### 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 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

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