields *contradicting *results.
The workshop will address the methodology of consolidating logical
contradictions. To this end we shall look more in detail into, *how*
sequence contradictions are resolved. The fact, *that *logical
contradictions exist and are easily demonstrable has been shown, therefore
we shall not discuss it any more.
As a preparation, one may want to ask his/her students to line up a) once
according to family name and b) once according to first name; c) each
student shall note in both cases the sequential number of his place, d)
compare the two numbers, e) if these do not agree, decide, which is his
“right” place, f) if he cannot do so, go to the alternative place, g)
observe, whether the person who is on his alternative place will exchange
place with him directly, h) if not, observe, how many students have to
change places, i) compare the number of exchanges within a closed loop.
After these exercises, one may want to discuss the concept of something
called a “quantum”, which could be interpreted as an elementary unit of
being dis-allocated (maybe [stepskilogrammdistance]).
Let me repeat, the subject the workshop invites the participants to direct
their attention to is way more fundamental than the level of “language
semantics”, “mind-body problem” or “origin of beliefs”.
Karl
2014-10-22 15:59 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :
>
> On 20 Oct 2014, at 13:44, Karl Javorszky wrote:
>
> Workshop on the Combinatorics of Genetics, Fundamentals
>
>
> In order to prepare for a fruitful, satisfying and rewarding workshop in
> Vienna, let me offer to potential participants the following main
> innovations in the field of formal logic and arithmetic:
>
>
> 1) Consolidating contradictions:
>
> The idea of contradicting logical statements is traditionally alien to the
> system of thoughts that is mathematics. Therefore, no methodology has
> evolved of appeasing, soothing, compromise-building among equally valid
> logical statements that contradict each other. In this regard, mathematical
> logic is far less advanced than diplomacy, psychology, commercial claims
> regulation or military science, in which fields the existence of conflicts
> is a given. The workshop centers around the methodology of fulfilling
> contradicting logical requirements that co- exist.
>
>
> I am not entirely convinced. I think that para-consistent logic are
> interesting for natural language semantics, but I think that in the
> fundamentals, the consistency of inconsistency, guarantied by Gödel's
> second incompleteness theorem is enough. It explains also why a machine
> cannot know which computations supported it, and this explains where the
> information comes from (it comes from our relative distribution in a tiny
> part of the arithmetical reality). This reduces also the mind-body problem
> to a problem of justifying the origin of the beliefs in physical laws from
> elementary arithmetic, and partial solutions have been obtained (you can
> consult my consult my URL below for some references). In particular we can
> explain why the world looks boolean above our computationalist substitution
> level, and why it looks quantum logical below.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> 2) Concept of Order
>
> We show that the pointed opposition between readings of a set once as a
> sequenced one and once as a commutative one is similar to the discussion,
> whether a Table of the Rorschach test depicts a still-life under water or
> rather fireworks in Paris. The incompatibility between sequenced and
> commutative (contemporaneous) is provided by our sensory apparatus: in
> fa
Re: [Fis] FIS 2015, Workshop on Combinatorics of Genetics, Fundamentals
On 20 Oct 2014, at 13:44, Karl Javorszky wrote: Workshop on the Combinatorics of Genetics, Fundamentals In order to prepare for a fruitful, satisfying and rewarding workshop in Vienna, let me offer to potential participants the following main innovations in the field of formal logic and arithmetic: 1) Consolidating contradictions: The idea of contradicting logical statements is traditionally alien to the system of thoughts that is mathematics. Therefore, no methodology has evolved of appeasing, soothing, compromise-building among equally valid logical statements that contradict each other. In this regard, mathematical logic is far less advanced than diplomacy, psychology, commercial claims regulation or military science, in which fields the existence of conflicts is a given. The workshop centers around the methodology of fulfilling contradicting logical requirements that co- exist. I am not entirely convinced. I think that para-consistent logic are interesting for natural language semantics, but I think that in the fundamentals, the consistency of inconsistency, guarantied by Gödel's second incompleteness theorem is enough. It explains also why a machine cannot know which computations supported it, and this explains where the information comes from (it comes from our relative distribution in a tiny part of the arithmetical reality). This reduces also the mind-body problem to a problem of justifying the origin of the beliefs in physical laws from elementary arithmetic, and partial solutions have been obtained (you can consult my consult my URL below for some references). In particular we can explain why the world looks boolean above our computationalist substitution level, and why it looks quantum logical below. Best regards, Bruno 2) Concept of Order We show that the pointed opposition between readings of a set once as a sequenced one and once as a commutative one is similar to the discussion, whether a Table of the Rorschach test depicts a still- life under water or rather fireworks in Paris. The incompatibility between sequenced and commutative (contemporaneous) is provided by our sensory apparatus: in fact, a set is readable both as a sequenced collection and as a collection of commutative symbols. We abstract from the two sentences “Set A is in a sequential order” and “Set A is a commutatively ordered one” into the sentence “Set A is in order”. The workshop introduces the idea and the technique of sequential enumeration (aka “sorting”) of elements of a set, calling the result “order”, and shows that different sorting orders may bring forth contradicting assignments of places to one and the same element, resp. contradicting assignments of elements to one and the same place. 3) The duration of the transient state We put forward the motion, that it is reasonable to assume that a set is normally in a state of permanent change – as opposed to the traditional view, wherein a set, once well defined, stays put and idle, remaining such as defined. The idea is that there are always alternatives to whichever order one looks into a set, therefore it is reasonable to assume that the set is in a state of permanent adjustment. We look in great detail into the mechanics of transition between Order αβ and Order γδ, and show that the number of tics until the transition is achieved is only in the rarest of cases uniform, therefore partial transformations and half-baked results are the ordre du jour. 4) Standard transitions and spatial structures The rare cases where a translation from Order αβ into Order γδ happens in lock-step are quite well suited to serve as units of dis- allocation, being of uniform properties with respect to a numeric quality which could well be called an extent for “mass”. These cases allow assembling two 3-dimensional spatial structures with well-defined axes. The twice 3 axes can even be merged into one, consolidated space with 3 common axes, the price of the consolidation being that every 1-dimensional statement has in this case 4 variants. The findings allow supporting Minkowski’s ideas and also some contemplation about 3 sub-statements consisting of 1- of-4 variants, as used by Nature while registering genetic information in a purely sequenced fashion. 5) Size optimization and asynchronicity questions The set is the same, whether we read it consecutively or transversally. The readings differ. We show that the functions of logical relations’ density per unit resp. unit fragment size per logical relation are intertwined, making a change between the representations of order as unit and as logical relation a matter of accounting artistry. (“If I want more matter, I say that I see 66 commutative units; if I want more information, I say that I see 11 sequences of 6 units.”) The phlogiston (or divine will)
Re: [Fis] FIS 2015, Workshop on Combinatorics of Genetics, Fundamentals
List: Their exist many forms of formal logics. One of the several concepts important to logic is an ancient concept: If antecedents, then consequences. In recent decades, the concept of para-consistent logic has emerged. It has found many applications, particularly in the cybernetics of control systems. Para-consistent logics are tolerant of apparent or so-called "inconsistencies" among several premisses. Para-consistent logics are worth studying as they motivate consequences from antecedents. One key author is Graham Priest. One of the principle questions that para-consistent logics raise is "How does one compose premisses?" not necessary dependent on the geometric metrics rules of a line. Cheers Jerry On Oct 20, 2014, at 6:44 AM, Karl Javorszky wrote: > Workshop on the Combinatorics of Genetics, Fundamentals > > > In order to prepare for a fruitful, satisfying and rewarding workshop in > Vienna, let me offer to potential participants the following main innovations > in the field of formal logic and arithmetic: > > > > 1) Consolidating contradictions: > > The idea of contradicting logical statements is traditionally alien to the > system of thoughts that is mathematics. Therefore, no methodology has evolved > of appeasing, soothing, compromise-building among equally valid logical > statements that contradict each other. In this regard, mathematical logic is > far less advanced than diplomacy, psychology, commercial claims regulation or > military science, in which fields the existence of conflicts is a given. The > workshop centers around the methodology of fulfilling contradicting logical > requirements that co- exist. > > > > 2) Concept of Order > > We show that the pointed opposition between readings of a set once as a > sequenced one and once as a commutative one is similar to the discussion, > whether a Table of the Rorschach test depicts a still-life under water or > rather fireworks in Paris. The incompatibility between sequenced and > commutative (contemporaneous) is provided by our sensory apparatus: in fact, > a set is readable both as a sequenced collection and as a collection of > commutative symbols. We abstract from the two sentences “Set A is in a > sequential order” and “Set A is a commutatively ordered one” into the > sentence “Set A is in order”. > > The workshop introduces the idea and the technique of sequential enumeration > (aka “sorting”) of elements of a set, calling the result “order”, and shows > that different sorting orders may bring forth contradicting assignments of > places to one and the same element, resp. contradicting assignments of > elements to one and the same place. > > > > 3) The duration of the transient state > > We put forward the motion, that it is reasonable to assume that a set is > normally in a state of permanent change – as opposed to the traditional view, > wherein a set, once well defined, stays put and idle, remaining such as > defined. The idea is that there are always alternatives to whichever order > one looks into a set, therefore it is reasonable to assume that the set is in > a state of permanent adjustment. > > We look in great detail into the mechanics of transition between Order αβ and > Order γδ, and show that the number of tics until the transition is achieved > is only in the rarest of cases uniform, therefore partial transformations and > half-baked results are the ordre du jour. > > > > 4) Standard transitions and spatial structures > > The rare cases where a translation from Order αβ into Order γδ happens in > lock-step are quite well suited to serve as units of dis-allocation, being of > uniform properties with respect to a numeric quality which could well be > called an extent for “mass”. > > These cases allow assembling two 3-dimensional spatial structures with > well-defined axes. The twice 3 axes can even be merged into one, consolidated > space with 3 common axes, the price of the consolidation being that every > 1-dimensional statement has in this case 4 variants. The findings allow > supporting Minkowski’s ideas and also some contemplation about 3 > sub-statements consisting of 1-of-4 variants, as used by Nature while > registering genetic information in a purely sequenced fashion. > > > > 5) Size optimization and asynchronicity questions > > The set is the same, whether we read it consecutively or transversally. The > readings differ. We show that the functions of logical relations’ density per > unit resp. unit fragment size per logical relation are intertwined, making a > change between the representations of order as unit and as logical relation a > matter of accounting artistry. (“If I want more matter, I say that I see 66 > commutative units; if I want more information, I say that I see 11 sequences > of 6 units.”) > > The phlogiston (or divine will) fueling the mechanism appears to be the > synchronicity o
[Fis] FIS 2015, Workshop on Combinatorics of Genetics, Fundamentals
Workshop on the Combinatorics of Genetics, Fundamentals In order to prepare for a fruitful, satisfying and rewarding workshop in Vienna, let me offer to potential participants the following main innovations in the field of formal logic and arithmetic: 1) Consolidating contradictions: The idea of contradicting logical statements is traditionally alien to the system of thoughts that is mathematics. Therefore, no methodology has evolved of appeasing, soothing, compromise-building among equally valid logical statements that contradict each other. In this regard, mathematical logic is far less advanced than diplomacy, psychology, commercial claims regulation or military science, in which fields the existence of conflicts is a given. The workshop centers around the methodology of fulfilling contradicting logical requirements that co- exist. 2) Concept of Order We show that the pointed opposition between readings of a set once as a sequenced one and once as a commutative one is similar to the discussion, whether a Table of the Rorschach test depicts a still-life under water or rather fireworks in Paris. The incompatibility between sequenced and commutative (contemporaneous) is provided by our sensory apparatus: in fact, a set is readable both as a sequenced collection and as a collection of commutative symbols. We abstract from the two sentences “Set A is in a sequential order” and “Set A is a commutatively ordered one” into the sentence “Set A is in order”. The workshop introduces the idea and the technique of sequential enumeration (aka “sorting”) of elements of a set, calling the result “order”, and shows that different sorting orders may bring forth contradicting assignments of places to one and the same element, resp. contradicting assignments of elements to one and the same place. 3) The duration of the transient state We put forward the motion, that it is reasonable to assume that a set is normally in a state of permanent change – as opposed to the traditional view, wherein a set, once well defined, stays put and idle, remaining such as defined. The idea is that there are always alternatives to whichever order one looks into a set, therefore it is reasonable to assume that the set is in a state of permanent adjustment. We look in great detail into the mechanics of transition between Order αβ and Order γδ, and show that the number of tics until the transition is achieved is only in the rarest of cases uniform, therefore partial transformations and half-baked results are the ordre du jour. 4) Standard transitions and spatial structures The rare cases where a translation from Order αβ into Order γδ happens in lock-step are quite well suited to serve as units of dis-allocation, being of uniform properties with respect to a numeric quality which could well be called an extent for “mass”. These cases allow assembling two 3-dimensional spatial structures with well-defined axes. The twice 3 axes can even be merged into one, consolidated space with 3 common axes, the price of the consolidation being that every 1-dimensional statement has in this case 4 variants. The findings allow supporting Minkowski’s ideas and also some contemplation about 3 sub-statements consisting of 1-of-4 variants, as used by Nature while registering genetic information in a purely sequenced fashion. 5) Size optimization and asynchronicity questions The set is the same, whether we read it consecutively or transversally. The readings differ. We show that the functions of logical relations’ density per unit resp. unit fragment size per logical relation are intertwined, making a change between the representations of order as unit and as logical relation a matter of accounting artistry. (“If I want more matter, I say that I see 66 commutative units; if I want more information, I say that I see 11 sequences of 6 units.”) The phlogiston (or divine will) fueling the mechanism appears to be the synchronicity of steps of order consolidation happening. Using the concept of a-synchronicity we can understand that we can, for reasons of epistemology, perceive only that what is asynchronous, and as a corollary to this, perceive not that what is synchron, which we have reason to call dark matter or dark energy. These are the main ideas to be presented at the FIS meeting 2015. Hopefully, the main event, dealing with Society’s answer to change in fundamental concepts of information, will find the proceedings revolutionary enough to merit observation from close quarters. Karl ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
