Meta model and use of Logic

TVF -
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Every effect has an antecedent, proximate cause
No time reversal
No true action at a distance
No creation ex nihilo
No demise ad nihil
The finite cannot become infinite <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I agree outright with the first three but not with the fourth (I see logic as the "cause" of physics and not as a separate entity and hence the universe may indeed have a beginning). And I'm not committed on the last two.

I find it somewhat amusing that people can't agree on basic principles no matter how primitive the idea. In fact, I often wonder how civilization ever got constructed. Perhaps they just agree enough to build a little piece of it at a time (without killing one another ;o).

Action at a distance is also problematic. Defining distance is problematic in itself. Our perception of space is a mere rasterizing artifact delivered by light to our vision; then we extend the idea onto abstract theories. The problem is that we can't define neither space nor time without some sort of wave and/or oscillation process. Hence, I see absolutely no reason necessitating the very introduction of space and time for non-oscillatory non-periodic processes; instead of space and time we can use mere connectivity and order of events and entities. Most events and entities have at least a component that's non-oscillatory and non-periodic, so I'm afraid that nothing in this reality is ever truly separated by spatial distance, or, alternatively, no entity is truly spatially finite.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I find it somewhat amusing that people can't agree on basic principles no matter how primitive the idea. In fact, I often wonder how civilization ever got constructed. Perhaps they just agree enough to build a little piece of it at a time (without killing one another ;o).

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The more primitive the idea, the greater the difficulty in obtaining a consnensus on its definition or explanation. Actually, it is not amusing at all, although I understand the point you're making.

Do you think we actually have a Civilization? I highly doubt that. What we have is maybe a loose consensus on surviving, and not all of us on this planet.

I would like to agree with all five axioms or first principles of TVF, I really would. But I have no grounds in doing that. I may even be accused as dogmatic if I did so.

In my view, those 6 principles form the assumptions for a mathmematical model of the Universe. Whether that model coincides with reality is another story. One way of proving that is to prove that the set of 6 propositions form an Axiomatic Deductive System for the Universal operations. I can only try to imagine what that will take. Nevertheless, It is a good and honest try.

[Makis]
"Which logic should not be contradicted? Aristotelean Logic? If yes, it should be noted that it is an Axiomatic logic. No proofs."

I'm not so brave as to second guess TVF; so this is only my opinion.

I would say that TVF's approach is definately in the Aristotelian tradition. His deductive approach stems from Aristotle's Law of Identity or non-contradiction. Although he has not told us (to my knowledge) anything about his philosophical roots, I can guess at some influences, though they would only be guesses.

Another point would be that new his paper, although based on TVF's considerable scientific knowledge, is really about the philosophy of science. His viewpoint is undoubtably Objective. But (to keep this short), I would add that we can never prove philosophical theories the way we can prove mathematical or scientific laws, nevertheless those theories lie at the base of all knowledge, including science. It comes down to the pragmatic principle in the end. The philosophical theory that works best is probably the right one.

I guess there is a need to have some sort of formalised approach to science, but I must confess impatience when it comes to theorising about logic, philosophy and self-analysis as applied to the discipline. I'm not knocking it, mind, but tend to agree with Newton when he said -

"Plato is my friend, Aristotle is my friend, but my greatest friend is truth."

There'll always be an army of philosophers, logicians and historians, and God bless them, the theoreticians and mathematicians, but without the bread and butter experimentalists, observers, active seekers and searchers, and people who aren't afraid to call a spade a shovel, we'd spend the next thousand years debating whether what we've discovered so far means anything.

....and don't get me started on that....! <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

I would say that TVF's approach is definately in the Aristotelian tradition. His deductive approach stems from Aristotle's Law of Identity or non-contradiction.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I would add to this that it seems to me it is driven by a Aristotelian/Euclidian view of the World. This is in a somewhat serious conflict with prevailing theories.

Despite all the objections that can be raised it is nevertheless (TVF's) a well thought and presented view.