The deep meaning of the Logic concept

[Guest Doron Shadmi]

In my opinion the deep meaning of logic, is the method that can help us to survive and flourish day by day in non-trivial ways.

 

We as individuals and a part of a civilization can survive and flourish if and only if we develop our internal/external constructive dialog between us and our environment, in non-trivial ways.

 

In short, logic is THE ART OF THE DIALOG that keeps and develops non-trivial complexity which is based on simplicity.

 

Through this point of view, there is no room to scholastic methods that do their best in order to keep their abstract purity by doing their best to disconnect themselves from the non-linear and non-trivial complexity of daily life.

 

These scholastic games which are mostly based on the Excluded-Middle principle, are nothing but trivial and closed games of a particular community of people, that try to force their trivial methods on the non-trivial complexity of reality.

 

This school of thought, leaded mostly by Rene Descrates (1596-1650) and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/content/v10.3/Jung.html , disconnected 500 years ago between THE ART OF THE DIALOG (that should be the heart of any logical method, which is not based on the stupid idea of "power over nature") and us as non-trivial complex systems, and developed the linear, mechanic and 0_XOR_1 trivial logic, that disconnected between our morality and our logical reasoning.

 

And I am not talking about the biblical morality model, but on the idea of "power over nature" that is the basis of Descrates' and Bacon's philosophy.

 

This point of view is the basis of our modern technological civilization that is still directed by this "power over nature" idea, which can quickly lead us to a dead-end street of the history of our life on this planet.

 

Morality, In my opinion, is first of all our basic reasoning of natural balance with the fragile and complex phenomena of life on this planet, which we are part of it (whether we like it or not) and not "power over nature" of it.

 

The most 'dangerous zone' of this "power over nature" idea can be found in the logical reasoning that stands at the basis of the formal and platonic school of thought, where humanity and nature’s non-trivial complexity have no room.

 

Instead of humanity and nature’s non-trivial complexity, Formalism and Platonism are based on scholastic and artificial methods that look at logic as some scholastic game (in the case of formalism) or a universal principle, which is out of this world (in the case of Platonism).

 

So as you see "power over nature" has many faces in our modern civilization,

and this imbalance can lead us like a pendulum movements, to the opposite side of irrationality which is based on superstitious and some primitive aspects of fundamentalist beliefs.

 

This cocktail of a weapon of mass destruction and primitive fundamentalist beliefs, are both based on the same "power over nature" idea.

 

So, from this point of view LOGIC is too important concept to be left in the hands of the current community of academic institutions that still teach only its trivial technical aspects, which are mostly based on 0_XOR_1 axiomatic frameworks that all their products are based on PROOFS that are totally disconnected from THE ART OF THE DIALOG between our morality levels and our technological skills.

 

In my opinion, we immediately have to find the balance between our morality level and our technological skills, because we are in Galois last night, and if we do not act now to return to full meaning of the LOGIC concept, it will be our last night on this planet.

 

For more details please look at:

 

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/MyGoal.pdf

 

http://www.geocities.com/complement...y/TheBestOf.pdf

 

http://www.geocities.com/complement...aloisDialog.pdf

 

http://www.geocities.com/complement...-Naive-Math.pdf

 

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ONN1.pdf

 

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ONN2.pdf

 

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ONN3.pdf

 

http://www.geocities.com/complement...irst-axioms.pdf

 

http://www.geocities.com/complement...ory/MonadCK.pdf

 

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/9999.pdf

 

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/Anyx.pdf

[Woxor]

I think this belongs in pseudoscience.

[Dave]

So do I. Moved.

[Guest Doron Shadmi]

Dear Dave,

 

Please explain why my accurete definition of the Logic concept cannot be threaded under Mathematics?

 

Thank you,

 

Doron

[YT2095]

from my stance, firstly,,, claims of "Accuracy" are writen from a subjective veiw.

 

Secondly, it would have helped your post no end, IF you didn`t try and bring specifics into the equasion

 

PURE logic requires no such limitations, it imposes its own.

[Guest Doron Shadmi]

Hi YT2095,

 

In my opinion, the deep meaning of any logical reasoning framework is first of all what we have to do (not just as scholastics games in books) in order to keep and develop our own existence in non-trivial ways, where non-trivial ways are methods that connect between opposites.

 

In short, No user --> No Logic AND No deep_meaning_of_Logic --> No User

 

0_XOR_1 Logical reasoning is a trivial method, because it says nothing about our own survival in non-trivial ways.

 

 

 

General:

 

'{' and '}' are the notations of a framework which we call a set.

 

Between these notations we can put our examined concepts and then we try to find out what we can do with each one of these concepts, and also what interactions can be found between concepts and themselves and/or concepts with other concepts.

 

The concept of Nothingness or Emptiness is notated in this framework by {}.

 

Any examined concept in my framework is examined by its structural properties and also by its Quantitative properties.

 

The most basic Structural property in my framework is based on the Length concept.

 

From this point of view, a Point {.} has exactly 0 Length.

 

The Length concept has no meaning in my framework when it is related to the Emptiness concept (which is notated as {}), therefore 0 cannot be connected directly to the Emptiness concept.

 

Another option to define 0 is to ask: How many things there are in {}?

 

By 'how many?' question we actually define the Cardinal concept, which is notated by using '|' and '|' .

 

In this case, the cardinal of {}, which is notated as |{}|, is equal to 0.

 

In Standard Mathematics framework (when Ordinality is omitted) the one and only one option to connect between the Number concept and the Set concept, is by using only the Quantity concept, and in this case |{}| = 0.

 

But as you see, in Monadic Mathematics framework, there are two kinds of cardinals, where one of them is the standard Quantitative Cardinal, but the second type of cardinal is what I call the Urelement Cardinal, which is based on the Length concept (which is the structural property of the Number concept).

 

In Monadic Mathematics, the structural property of a number is more basic then its quantitative property.

 

According to what I wrote above, when a Point eliminates itself, then the result is Emptiness.

 

In other words Point - Point = Emptiness, or in other representation: 0 - 0 = {}.

 

 

Standard Mathematics takes '0' notation as something which is first of all related to the Quantity concept.

 

In this framework 0 - 0 = 0

 

 

Monadic Mathematics takes '0' notation as something which is first of all related to the Structure concept.

 

In this framework 0 - 0 = {}

 

 

 

A non technical explanation of Monadic Mathematics' '+' and '-' operations

 

Let me explain my framework without technical formal definitions.

 

Monadic Mathematics exists between two opposites which are its limitations.

 

By limitations I mean that it cannot work beyond these opposites.

 

The opposites are Emptiness (which is notated as {}) and Fullness (which is notated as {__}).

 

{} or {__} cannot be used as inputs in Monadic Mathematics framework.

 

Let us call Monadic Mathematics MM.

 

The fundamental concepts that are used in MM are Length, Direction, Quantity.

 

If we examine R from MM point of view, then we get this picture:

 

Each number is a unique Length with a unique Direction.

 

The most simple case is the length of a Point {.} which its length is 0 and it has no direction.

 

The other useful case is a Segment {._.} where each Segment has its unique Length and Direction.

 

Any Segment that starts at Point 0 can have at least two possible directions, for example:

 

Number one can be 0_1 and this case is equivalent to +1

 

or number one can be 1_0 and this case is equivalent to -1

 

Addition and subtraction operations:

 

There are 4 possible results by '+' or '-' operations:

 

1) Concatenation (which a part of it is equivalent to standard addition):

 

For example:

 

0_1 + 0_1 = 0__2

 

0_1 + 1_0 = 1_0_1

 

0 + 0_1 = 0_1

 

0 + 0 = 0

 

In this case the second value is called Urelement Cardinal.

 

 

2) Sets Addition:

 

Can be operated only between sets contents, for example:

 

{0} + {0} = {0, 0}

 

{1_0} + {0} + {0_1} = {1_0, 0, 0_1}

 

 

 

3) Elimination (which a part of it is equivalent to standard subtraction):

 

For example:

 

0_1 - 0_1 = {}

 

0_1 - 1_0 = 0

 

0 - 0_1 = 0_1

 

0 - 0 = {}

 

0__2 - 0_1 = 0_1

 

 

4) Sets Subtraction:

 

Can be operated only between sets contents, for example:

 

{0} - {0} = {}

 

{1_0} - {0} - {0_1} = {1_0}

 

{1_0, 0, 0_1} - {0} = {1_0, 0_1}