On Nothing in a void.

[Speakpigeon]

I've studied enough logic to know that's just wrong.

Oh, so if you "know", then that's it and there's nothing much to argue about. Thanks for revealing the truth to us all.
Still, you'll excuse me if I think you just believe you know. I can only engage in a conversation from this assumption. That, too, is logic.
So, I don't think you've studied logic properly so-called. You don't seem even to understand the expression. You could well have carried out your own investigation of logic properly so-called but I doubt that.
Instead, I think all you have done is to be a good student and study not logic itself but methods and systems of logic, and most likely those put forward since the end of the 19th century by people like Frege, Russell, Carnac etc. and even more likely just the current versions of those methods and system. So, not logic properly so-called itself. Instead, formal systems of logic and their methods. Good, you might even be a specialist of that for all I know. Congratulation.
Me, I'm interested in logic properly so-called. I'm not interested much in the things you may be a specialist of because I never found any convincing justification that these methods you may be a specialist of represent properly our sense of logic, and therefore anything at all since we don't know of any logic properly so-called that would exist outside our own sense of logic.
Still, I'm open to the idea I missed this justification. I looked for it. I found only one. well written and clearly written by specialists but clearly bogus on second reading. I would assume that if any such justification existed, it would be very easy to come across some version of it just like it's rather difficult to miss entirely any expression of the usual justification for the scientific method.
So, I'm all ears. The question is: Can you provide a justification of the system and method of logic you know as the method and system that we should use and why we should use it?

I've never heard of a logic "properly so-called". Can you quote an example?

The logic of human reasoning.
If you don't know what it is, Aristotle 2,500 years ago provided a formal system that seems to fit the bill. Nobody has improved on it for 2,500 years. No even modern mathematicians.
So, I'm prepared to be lax and accept "logic" to be the name both for "the branch of philosophy concerned with analysing the patterns of reasoning by which a conclusion is properly drawn from a set of premises, without reference to meaning or context" and for "a particular method of argument or reasoning". However, I want a proper justification for why the resulting system and method of logic should be used and why.

Boundary logic is Boolean, in that there are two abstract states: bounded and unbounded.
Moreover, a professor of Mathematics, Kauffmann, says this:
It's not that easy to do, but you associate a "true" state with < >, "false" is then the absence of < >.

Yes?
Good.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Physical values and functions are mathematical in essence. "The Universe does not have some mathematical properties, it has only mathematical properties". (A Mathematical Universe, Max Tegmark.)

Not really, no.
Certainly not as far as we know, including the experts. All we can say reasonably is that our mathematical models are very useful and seem therefore very good descriptions of the physical world. At best, you could say that the properties of the physical world seems to be mathematisable. That in itself doesn't make these properties "mathematical properties" at all. Only our models are properly called mathematical.
And also, I would assume that subjective experience is a reality and I don't think we know of any mathematical model for that yet.

 

[arfa brane]

So, I don't think you've studied logic properly so-called.

And who do you think cares about that?

As for your example of "properly so-called" logic

The logic of human reasoning.
If you don't know what it is, Aristotle 2,500 years ago provided a formal system that seems to fit the bill. Nobody has improved on it for 2,500 years. No even modern mathematicians.

You say human reasoning hasn't improved on Aristotle? Not even George Boole managed it?

 

[Speakpigeon]

And who do you think cares about that?

As for your example of "properly so-called" logic

You say human reasoning hasn't improved on Aristotle? Not even George Boole managed it?

I asked you something.
EB

 

[Write4U]

Not really, no.
Certainly not as far as we know, including the experts. All we can say reasonably is that our mathematical models are very useful and seem therefore very good descriptions of the physical world. At best, you could say that the properties of the physical world seems to be mathematisable. That in itself doesn't make these properties "mathematical properties" at all. Only our models are properly called mathematical.
And also, I would assume that subjective experience is a reality and I don't think we know of any mathematical model for that yet.

Cause and Effect is a mathematical equation of values and functions. Quantum Mechanics are mathematical processes of values and functions. Check out this interesting link;
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/great-math-mystery.html

Most Cosmologists get a feeling of "discovery" when an equation proves to match an action in reality.

The fact that mathematics can be used to predict cause and effect proves that reality is an interaction of specific values and specific universal functions fundamentally constitute a mathematical process.

This is why human mathematics is considered the greatest scientific "discovery" of universal functions.

And also, I would assume that subjective experience is a reality and I don't think we know of any mathematical model for that yet.

Yes we do, it is a quantum process of microtubules in the brain. (Hameroff, Penrose)

 

[Speakpigeon]

Cause and Effect is a mathematical equation of values and functions. Quantum Mechanics are mathematical processes of values and functions. Check out this interesting link;
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/great-math-mystery.html
Most Cosmologists get a feeling of "discovery" when an equation proves to match an action in reality.
The fact that mathematics can be used to predict cause and effect proves that reality is an interaction of specific values and specific universal functions fundamentally constitute a mathematical process.
This is why human mathematics is considered the greatest scientific "discovery" of universal functions.

I don't need to add anything to what I already said. Read it again if you want to understand my response.
Still, I can't stop you. Enjoy.

Yes we do, it is a quantum process of microtubules in the brain. (Hameroff, Penrose)

Oh, so they must have received the Nobel prize for that mind-boggling discovery? Which year?
EB

 

[Write4U]

If mathematics descibe universal values and functions by mathematical "equations", then the reverse is true also, no?

Oh, so they must have received the Nobel prize for that mind-boggling discovery? Which year?

It took Einstein 10 years to receive a Nobel award and it wasn't for GR. Did that mean during that time GR was a triviality, to be ignored? Are you telling me that only a Nobel prize winners warrant serious consideration?

The Hameroff hypothesis is being developed and shows great promise as more and more scientists are getting involved in the study of quantum computing (wave collapse) in micro-tubules, producing sentient experience in the organism.

In furtherance of my interest in Hameroff's research in sentience and it's connection to quantum mechanics, support and collaboration from Roger Penrose is not an insignificant fact.

Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS (born 8 August 1931) is an English mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science. He is Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics in the University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford.

Penrose is known for his work in mathematical physics, in particular for his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He has received several prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics, which he shared with Stephen Hawking for the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

 

[arfa brane]

The question is: Can you provide a justification of the system and method of logic you know as the method and system that we should use and why we should use it?

I thought about this question although not for very long.

Firstly there is no single "system and method of logic". As to a "system that we should use and why", why do electronics engineers use circuit logic? Why do astronomers use "spectral logic"? The choice of a formal system of logic as an analytical tool is simply a matter of choice.

Electronics engineers generally use a logic based on voltages--an electric field--rather than magnetic potentials, although there isn't any reason the latter would be as useful except for the kinds of measuring devices needed. A logic should not depend on the physical basis, that is.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I thought about this question although not for very long.

I can see that in your reply.

Firstly there is no single "system and method of logic".

Exactly. So, since there's however just one logic of human reasoning, how do we know which system and method of formal logic could be taken as a proper model of human reasoning?

As to a "system that we should use and why", why do electronics engineers use circuit logic? Why do astronomers use "spectral logic"? The choice of a formal system of logic as an analytical tool is simply a matter of choice.
Electronics engineers generally use a logic based on voltages--an electric field--rather than magnetic potentials, although there isn't any reason the latter would be as useful except for the kinds of measuring devices needed. A logic should not depend on the physical basis, that is.

Sure, but that wasn't my point. I already said that:

Logic
3. the system and principles of reasoning used in a specific field of study

Similarly, you have the logic of love making or football hooliganism, and that of any activity humans have and for which it may be convenient to develop a formal system to model the field. I don't see any difference between that and mathematics. As I already said, it's a very different sense of the word. The analogy is that the logic I am talking about is the logic of the human mind in the same sense as the logics you are limited to are the logics of various technical fields. The analogy is real but the human mind isn't a technical field. You can't do anything without using your mind. Astronomers may be using "spectral logic", whatever that is, but they also have to use their mind and the logic of their mind in order to be able to use spectral logic.
Anyway, thanks for making clear here you don't know of any justification for using any system and method of formal logic as representative of the logic of human reasoning. That's what I thought.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

If mathematics descibe universal values and functions by mathematical "equations", then the reverse is true also, no?

No. The physical world isn't a description.

It took Einstein 10 years to receive a Nobel award and it wasn't for GR. Did that mean during that time GR was a triviality, to be ignored? Are you telling me that only a Nobel prize winners warrant serious consideration?
The Hameroff hypothesis is being developed and shows great promise as more and more scientists are getting involved in the study of quantum computing (wave collapse) in micro-tubules, producing sentient experience in the organism.
In furtherance of my interest in Hameroff's research in sentience and it's connection to quantum mechanics, support and collaboration from Roger Penrose is not an insignificant fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

Sorry but I fail to see how quantum computing, or any computing at all, could explain how matter could give rise to subjective experience.
I can only guess that you are confusing two very different questions.
One is broadly that of how the brain could operate (or compute) a real-time model of the physical world. It may be the case that Penrose an others have shown how to go about this question, I just don't know but that wasn't my question.
The second question, usually referred to as the "Hard Problem of Consciousness", is that of how matter could give rise to our subjective experience.
EB

 

[Write4U]

No. The physical world isn't a description.

It's functions are indicative. An equation is a two way street, no?

 

[Write4U]

Sorry but I fail to see how quantum computing, or any computing at all, could explain how matter could give rise to subjective experience.
I can only guess that you are confusing two very different questions.
One is broadly that of how the brain could operate (or compute) a real-time model of the physical world. It may be the case that Penrose an others have shown how to go about this question, I just don't know but that wasn't my question.
The second question, usually referred to as the "Hard Problem of Consciousness", is that of how matter could give rise to our subjective experience.
EB

In principle no different than the "Hard Problem of Life", how matter can give rise to living organisms.

IMO, it's an organizational problem. Note that the brain has 3 functional levels of internal information processing and that 2 of them are not sentiently conscious but are strictly for information processing and interoceptive motor control.

 

[Speakpigeon]

In principle no different than the "Hard Problem of Life", how matter can give rise to living organisms.

Personally, I have no difficulty whatsoever conceiving that material processes produce life. The details of that are beyond the little I know but the little I know is enough to have a sense of the general process. Good enough for me. Nothing comparable with the problem of how matter as we conceive of it could possibly give rise to subjective experience as I know it.

IMO, it's an organizational problem. Note that the brain has 3 functional levels of internal information processing and that 2 of them are not sentiently conscious but are strictly for information processing and interoceptive motor control.

No. You're just repeating the same confusion. Or probably pretending you don't understand. In any case, there's nothing I could do for you. If you don't know now, you won't ever, whatever I could say.
EB

 

[arfa brane]

So, since there's however just one logic of human reasoning

Wait, what? Is there or isn't there a single logic, and how is that a different question to "is there a single method and system of logic?".
Recall that you stated . . . "the system and method of logic you know as the method and system that we should use and why we should use it?". You have claimed there is a "properly so-called" logic, and it's the only logic.

So why do you agree when I say there is no single kind, or method, of logic. A logical system is an abstraction, why should we only have one? We don't know if there is a system of logic that subsumes all others.

However, you go on about the logic of human reasoning. Human reasoning is something that can be deduced from all the different kinds of logical abstraction humans are capable of. Presumably the hardware--the brain--functions the same way in all humans, or put another way we all have the same kind of circuitry.

If you're talking about neurology and trying to decode brain signalling mechanisms, we aren't very far down that road. We have logical models of such things, of course (we have computers!), but not much idea of how different they are from real brains.

Anyway, thanks for making clear here you don't know of any justification for using any system and method of formal logic as representative of the logic of human reasoning. That's what I thought.

Nay, I say instead all systems, methods, and kinds of logic are representative of that which we call human reasoning. It just makes more sense to me, than "there can be only one".

 

[Write4U]

Personally, I have no difficulty whatsoever conceiving that material processes produce life. The details of that are beyond the little I know but the little I know is enough to have a sense of the general process. Good enough for me. Nothing comparable with the problem of how matter as we conceive of it could possibly give rise to subjective experience as I know it.

No. You're just repeating the same confusion. Or probably pretending you don't understand. In any case, there's nothing I could do for you. If you don't know now, you won't ever, whatever I could say.
EB

Apparently you cannot visualize vizualization in the brain....hehe.
Interoception only warns the brain when something has gone wrong internally. Usually this is processed (experienced) as pain or discomfort. This really is no different than the ability to experience the external environment and consciously observe and process wavefunctions received by our senses at the third level, which the only level affected by anesthesia.

When the third level has be anesthesized the person becomes a living object without conscious awareness, until the anesthesia wears off and the person becomes conscious again.

Subjective experience is already perceived by single celled paramecia which can "learn" via their microtubules.

Learning[edit]
The question of whether paramecia exhibit learning has been the object of a great deal of experimentation, yielding equivocal results. However, a study published in 2006 seems to show that Paramecium caudatum may be trained, through the application of a 6.5 volt electric current, to discriminate between brightness levels.[23] This experiment has been cited as a possible instance of cell memory, or epigenetic learning in organisms with no nervous system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramecium#Learning

 

[arfa brane]

George Boole's

Symbolic logic
Main article: Boolean algebra
In 1847 Boole published the pamphlet Mathematical Analysis of Logic. He later regarded it as a flawed exposition of his logical system, and wanted An Investigation of the Laws of Thought on Which are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities to be seen as the mature statement of his views. Contrary to widespread belief, Boole never intended to criticise or disagree with the main principles of Aristotle's logic. Rather he intended to systematise it, to provide it with a foundation, and to extend its range of applicability.

Binary Boolean logic, sometimes symbolised as 2, requires you to define what is meant by truth of a statement or proposition. Digital electronic logic simply maps true to a value, 1, which is defined physically as a voltage, 0 is a different voltage and whether the difference is positive or negative is a design choice.
It's difference itself that seems to be a foundational concept.

Boundary logic maps true to the existence of a boundary, the "existence" of a void is a contradiction, hence false. So clearly, there is a map between BL and 2. You could argue that BL generates a Boolean algebra. If the map is one to many then BL is more fundamental.

Just because we have:
( ) = T = 1.

= F = 0.​

 

[Write4U]

It's difference itself that seems to be a foundational concept.

As I understand it, that is what Hameroff and Penrose propose. A quantum event is the passing of a treshold, which creates a physical "bing" or a "ping" (for lack of a better term) when the quantum packet experiences a sudden change in position, rather than a smooth transition of states.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Wait, what? Is there or isn't there a single logic, and how is that a different question to "is there a single method and system of logic?".
Recall that you stated . . . "the system and method of logic you know as the method and system that we should use and why we should use it?". You have claimed there is a "properly so-called" logic, and it's the only logic.

I asked you a justification for the system and method of logic you know as the one we should use. Your answer shows you don't know of any. You do know of systems you think we can use and that are useful but that's a different question.
Still, I think I am careful enough when I express myself that you should understand without me having to repeat myself.

So why do you agree when I say there is no single kind, or method, of logic. A logical system is an abstraction, why should we only have one? We don't know if there is a system of logic that subsumes all others.

We don't know but most logicians seemed to have assumed there's just one logic since at least Aristotle and certainly including modern logic with Frege, Russell and a few others. That's the basic assumption.
The many different systems your talking about here are logics in the second sense, nothing like logic properly so-called, i.e. the logic of human reasoning. I already explained the difference. I don't think it's really complicated. If there are many logics in the second sense, then they can't all be a proper model of the logic in the first sense, i.e. the logic of human reasoning.

However, you go on about the logic of human reasoning. Human reasoning is something that can be deduced from all the different kinds of logical abstraction humans are capable of. Presumably the hardware--the brain--functions the same way in all humans, or put another way we all have the same kind of circuitry.

Fine. Do it. Deduce.
The logic of human reasoning cannot be deduced but it can be inferred from any reasoning people do, including thinking about football, sex, food etc. There's nothing special in logical terms about all the formal systems you seem to regard as particularly significant. There're not.

If you're talking about neurology and trying to decode brain signalling mechanisms, we aren't very far down that road. We have logical models of such things, of course (we have computers!), but not much idea of how different they are from real brains.

No, I don't care much about that. I'm sure we could discover how logic is done by our neurons but to do that we will have to use our logic. See?

Nay, I say instead all systems, methods, and kinds of logic are representative of that which we call human reasoning. It just makes more sense to me, than "there can be only one".

Yes, football is representative of human reasoning and plotting against your enemies and deciding how you're going to use some implement to repair your car.
Still, I think it's pretty obvious these things necessitate data about the real world and that these data come as an extra to logic. Logic properly so-called doesn't seem to much care about the real world.
Anyway, thanks, you've answered my question, if only reluctantly. That's all there was to say on the subject.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Apparently you cannot visualize vizualization in the brain....hehe.
Interoception only warns the brain when something has gone wrong internally. Usually this is processed (experienced) as pain or discomfort. This really is no different than the ability to experience the external environment and consciously observe and process wavefunctions received by our senses at the third level, which the only level affected by anesthesia.

When the third level has be anesthesized the person becomes a living object without conscious awareness, until the anesthesia wears off and the person becomes conscious again.

Subjective experience is already perceived by single celled paramecia which can "learn" via their microtubules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramecium#Learning

Sorry, you're not making sense here. It's up to you whether you want to try. I'm not going to try and decipher the runes.
EB

 

[Write4U]

Sorry, you're not making sense here. It's up to you whether you want to try. I'm not going to try and decipher the runes.
EB

All you need to remember is that the cilia, the little hairs on the outside of the paramecium, contain microtubules (simple quantum computers). These hairs are the sensory equipment which allows this single celled organism to navigate and find mates.

There are billions of microtubules in the brain and skin which facilitate communication in the neural network of the brain and electrical conductance in the skin.
When you go to the doctor and have this little clamp placed on your fingers to measure the oxygen supply, this information is provided by the microtubules in the skin. When your skin is very cold, the conductance of the microtubules goes down and the reading becomes faulty.

As I understand it, microtubules are simple quantum computers because they are in superposed states which are required for quantum mechanics and the processing of the collapse of the wave function.

I'm sure it's all more complicated than this, but I believe it captures some of the fundamentals.