Meta model and use of Logic

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

re: 1] Yes, axiomatic logic lacks proofs, but where are proofs anymore in the quantum world? We must deal with quantum effects, if we hope to mirror human understanding with reality. And, in this, we have no other choice, it seems; else, take up rice farming here in my Japan.


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


Using Axiomatic Logic as proposed by Aristotle to study Physical Reality is essentially an attempt to map Physical Reality to a restricted domain of operations justified by Logic. This attempt serves well some Social, Political and Econonic Theories maybe, but when confronted with operations in the perticle level Physics it breaks down in a grand way (see Heisenberg Principle).

I am never of the opinion that there is no alernative. I also believe that the Logic aletrnative is already too old, somewhere 2,500 old. Maybe it's time to look for new alternative. But do not emply first order predicate calculus to find them.

Rice growing in Japan is a valid alternative for me, if the local mafia will allow me to take a share of the pie and not cut any of my fingures.<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

quote:
___________________________________________________________________________
Using Axiomatic Logic as proposed by Aristotle to study Physical Reality is essentially an attempt to map Physical Reality to a restricted domain of operations justified by Logic. This attempt serves well some Social, Political and Econonic Theories maybe, but when confronted with operations in the perticle level Physics it breaks down in a grand way (see Heisenberg Principle).
___________________________________________________________________________

Forgive an abbreviation of the above quote: "Logic... is... an attempt to map Physical Reality to... Logic."

Further reduced: "Logic maps reality to itself."

This is the principle of self-evience (philosophically, a first-principle, and is therefore above question). This is the question of the above posting, I presume.

As long as we ourselves are using these logical processes, how can we point to an alternative? If there were in fact an alternative, would it neccessarily be an improvement? No, it would merely be an alternative (see: Newton's Second law of Thermodynamics). We would merely have to start another 2500+ years of logical development, and statistically meet at the same feared logical dead end.

Regarding the Heisenberg Principle, it operates on the same logical premises. It states that on a certain level, matter is altered by attempts at observation; it makes no claims on the actual nature of matter beyond the limits of observation. I do not see where logic breaks down.

My alternative proposition is that the limits on understanding physical reality have a precise explaination: the manifold imperfections of observers (ourselves).

Makis,

Our rice farming operation will have to eventually arbitrate with the local mafia (I'm sorry). They seem to use logic... and although Japanese, it looks pretty Aristotelian, I'm afraid.

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

Further reduced: "Logic maps reality to itself."

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

I refuse to accept the above as a first principle.

Logic is Logic

is a first principle (Law of self-implication) or

Logic maps what Logic maps

The above statement, Logic maps reality to itself is a function and not a tautology.

Logic = f(Reality,logic)

There are two domains, Reality and Logic, and a range, Logic itself. The operation is hopeless for obtaining anything of value out of it. It is an endless loop, don't you see it!

The following would be more usefull:

Reality = f(logic, reality)

Give it a shot!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(JimiProton)
Forgive an abbreviation of the above quote: "Logic... is... an attempt to map Physical Reality to... Logic."

Further reduced: "Logic maps reality to itself."

This is the principle of self-evience (philosophically, a first-principle, and is therefore above question). This is the question of the above posting, I presume.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Are you sure it's not the use of logic to confirm or map reality to reality? I think it is the reality which is driving the logic and not the logic driving the reality. The logic is being used to confirm that the reality is really reality. There is a post somewhere around here where Makis gives a good explaination of this:

(Quote from Makis-from BigBang BB) "As a matter of fact, ZERO is the most desirable state in many practical cases, real world case in Engineering, Economics, Biology, etc.

ERROR = DESIRED STATE - ACTUAL STATE (feedback mechanism)

The objective of control systems, adaptive mechanisms or self organizing populations is to bring the ERROR to ZERO. The fastest and more efficiently the ERROR is brought to ZERO, the better the objective is achieved. True that we know to approach ZERO asymptotically for now, but absolute ZERO convergence will bring those systems to their most desirable state, that of most stable existence."
*************END QUOTE***********
The logic is checking that reality is actually reality, logic+reality=reality(No error:"0")

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(JimiProton)I do not see where logic breaks down.

My alternative proposition is that the limits on understanding physical reality have a precise explaination: the manifold imperfections of observers (ourselves).<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I think you are correct, it is not the logic that breaks down, it is our observation, pre-formed assumptions, and opinions of the results the logic produces.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I think it is the reality which is driving the logic and not the logic driving the reality.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I need to correct this statement, it should have read:
I think it is the logic driving the reality and not the reality driving the logic. The logic is driving the reality to reality not back to logic.

Sorry for any confusion.