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 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) 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
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
