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

[Mary]

Hi Bo and Joe,

There are 7 logic gates you can use to construct a circuit.  If you are
interested, a quick overview is here
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Projects/Labview/gatesfunc/index.html

There really is an infinity of numbers between any two numbers you can name.

Between 1 and 2 is 1.5.
Between 1.5 and 2 is 1.75
Between 1.5 and 1.75 is 1.5199876439, then 1.5299876439, etc.

An infinity of bigness or smallness.  Who's to say that 1 is 1.00000000000
and not 1.000000000000001?  We quickly get beyond our ability to measure
with accuracy.  It is a convenient fiction to say that something is 1.0
period.

You could say that mathematics is the music of the universe.  Any
mathematician would cheerfully agree.  Does that mean that we must suborn
all metaphysics to mathematics?  Does that negate the MoQ?  No.  Gravity is
as real as the number system.  Should we suborn the MoQ to that too?  The
number system and gravity are just high quality static values imho.  

[Bo] my belief is that the human (or any) brain capable of intelligence
works like computers.

I would think so, since it was human brains that invented them.  

We have no choice about the form our logic takes.  It seems to be totally
hard-wired into us.  Like breathing.  We cannot escape it any more than we
can escape the S/O universe our scientists are struggling to understand.  

This is a question I have.  What makes us think we are capable of
understanding Quality or anything much about the nature of reality?  Our
minds are products of the very reality we are trying to understand.  Do we
have the necessary equipment to understand the nature of the predicament we
find ourselves in?  This goes to the "container logic" problem.  We only
have this one kind of logic to work with.  What if there are others?  Why
not? 

When I was a kid my Dad used to blow my mind.  What if our entire universe,
everything we could see or detect, was but a grain of sand on an enormous
beach in another, much bigger universe?  How would we know?  What is beyond
the edge of the Universe?  This is what I want Pirsig to explain.  I have a
suspicion about empty space.  What if the matter and energy in the Universe
is not the important thing, but the empty space between it?  What is empty
space anyway?  Maybe the Universe is not expanding, but instead, empty space
is growing?  Let me ask you this.  If time in the Universe were speeding up
or slowing down, would we know that?  Would it make any difference if a
second were longer now that it was 10 years ago?  Inquiring minds want to
know. :)
  
This is what metaphysics is all about.  In databases there is what is known
as metadata.  It is data about data.  Metaphysics is theories about
theories.

- Mary 

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of
skutvik at online.no
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 10:27 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Where does logic itself belong inside the MOQ?

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. 





Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/