[MD] Where does logic itself belong inside the MOQ?

[skutvik at online.no]

Mary and Joe

10 Jan 

Bo originally 
> > > But right now the said "logic itself" has brought me
> > > some qualms: If 1+1=2 is something even Quality is subordinated,
> > > then IT (logic) is the most basic reality there is. This we better
> > > come to grips with. What do you think .....no new levels or roamings
> > > though ;-)

Mary 
> > I think you kinda have to take the 1+1=2 thing with a grain of salt.
> > It's just a convenient short-hand because there is an infinity of
> > numbers between any two other numbers.  Everything we do in
> > mathematics is based on ignoring the infinite, so Quality is not
> > subordinate to 1+1=2, because this is not strictly true.

Joe
> Well said!.  I do not know what  "infinity of numbers" means?  Is
> this a corollary to saying that numbers are necessarily
> undefined/defined, DQ/SQ as is all of reality?  Are you reassuring
> Bo that the ³good² of mathematics is DQ/SQ?

I agree with Joe in the sense that I'm not sure of much in number 
theory or in anything of this kind, and not to argue or object seriously, 
but there is more than numbers to logic. There are something called 
"logical gates" that computers rely on, three such I seem to remember 
but not their names  - hope Mary knows - anyway my belief is that the 
human (or any) brain capable of intelligence works like computers. 
Earlier experience stored in random access memory can be fetched 
into some "cache memory" where a central processor runs it through 
the gates and out comes "solutions" (for my crow how to hoist food 
balls by beak and claws) at the biological level not by language but 
perhaps by images, and other sense impressions. .

Was it Krimel who said that our thinking isn't binary but analogous? 
But what does he know about the inner workings of the brain? Our 
human thinking which is language conveyed presents its  end product 
analogously but the processing itself, the storing of memory, may well 
be by some on/off - firing of signals/not firing - 1/0 means? Anyway, 
this logic quandary "scared" me a bit, it can by no stretch of logic (sic) 
be called dynamic - it's the most static there are. It looked like 
something more fundamental than Quality, but after some use of logic 
(!!!) I wonder if it's not the inorganic "carbon", something that had to be 
in place before all inorganic patterns, not only  the elementary particles 
(if there are any) but the "forces" (weak & strong nuclear, gravity, 
electro-magnetism)  themselves - could form. In the same sense that 
inorganic carbon is what life was dependent on?

BTW now I violate my own for Mary earlier that the MOQ's inorganic 
patterns has nothing to do with physics' particles, forces ...etc. but it's                         
an emergency ;-)

> Is evolution good? Is ignoring the infinite good? Is infinity
> another aspect of good?  Is this less logical than DQ/SQ?   Pirsig
> proposed DQ/SQ to be a logic for metaphysics.  The undefined is a,
> part of our logical thought process and is metaphysically true and
> DQ is undefined..  This is a little different than saying
> metaphysics ³ignores the infinite², since that places infinite
> outside of logic. Is Evolution a laughing matter for a
> mathematician?   Does mathematical logic accept DQ/SQ?

Too many question marks dear Joe, we are supposed to deliver some 
opinions.

> I was watching an episode of Law and Order on television, and the
> writer used the creation of a family of runaways in a large city as
> equal in logic to the accepted notion of family.  Murder, rape,
> theft were OK for the street family.   They became refugees when the
> family they were born into became abusive.

> My feeling about the show was that this was possibly OK if there
> were a metaphysical ³good² beyond logic DQ.   Anarchy, DQ/SQ, became
> the rationalization for ³good². DQ is undefined and if SQ family
> becomes evil, creative solutions for the social order of people is
> good. A differing logic for a family relationship is not beyond
> logical existence.  Evolution DQ/SQ is moral if good is not
> marginalized. How else could things change?
 
> In metaphysics, DQ is undefined and for mathematics illogical.  From
> whence does DQ derive its logic so that DQ/SQ is a reasonable
> metaphysics?
 
These scenario of communities emerging if/when civilization breaks 
down, I believe is something like a lapse back to social value if the 
intellectual "latch" fails. The societies that emerges are the REAL 
unhampered by intellect societies with infinitely strict codes, much like 
the Warizistan tribes. Murder of other tribes, rape likewise, but 
immensely strong social codes of behavior within the group. No crime 
at all

Ok me chatting 

Bodvar.