|
Author
|
Topic: T-Duality Universe
|
John Bracht
Member
Member # 5
|
posted 28. May 2003 16:23
Just a quick question from a neophyte to the whole CTMU field.
Jason Young says,
quote:
There's a distinction made in Christopher Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, too, which has already been explained. We can, and in fact must, think of Unbound Telesis as the logical generality from which reality restrictively configures itself by selecting its own constraints. Reality distinguishes "that which is real" (being) from "that which is not real" (non-being) through this dynamic self-selection process.
What one has to remember is that the UBT hasn't any constraint of its own and, for this reason, cannot impose limitations upon reality. Reality, as a unified entity, actuates its own structure by selecting its constraints and limitations from this primordial realm of 'info-cognitive' potential.
I find the ideas here very interesting, from an intelligent design standpoint, because the defining characteristic of intelligence is the ability to make choices--to choose between multiple, equally viable options and actualize one possibility out of many. In this CMTU model, it seems that reality is behaving in a way characteristic of intelligence itself--it's actualizing its own constraints out of a pool (reference class? to throw in part of Dembski's design-inferential model) of undifferentiated possibilities (the UBT). My question: is this model assuming some sort of intelligence, inherent in the universe, that makes these choices? Otherwise, I can't see how the choices get made--the only things capable of making real choices are intelligent agents.
Or is there some non-intelligent process that directs the actualization of reality/non-reality from the potential inherent within the primoridal UBT? Are the constraints actualized randomly, by chance?
A further thought: it seems that whatever process does the "actualizing" from the UBT must pre-exist within the UBT (i.e., it cannot be chance because chance itself is something that only exists within a certain reality that has already been actualized). Intelligence, on the other hand, seems not to be linked to one specific actualization versus another (this is intuitive for me but not formally worked out; it comes from my metaphysical view that soul, spirit are separate from the physical), and could serve as a causal "actualizer" from the UBT. Hence, is this an argument for an unembodied, pre-existing intelligence inhering in the UBT and actualizing reality?
John
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 29. May 2003 02:20
quote:
Russ, Russ, Russ, why is it so hard for you to grasp this?
I appreciate your sense of humor Dave but lets get back to the discussion of the UBT-TAO-unknown.
You appear to be confusing terms. First you say that reality distinguishes itsef from the UBT, now you say that the UBT is real? Reality contains all and only that which is real. UBT is real, Reality contains the UBT. Thanks for noticing the inability to apply 2-valued classical logic to UBT. As far as "grasping" is concerned, I advise you to really think about these concepts, instead of just accepting them superficially. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
No, when you strip away logical constraints you arrive at 1VL which cannot be comparative. This might as well be 0VL for all intents and purposes. Since this is potential that we are talking about there is an inverse relation between actual and potential. We are stripping away the logical constraints of the actual so the potential goes towards infinity. UBT is thus NO logical constraints and infinite potential.
Dave
Are you saying that this ...UBT is strictly a 1-valued logic? UBT CAN be defined as a 1-valued logic? Isn't UBT undefinable?
Actually many valued logic gives more "degrees of freedom". Many valued logic is a generalization of 2-valued classical Aristotelian logic. Infinite potential = infinite valued logic.
I suggest you do a little research on the topic of *logic*, before claiming to be an authority on it. Good grief! 1-valued logic would be a constraint, to say the least! Egads! what is zero valued logic???
Many valued logic is a generalization of 2-valued classical logic, where the term *general* = more freedom.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-manyvalued/
quote:
P.S. If I can't help you understand then let me point you to a thread on Mega where Chris discusses this:
Thanks for the nostalgic trip down memory lane Dave. Yes, I have learned much since then ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Russ
ps. As you know, according to the CTMU writings, the forward direction of time is a sequence of embedding constraints, a deductive process i.e. nesting of SCSPL syntaxes. The reverse direction of time is the inductive direction, where the nested constraints, i.e. SCSPL syntaxes, are removed. Since many valued logic gives more degrees of freedom, the highest level of generalization has the most self configurative freedom. The highest level of generalization is
UBT. Conclusion? It is an infinite valued logic. Any and all possibilities OF existence.
Now, according to Dave, by adding n-values to logic, constriants are increased? This is a non-sequitur Dave. To increase constraint, is to reduce the number of possible choices, hence, with the inductive increase of n-valued logic, with n > 2, the degrees of freedom are increased are they not? By reducing the number of possible choices, constriants are deductively increased.
Mv-logic is a "generalization" of specific valued logic. UBT is a generalization of existence. An ontological medium consisting of pure infocognitive potential. Infinite possibility.
Actualized reality is a filtrative process of choosing the optimal paths for itself. The telic principle is analogous to the least action principle of physics.
My interpretation...
Russ
[ 29. May 2003, 06:32: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Genie
Member
Member # 266
|
posted 29. May 2003 12:18
John Bracht wrote:
quote:
I find the ideas here very interesting, from an intelligent design standpoint, because the defining characteristic of intelligence is the ability to make choices--to choose between multiple, equally viable options and actualize one possibility out of many. In this CMTU model, it seems that reality is behaving in a way characteristic of intelligence itself--it's actualizing its own constraints out of a pool (reference class? to throw in part of Dembski's design-inferential model) of undifferentiated possibilities (the UBT). My question: is this model assuming some sort of intelligence, inherent in the universe, that makes these choices? Otherwise, I can't see how the choices get made--the only things capable of making real choices are intelligent agents.
Yes, according to the CTMU, intelligence inheres in the universe and distributed over its contents. The universe isn't just assumed to be intelligent; it is shown to possess a collection of formal properties which together imply intelligence and volition (this involves the concept of "conspansive spacetime", which adds a certain kind of connectivity while making the universe evolve like a generative grammar as well as a dynamical system. It also involves the Telic Principle, analogous to the Anthropic principle but tailor-made for an informationally self-contained system. See the nontechnical definition for "Teleologic Evolution" at this page: www.teleologic.org and, of course, Chris's paper in PCID).
quote:
A further thought: it seems that whatever process does the "actualizing" from the UBT must pre-exist within the UBT (i.e., it cannot be chance because chance itself is something that only exists within a certain reality that has already been actualized).
Since UBT is the absence of all constraint, it contains nothing but possibility. It's pure self-actualizative potential. Self-actualizative potential is not ordinary potential, which pertains only to states, but telic potential, which applies to "infocognitive" relationships of natural law and state. One has to be careful about the word "contains" in this context. Ordinarily, to be contained by something means to be somehow "bound" or "bounded" by it in a logical or geometric sense. Obviously, that's not the case here. UBT precludes any distributive binding constraint and can be likened to "anticonstraint".
quote:
Intelligence, on the other hand, seems not to be linked to one specific actualization versus another (this is intuitive for me but not formally worked out; it comes from my metaphysical view that soul, spirit are separate from the physical), and could serve as a causal "actualizer" from the UBT. Hence, is this an argument for an unembodied, pre-existing intelligence inhering in the UBT and actualizing reality?
The CTMU is a monic theory with no absolute separation between the spiritual and the physical, although it does permit the spiritual to exceed the physical (see http://www.teleologic.org/Links.htm - particularly the links about the CTMU and God for a synopsis of CTMU metaphysics; also see the definitions for holotheism and logical theology at www.teleologic.org). In the CTMU, the actualization of the universe conforms to teleology, which one can think of as God freely determining all of the forms that He takes. Rather than being front-loaded (as I understand that term), it is an ongoing process coinciding with actualization. This is an aspect of the CTMU that may conflict with certain views contained in some metaphysical frameworks, but there is ultimately no way around it. There is no coherent way to express the concept of an unembodied, pre-existing designer in the usual paradoxical sense of these terms. On formal grounds, any scientific exploration of design/teleology requires a CTMU-type framework; others turn out to be inadequate, or worse, they end up generating paradoxes.
[ 29. May 2003, 12:24: Message edited by: Gina Lynne LoSasso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
David Garrett
Member
Member # 759
|
posted 29. May 2003 12:58
Russ, first of all I never claimed to be any logician but I understand that removing constraints form actualized reality yields an inverse effect on potential reality. I don't know if the term xVL applies to the Actual or to the Potential but I am thinking it applies to the constraining of potential to yield actualization.
That being said, I will try and convey my interpretation of UBT.
quote:
I appreciate your sense of humor Dave but lets get back to the discussion of the UBT-TAO-unknown.
You appear to be confusing terms. First you say that reality distinguishes itsef from the UBT, now you say that the UBT is real? Reality contains all and only that which is real. UBT is real, Reality contains the UBT. Thanks for noticing the inability to apply 2-valued classical logic to UBT. As far as "grasping" is concerned, I advise you to really think about these concepts, instead of just accepting them superficially.
No Russ, you haven't been paying attention to what I advised you to keep in mind. Remember that we must make a distinction between POTENTIAL and ACTUAL. Now, I advise you to really think about the nature of POTENTIAL, because therein lies the understanding.
quote:
Are you saying that this ...UBT is strictly a 1-valued logic? UBT CAN be defined as a 1-valued logic? Isn't UBT undefinable?
Actually many valued logic gives more "degrees of freedom". Many valued logic is a generalization of 2-valued classical Aristotelian logic. Infinite potential = infinite valued logic.
I suggest you do a little research on the topic of *logic*, before claiming to be an authority on it. Good grief! 1-valued logic would be a constraint, to say the least! Egads! what is zero valued logic???
Many valued logic is a generalization of 2-valued classical logic, where the term *general* = more freedom.
The removing of logical actualized constraints does yield a 1VL. The inverse of this is that the logical potential constraints go towards infinity (but they are not actual). If you resided in a 1VL world, how would you be able to make any distinction about anything? You might as well be living in a 0VL world. Your statement that UBT can be defined on 1VL is from a logically constrained reality, which is 2VL at base.
quote:
ps. As you know, according to the CTMU writings, the forward direction of time is a sequence of embedding constraints, a deductive process i.e. nesting of SCSPL syntaxes. The reverse direction of time is the inductive direction, where the nested constraints, i.e. SCSPL syntaxes, are removed. Since many valued logic gives more degrees of freedom, the highest level of generalization has the most self configurative freedom. The highest level of generalization is
UBT. Conclusion? It is an infinite valued logic. Any and all possibilities OF existence.
Only potentially though! Notice your last sentence. "Possibilities" means potential! What about actual?
quote:
Now, according to Dave, by adding n-values to logic, constriants are increased? This is a non-sequitur Dave. To increase constraint, is to reduce the number of possible choices, hence, with the inductive increase of n-valued logic, with n > 2, the degrees of freedom are increased are they not? By reducing the number of possible choices, constriants are deductively increased.
Well, I think you are confusing potential and actual again. Let's look at an example.
Take a population of people. I give you the following choices:
1. 1200 People
2. 600 Male/600 Female
3. 400 Blue-Eyed/400 Brown-Eyed/400 Green-Eyed
4. 300 Red-Haired/300 Blond-Haired/300 Brown-Haired/300 Black-Haired
5. 1 person with x1-fingerprint/1 person with x2-fingerprint/1 person with x3...etc.
In each case the number of choices increase. More freedom right? Not really, because the potential people for a choice is reduced. There may be more freedom in your choices (more options) but once a choice is made (actualized) it constrains the population more and more as you go from 1 to 5. In number 1 you will notice that choosing "people" doesn't constrain the potential at all! It stays the same.
quote:
Mv-logic is a "generalization" of specific valued logic. UBT is a generalization of existence. An ontological medium consisting of pure infocognitive potential. Infinite possibility.
Yes, which means undifferentiated Actualization, which might as well be no Actualization.
Dave
[ 29. May 2003, 14:55: Message edited by: David Garrett ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 29. May 2003 13:33
quote:
Russ, first of all I never claimed to be any logician but I understand that removing constraints form actualized reality yields an inverse effect on potential reality. I don't know if the term xVL applies to the Actual or to the Potential but I am thinking it applies to the constraining of potential to yield actualization.
The point is that "UBT" cannot be defined. If you postulate this "unbound potential" as strictly a one valued logic, then it is defined.
Is UBT potential only?
You can't know what it is. It is a complete unknown. The possibility is that it could be ANYTHING, EVERYTHING, OR NOTHING...
Or ...*none* of these things. Hence the term "Mv-logic"
Logic is about choice. If I have a 2-valued logic, there are two possible choices-truth values, True or False, A or not-A, Yes or No.
(T,F)
3-valued logic (T,F,U) (T,U,F) (U,T,F) (U,F,T)
(F,U,T) (F,T,U)...
The whole point is that UBT is undefinable. Any and all logic applies to it. You can't even say that UBT is not a type of perceptual or not...
How can perceptual reality distinguish itself from UBT, if UBT cannot be defined?
UBT = unknown valued logic = mv-logic.
UBT is a backwards limit of removing nested SCSPL syntax. A protean hypermedium consisting of pure potential. It is undefined. It is more than just "potential".
Is it totally absent of constraint? It cannot be said one way or the other. UBT is totally undefined.
Can anyone say that UBT is totally absent of constraint?
NO...
Mv-logic
I rest my case...
Russ
[ 30. May 2003, 03:16: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Noel Rude
Member
Member # 516
|
posted 29. May 2003 16:41
Hey, thanks for the site (<http://www.teleologic.org/>) – so little time so much good stuff! – just this quick thought: “Syndiffeonesis” – it corresponds in linguistics to what we call coherence! The minimal unit of information is the clause (same as the logician's proposition), but language is multipropositional and always contextual. And thus coherence – each clause ties in to a context (contains at least one portion of “old” information), but to be usable/profitable – not to be completely redundant – each clause advances the discourse with something new (contains some “new” information). Thus all of information is ultimately tied to one whole. Fascinating!
Then there is this: Lurking here and there in human consciousness is the notion of three fundamental components of reality. In the Hebrew scriptures there is what is termed flesh/body, soul, and spirit – follow these in a concordance and you’ll see that “soul” is connected with intention/moral responsibility (etc.) and “spirit” with meaning/understanding/words. In one of the indigenous cultures in which I work, a person consists of wáwnakwshash ‘body’ which is associated with the color ‘yellow’ and believed to have priority in creation (I don’t know what this means), timná ‘heart’ which is associated with the color ‘red’ and believed to be the seat of moral responsibility, and waq’íshwit ‘life’ which is associated with the color ‘blue’ and connected with words/language. I’m not sure how universal this intuition is – but what if ...
Matter – moving parts – are necessary for computation/cognition/consciousness (as wasn’t it Alan Turing who “proved” this?), free will (soul/heart) is irreducible (meaning it is not subject to reductionist theories), and information which originates from this irreducible agency but is not itself equal to agency.
Bestowing reality with these three irreducibles just might halt the infinite regression that ensues when design is designed by a designer who was designed by a designer who was designed by ... yes ... what if reality ultimately breaks down into matter/energy, information/design, and soul?! Are others saying this? And is this compatible with the CTMU?
The CTMU “Reality Principle” is also intuitively intriguing – with it we might avoid the extreme transcendence of the Deists.
Rigorous, mathematically based theories do not exist apart from intuition, insight ... mind. But mind without logic is blind.
IP: Logged
|
|
Parallel
Member
Member # 744
|
posted 29. May 2003 22:34
Gina Lynne LoSasso wrote:
quote:
On formal grounds, any scientific exploration of design/teleology requires a CTMU-type framework; others turn out to be inadequate, or worse, they end up generating paradoxes.
But it seems Mr. Rierson has articulated several paradoxes generated by the CTMU’s UBT concept in this as well as his previous thread. Rather than Rierson failing to understand, it seems it is Mr. Langan who does not understand that the undefinable cannot have defined properties such as “unbound”, “without restraint”, and “zero extension and duration”. If defining the undefined is not paradoxical, pray tell what is? The standard Big Bang theory does not seem to generate such noisy paradox.
Even more, I don’t see the need for a final TOE in contemporary ID inquiry, the current purpose of which is to establish criteria for the validation and falsification of ID hypotheses. If we find a complex machine (like DNA) and wish to determine if it was created by some intelligent designer, it is not incumbent upon us to explain where that designer came from or what he looks like or what he had for lunch. All we need worry about first is does such a designer exist and how can we know. If that can be established, then we can wonder about where he, she, or it came from.
"The universe ... is both One and Many." Dionysius The Areopagite
IP: Logged
|
|
David M. Garrett
Member
Member # 438
|
posted 30. May 2003 00:12
quote:
But it seems Mr. Rierson has articulated several paradoxes generated by the CTMU’s UBT concept in this as well as his previous thread. Rather than Rierson failing to understand, it seems it is Mr. Langan who does not understand that the undefinable cannot have defined properties such as “unbound”, “without restraint”, and “zero extension and duration”. If defining the undefined is not paradoxical, pray tell what is? The standard Big Bang theory does not seem to generate such noisy paradox.
Au contraire Mr. Parallel, Russ has simply failed to understand that the act of defining (through inference) UBT is only possible using the logic of the constrained world we inhabit. If, hypothetically speaking, we were in the UBT we would not be able to define anything. And that is the point to take home. You say that the BBT does not generate paradoxes but tell us how the laws of physics can be married into a singularity. OR how about this, tell us what caused the BB. Tell us also what the universe is expanding into. You see, to do all of this you would need to use concepts such as conspansion, self-determinacy, telic recursion, and UBT. That is how the CTMU resolves these paradoxes.
quote:
Even more, I don’t see the need for a final TOE in contemporary ID inquiry, the current purpose of which is to establish criteria for the validation and falsification of ID hypotheses. If we find a complex machine (like DNA) and wish to determine if it was created by some intelligent designer, it is not incumbent upon us to explain where that designer came from or what he looks like or what he had for lunch. All we need worry about first is does such a designer exist and how can we know. If that can be established, then we can wonder about where he, she, or it came from.
Unfortunately, to explain DNA you also need to explain where the laws that govern DNA's behavior comes from and the generation of the environment that allows such things as DNA to evolve. To do this you need to explain more than just evolution, you need to explain cosmolgy. Yes, the whole kit and kaboodle. This is why a TOE is relevant to anyone who takes such matters seriously.
Dave
[ 30. May 2003, 00:13: Message edited by: David M. Garrett ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Parallel
Member
Member # 744
|
posted 30. May 2003 21:58
David M. Garrett wrote:
quote:
You say that the BBT does not generate paradoxes but tell us how the laws of physics can be married into a singularity. OR how about this, tell us what caused the BB. Tell us also what the universe is expanding into.
Those are unknowns. Unknowns are not paradoxes. A paradox involves contradiction. For example, something that has “zero extension and dimension” and is “without constraint” (like the UBT) is paradoxical. Or something that was in itself “undefined” and had the defined property of being “unbound” (like the UBT) is paradoxical.
quote:
You see, to do all of this you would need to use concepts such as conspansion, self-determinacy, telic recursion, and UBT. That is how the CTMU resolves these paradoxes.
Sorry, but it looks like you and Mr. Langan are defining things that are not paradoxes as paradoxes and then presuming to save the world from those imaginary paradoxes with something that actually is a paradox. I think you need to carefully review and consider Mr. Rierson’s valuable feedback, including his points on many-valued logic.
"The universe ... is both One and Many." Dionysius The Areopagite
IP: Logged
|
|
David Garrett
Member
Member # 759
|
posted 30. May 2003 23:22
quote:
Those are unknowns. Unknowns are not paradoxes. A paradox involves contradiction. For example, something that has “zero extension and dimension” and is “without constraint” (like the UBT) is paradoxical. Or something that was in itself “undefined” and had the defined property of being “unbound” (like the UBT) is paradoxical.
Not a paradox if you would regonize two things: 1) the distinction between Potential and Actual existence (which is a logic necessity of replacing creation ex nihilo with potential existence), and 2) the distinction of speaking of UBT from our logically constrained existence vs. the inability to define anything within UBT.
quote:
Sorry, but it looks like you and Mr. Langan are defining things that are not paradoxes as paradoxes and then presuming to save the world from those imaginary paradoxes with something that actually is a paradox. I think you need to carefully review and consider Mr. Rierson’s valuable feedback, including his points on many-valued logic.
And I think you and Russ still have not addressed the points I have brought up.
Dave
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 31. May 2003 00:51
David, the distinction between potential and actual existence isn't relevant to the paradoxes that have been discussed. The reason is that they are paradoxes in our actual world, using our actual linguistic constructs.
When you say, "X is without constraint", about any potential, actual, or imaginary X, you are placing a constraint on X: namely, if you find some Y which is constrained, then X is not Y. Unfortunately, the statement is therefore paradoxical: "X is not Y" is a constraint. That is, "X is without constraint" is not a coherent thing to say for any X.
Such problems can be avoided if you first define an appropriately constrained domain, such as the real numbers R; then to say X in R is without constraint is simply to say that there are no more constraints on X than on any arbitrary element of R. But that does not seem to be what is going on here; if it is, please define the set from which the UBT is drawn without constraint.
With regard to logics of various cardinality, first we should note that "1VL" is trivial because all questions are the same and all answers to all questions are the same. Is this constraining or not? On the one hand, it is extremely constraining: everything must be u, where u is the one value of logic. Anything that has distinctions cannot be described by 1VL. Whether you view this is "constraint-free" or "completely constrained" is a matter of perspective. If you are using it as a basis for the universe, I would say it's completely constraining, since you have only one thing, and it is u. (You're also stuck at u, since there is no mechanism to generate anything else.)
At the other extreme, logic of infinite cardinality has vastly more descriptive power. Without worrying too much about the cardinality of integers vs. reals vs. large cardinals, etc., this moves in the direction of allowing anything to be expressed (i.e. increasing cardinality gives decreasing constraint on what can be expressed). However, once you have expressed something, it is much more constrained relative to the space of possibilities than with, say, two-valued logic.
It's entirely unclear to me which if either of these definitions of unconstrained is intended for UBT.
Finally, I would note that it is entirely possible that many questions about the fundamental nature of reality are inherently unanswerable logically, largely because we cannot formulate coherent questions. We may desire the ability to formulate a coherent question; we may be dissatisfied with our inability to generate a logical answer; and we may even find satisfaction through thought or meditation or whatever (much in the way that a meal is satisfying). However, it's important not to mistake satisfaction for truth. The statement would merely be, "I wondered about fundamental origins, had an experience, and now I don't wonder any more." To this person I would say, "Good for you!" But I would not expect that their explanation would satisfy me, or be "true".
[ 31. May 2003, 00:54: Message edited by: Rex Kerr ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher M. Langan
Member
Member # 264
|
posted 31. May 2003 03:15
Parallel claims that UBT paradoxes have been articulated. However, "paradox" is a rather exacting concept, and as I've already pointed out, it is to be carefully distinguished from items of confusion in the minds of people still struggling with basic CTMU concepts (on which I'm probably the final authority if only because I constructed the theory). What one would have to do to show that UBT generates a paradox is involve it in a statement of the form "x = not-x", prove that the CTMU assumes or logically implies this statement, and then show that the statement, and the predicate x around which it is formulated, cannot be consistently interpreted in any model of the context to which it refers. This kind of thing is always a tall order, and in the present instance, it would require considerably more understanding of the model under discussion than I've seen from certain of its critics.
In fairness to Parallel, he seems to attempt to specify a paradox when he opines that "the undefinable" cannot have well-defined properties such as “unbound”, “without restraint”, and “zero extension and duration”. But this attempt is a bit hard to figure, since if the property "undefinable" is well-enough defined to be contradicted by the properties “unbound”, “without restraint”, and “zero extension and duration” as Parallel maintains, then it is well-enough defined to be described by them as well, particularly with respect to a model involving syntactic and presyntactic stages. Because Parallel does not take account of such a model, he can't be talking about the CTMU. What Parallel is talking about, only he knows for sure.
Parallel then goes on to ask "If defining the undefined is not paradoxical, pray tell what is?" To this question, one can only answer that trying to pin any discernable measure of extent or duration on the undefined would be paradoxical indeed. Where no extension or duration can be discerned (because they are undefined), none might as well exist. The situation is really very simple: where things are referentially mapped onto a syntax-free domain, no difference can possibly be discerned between them with respect to that domain (although they may be distinguishable in another domain with a syntax which supports spatial, temporal and other distinctions). The measure of difference between them is just the measure of distinguishing information or constraint (0), and because information is the currency of science, that's a scientific fact.
Parallel then asserts that standard big bang theory "does not seem to generate such noisy paradox". Unfortunately, for all of its strengths, the Standard Model is as full of holes as a Swiss cheese factory. The only way it can appear free of paradox is if one refrains from looking at it too closely.
Parallel opines that there is no need for a final TOE in contemporary ID inquiry, holding that the current purpose of ID inquiry is to set criteria for the validation and falsification of ID hypotheses. For some of those in the ID movement, this is no doubt true, but in any case, establishing such a criterion is as much a matter of philosophy as of science. Truth and falsity, validation and falsification, are problematic concepts. One can take any of a number of approaches to these concepts, including those associated with verificationist, falsificationist, identity, correspondence, coherence, pragmatist, deflationary and other theories of truth, and come up with any number of positions regarding what makes a proposition valid or invalid. Again, what it comes down to is that one needs a global, fundamental model in order to fundamentally define (and answer questions about) concepts like truth, existence and causality, and to this model corresponds a TOE grounded in logic and philosophy.
Parallel states that "if we find a complex machine (like DNA) and wish to determine if it was created by some intelligent designer, it is not incumbent upon us to explain where that designer came from or what he looks like or what he had for lunch." Looks and lunch menus aside, it is in fact quite important where the designer came from, for by direct causal regression, the ultimate source of that which is designed is identical to the source (of the source...of the source) of the designer. Without this level of inquiry, one cannot hope to understand the true character or extent of the designer's "intelligence", or even whether "design" is an appropriate concept. In the final analysis, such questions cannot be separated from questions regarding the designer's nature and origin.
[ 31. May 2003, 04:33: Message edited by: Christopher M. Langan ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 31. May 2003 05:37
The tautologies of 2v-logic are a powerful generalization but logic is able to be generalized even farther by postulating many-valued or "MV" logics. Dave is very incorrect by saying that 1V-logic is the highest generalization. Also, I suspect that the symmetry-invariance of the "tautologies" is even more general still:
X|~X|X V~X
T| F| T
F| T| T
(T|F) = (F|T) = T
Let's generalize:
T = A
F = B
MV-logic = ABC...Z...n
X
1v logic A = A
X V ~X
2v logic
(A|B) = (B|A) = A
X V ~X V %X
3v logic
(A|B|C) = (B|C|A) = (C|A|B)
= (C|B|A) = (B|A|C) = (A|B|C) = A
X V ~X V %X V $X
4v logic
[A|B|C|D]=[B|C|D|A]=[C|D|A|B]=[D|A|B|C]
=[D|C|B|A]=[C|B|A|D]=[B|A|D|C]=[A|D|C|D]
=[A|C|B|D]=[C|B|D|A]=[B|D|A|C]=[D|A|C|B]
=[B|A|C|D]=[A|C|D|B]=[C|D|B|A]=[D|B|A|C]
=[A|B|D|C]=[B|D|C|A]=[D|C|A|B]=[C|A|B|D]
=[D|B|C|A]=[B|C|A|D]=[C|A|D|B]=[A|D|B|C]
= A
Tautologies of *generalized* logic are "invariant" under choice of truth value since they are always true.
The parsimony of 2Valued classical logic is appealing, but the real world needs the generalized logics to solve the real world problems. When the underlying symmetry of the world is discovered, theories always have a closer correspondence to the real world.
For example, the symmetries of relativity and the laws of physics.
Russ
[ 31. May 2003, 08:35: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Genie
Member
Member # 266
|
posted 31. May 2003 11:37
quote:
The parsimony of 2-Valued classical logic is appealing, but the real world needs the
generalized logics to solve the real world problems.
Very true. And of course, generalized logics and multi-valued logics are based on 2VL. To even begin to solve real-world problems like those associated with intelligent design, we must understand and appreciate the overall conceptual framework in which such problems exist and are formulated, necessarily including 2VL.
[ 31. May 2003, 11:38: Message edited by: Gina Lynne LoSasso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Genie
Member
Member # 266
|
posted 31. May 2003 12:16
quote:
Hey, thanks for the site (<http://www.teleologic.org/>) – so little time so much good stuff! – just this quick thought: “Syndiffeonesis” – it corresponds in linguistics to what we call coherence! The minimal unit of information is the clause (same as the logician's proposition), but language is multipropositional and always contextual. And thus coherence – each clause ties in to a context (contains at least one portion of “old” information), but to be usable/profitable – not to be completely redundant – each clause advances the discourse with something new (contains some “new” information). Thus all of information is ultimately tied to one whole. Fascinating!
I'm glad you liked the site, Noel! I put it up rather quickly when Chris's PCID paper on the CTMU was published. I hope to expand it, but have a rather heavy teaching load at the moment so it probably won't be very soon.
Your insights are good ones, btw. The CTMU is an informational theory of reality based on linguistic and cognitive-theoretic principles and incorporating generative grammar (SCSPL) along with standard physical dynamics. (For example, the Principle of Linguistic Reducibility states that reality is a rather involved kind of language in the generalized algebraic sense.)
[ 31. May 2003, 13:16: Message edited by: Gina Lynne LoSasso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic