Re: [Fis] FIS 2015, Workshop on Combinatorics of Genetics, Fundamentals

2014-10-28 Thread Joseph Brenner
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 marc...@ulb.ac.be:



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

Re: [Fis] FIS 2015, Workshop on Combinatorics of Genetics, Fundamentals

2014-10-20 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
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 of steps of order consolidation happening. Using the concept of 
 a-synchronicity we can