The Origin of Logic

[hoola]

yes, the universe would be, and still is filling with information, some of which is gravity....but I can't make sense of what you are saying as to the "concept of ARU" as you haven't said what ARU means....please explain, thanks... edd

[PeterJ]

Daniel - You suggest that the void would 'tend to be filled in every direction due in part to the effects of gravity'. This is where science goes wrong , in my opinion. A true void, like a true continuum, is not extended. Hermann Weyl explains this clearly in his famous book on the continuum. You're talking about a big space that can, over time, become filled due to some process. This is not a void. A void is void of extension, motion and change. From Weyl's point of view you would be confusing the arithmetical continuum, which is a creation of Reason, with the real thing. A void is a unity, and a unity cannot have parts, points, moments, locations and so forth.

[hoola]

I see the void as an absence of measurable things with nothing to be measured and containing but one bit of information, the concept of "oneness", however, I see the "chaos" as a thing that also has no measurable attributes, not that is doesn't have them, only that they are fluxing in values to quickly to to "show up on the radar screen". So I see the void evolving to chaos, chaos evolving to logic, logic evolving to math information in conjunction with the platonic stimuli of the spherical singularity...leading eventually to the IBH (Informational Black Hole), which projects the universe holographically....I further see the IBH as having an "awareness" of it's own...a "watcher" if you will, imbedded within it's nearly limitless (aand still increasing) informational catalogue.... My first acquaintance with this concept was with a Silver Surfer comic. There was a character called "The Watcher" that was duty bound to remain true to the edict of not getting involved with the affairs of sentient life, but in one episode, broke that rule under special circumstance....I can't remember the exact details, but is another nod to the genius of Stan Lee....

[Daniel Patrick Fisher]

This discussion of what a void is has been very thought provoking and I will continue to study what both of you are saying. Thanks for the insights.

 

As far as explaining what "ability to recognize uniqueness" is or means, I find it difficult to do more than paraphrase what's in my original premise and support, but it always helps to explore different angles. I am essentially attempting to explain how we think and reason. Maybe a little more ambitious than I thought! I am intentionally avoiding any aspect of emotion or intuition, even though we of course have thoughts about the aforementioned. With ARU we are able to pick up a stone, look at it, and know that it is different from it's surroundings. We are able to identify it and give it special meaning because of it's oneness. But the process is never static. Each "one" leads to another. Eventually we see that the stone is made of many other things, also possessing oneness. We begin to name things to keep track of them which leads to a far more sophisticated language than what we might have used as apes. A few million years pass and we continue to notice many things in this way, including things not physical, which we also assign meaning to and name. Each and every thing or thought has a quantity, or measurement that defines it. This measurement is basically it's relationship to other things and/or the whole. The things get very complex due to the fact that their definition depends on keeping track of the definitions of their many parts. All along this process I can see only one basic act of recognition, namely ARU. It is truly an amazing ability in that you can essentially direct it at anything. I hope this helps. If there is anything specifically in my original premise that seems unclear I would be happy to address it.

 

I will readily admit that I have not done any research on the subject of the mechanics of thought. My only point in bringing it up is to hope to interest someone far more qualified than I am to take that on. I only found out recently that there are no similar theories out there. I spent 30+ years assuming it was common knowledge.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Daniel Patrick Fisher

[PeterJ]

A true void would be inconceivable. It would be a void concept, or conceptual void. Of course, we can define 'void' how we like, but normally the word 'void' means void. It would not have the same meaning as 'empty space'. If the void is an empty space then it cannot have been there prior to the emergence of space, and in this case it would be a useless concept in philosophy and physics. .

 

Daniel - I can't follow your ideas about 'ARU', but I think you'll find much the same idea in Buddhism and Taoism, and even in Kant and Hegel. The categories of thought would be reducible, and their proliferation would be the evolution of the world. George Spencer Brown's book 'Laws of Form; deals directly with this issue. We could think of it as symmetry-breaking. His book, as with many other books on mysticism, are about the making of distinctions, and of how this creates our phenomenal world. This seems to be in line with your ideas.

[hoola]

daniel, thanks for the explanation of ARU.....that has to do with human cognition...which is based upon logic and processors arranged in a logical fashion...but very complex and not a fundamental "thing"...and super-subjective...sure it is a logic based process, but what isn't? Peter J....."a true void would be inconceivable", .....you backed into the truth.... in that, by definition, there is nothing to conceive.......I like your "void concept" thing though, it's like you admit there is a void, but denying it's true existence, hiding it behind the term "concept"...the void is a concept., and a void....there is no difference .....doesn't mean it can't have existed at one time, or even exists exterior to our universe, or between island universes...I define void as a region with no information....again, with the "concept of oneness" as the faintest of exceptions....but enough to begin the void's evolution... I don't equate void with empty space either...space is a thing, and isn't even very empty...all sort of virtual particles whizzing around, even in the most remote deep space...a truly "empty space" would be a void, or more accurately, "informationless region" and lose the label of space completely....and your last sentence baffles me as to your reasoning behind the idea that a void could not have preceeded space...I see no alternative to this flow chart of universe construction......please explain...

[Daniel Patrick Fisher]

Peter J, I've been directed toward Kant and Hegel before, but they are dealing with more sophisticated questions like the nature of being and the existence or nonexistence of reality. In my opinion these happen further down the line. I am interested in the most fundamental building block needed to construct our logical thought processes. Buddhism and Taoism are religions which by design are intended to relieve suffering- again not my concern. George Spencer Brown gets closer with his examination of consciousness, or self awareness. I would imagine both came in the early evolution of ARU. Might have misled you with my attempt at the oneness analogy. I was just trying to find some overlap. George Spencer Brown gets closer with his examination of consciousness, or self awareness. I would imagine both came in the early evolution of ARU. What it takes to "get" this theory, is to "see" the rational mind and it's moving parts, so to speak. Maybe we should imagine what hoola's "watcher" would see if he/it looked at our rational thinking mind. ALL of nature and the physical world breaks down into fundamental parts. Why would our logical mind be the single exception in the universe?

Edited April 24, 2014 by Daniel Patrick Fisher

[PeterJ]

Hoola - I'm not trying to suggest that the void exists, or make any claim about origins. I was just suggesting that if we define the void as being extended in space-time then it cannot have preceded space-time. Only if it is unmmanifest would it become useful for a fundamental theory. The basic issue is that in order to reduce space-time we need a 'prior' state of no-extension. The issue is a hot one in the foundations of analysis where the continuum would take the role of the void, and it is easier to see the seemingly paradoxical problems that arise for it.

 

Daniel - Buddhism and Taoism are religions as you say, and concerned quite properly with soteriology before all else. But they offer us a fundamental theory that can be stated in quite ordinary philosophical and scientific terms. Any soteriological doctrine needs a solid metaphysical foundation and must be more than simply an appeal to experience. Otherwise we could make no argument for it, and as far as anyone else is concerned might as well just be making it up.

 

I feel you make a mistake by assuming that your interest in the fundamental building blocks of our thought processes can be separated from an interest in the origins of being and the nature of Reality. For a vast number of people they would be the same topic, and it cannot actually be shown that they are not. Hoola's 'watcher' would be prior to the conceptualising mind, which might be suggestive.

 

Also, just to be a pain in the neck, I would question the idea that all of Nature can be 'broken down into fundamental parts'. I would say that the phrase 'fundamental parts' is an glaring oxymoron. It assumes that the continuum of space-time is modelled by the number line and can be fundamentally described as a set of locations in a co-ordinate system. For Hermann Weyl and also for Tobias Dantzig (Einstein's favourite mathematician), this would be to confuse the true continuum with a construction of the mind. They would say that the true or empirical continuum is not extended, and that any attempt to assume otherwise gives rise to well-known self-contradictions.

Edited April 24, 2014 by PeterJ

[Villain]

I might be missing something but this thread seems to be talking about everything except the origins of logic.

[PeterJ]

Hmm. It seems bang on topic to me. We must have quite different perspectives on the problem.

[Daniel Patrick Fisher]

Peter J, First of all, my good luck in having a dialogue with insightful, intelligent and challenging individuals, would never be considered by me to be a pain in the neck.

 

You make a good point about the metaphysical foundation. Maybe I should explore that angle more. Way back in high school I made the proclamation that "the metaphysical world is that part of the physical world that we don't yet understand." And perhaps not so coincidentally, I would have to rather sheepishly admit that any insight I might have here with this theory came from some rather metaphysical experiences, and I don't mean drugs. I have always felt that it is the job of a good artist to see what others can't. I would even make the statement that talent has very little to do with being a good (or great) artist. At any one point in time there are tens of thousands of talented artists in the world who can adeptly describe what they see. Problem is, most of them don't see anything all that remarkable. It is only the few who do see something remarkable that become compelled, talent or not, to communicate it to others, whose lives are subsequently enriched and advanced by their vision.

 

I will admit that the theme of existence was even mentioned in my original premise, so it, along with the nature of reality should stay in the discussion.

 

Quite true that the picture of a universe consisting of reliably predictable building blocks belongs more to the nineteenth century than today. Just trying to take the Newtonian disclaimer and state that for the purposes of practical argument we might need to focus on that which is most familiar, or under our noses. It has always been my intent to advance this argument to far more difficult subjects, but I feel strongly that if I can't establish this point about ARU, then there is very little else I can offer since all other insights stem from this one. It is the alphabet for the rest.

[hoola]

villain, I talk about the void and it's properties, as I believe the logic sprang from the void, after a gestation period in the chaos....the origin of logic being the topic, not only must there be an assessment as to it's special experiential effects on humans, but how it's general effects arranged the maths, the substructure of the physical universe...

peter...I don't define the void as being extended in space-time...that by definition is space isn't it? And those extensions are the dimensions... I see void as lack of informational content...How is the word "continuim" used for void? What precise meaning do they affix that term in this usage? Is there a link to this info? And I'm not sure what you mean by the sentence..."only if it were to be unmanifest would it become useful as a fundamental theory"...

[PeterJ]

Oh okay hoola. I thought you were talking about a space that could be 'filled'. It makes sense to me to say the void is void of information. It is void of everything. And yet, here's the thing, the void is supposed to underlie existence, so it must also, in some way, be full of everything.

 

This dilemma shows up in analysis as the problem of whether the continuum is an extended series of points or a true continuum. If the former, then it is not a continuum. If the latter, then it is not extended. Neither view of the continuum works in metaphysics, and only one works in mathematics, and this problem mirrors the 'void' problem we are discussing here. We could say that the true continuum, the continuum of intuition and experience, is the void for mathematics, since it would be prior to the numbers.

 

The 'umanifest' point was this. If we want a fundamental theory of what is manifest, we need a theoretical primitive that is unmanifest. Or, if we want a theory of space-time, we have to start without it. The void serves the purpose, as long as it is unmanifest. To say it is devoid of information content is, I think the same thing.

[hoola]

Peter...seems you agree with me in principle..and here is how I see the void producing complexity....what is a void other than nothing?..It does contains one bit of information and that is that there is "only one void"....not 2 voids, not 12 voids, or a million separate voids. Do you see where I am coming from? The only label that can be attached to the original void was that there was "only one of them". Now, this is a theoretical bit of information, more of a concept of a bit than a bit, but all information is a concept in a sense... this first bit extrapolated to becoming more, going through the chaos stage, then the development of logic, ....and how the spherical point (guided by logic), had the circumference/diameter ratio that delivers PI, the engine that cranks out the maths, instead of a lot of jibberish (the chaos), as it did before the development of logic to regulate it's output...,... You seem to use the word manifest as I would use extant..seems pretty similar...

[hoola]

as far as logic being responsible for our universe, with the "fine tuned cosmology" idea of changing any of the variables of a single constituent physical parameter and having the resultant universe no longer work, it seems that if logic came from the chaos to produce the IBH, and the IBH was the generator to produce ours, and other universes, there should be a common tie of sub-strata logic between all universes. If we could determine our algorithm-set, then we might determine the number of algorithm-sets the IBH is capable of forming, after all, there is only so much information to go around. I see a finite number of a hundred or so universes forming in what is known as "great attractors" of these finite algorithm-sets...all products of the single IBH...which came from the logic, which came the chaos, which came from the void. I further see the other 99(?) universes co-existing with ours as the missing matter that weakly interacts with ours, the dark matter. I think that could be a problem identifying dark matter if it comes from 99 distinct sources. If the IBH is still generating information, there may be another universe to be expressed with the completion of it's unique alogrithm-set in the future. If this were to happen, an increase in dark matter density could be in force in this and other universes...

Edited April 29, 2014 by hoola

[hoola]

if there were to be another emergent universe (101?) as a once in a trillion year event, the existing universes could experience a large transient gravity wave signal from it's big bang (or the equivalent), along with the long term increase in the dark matter forces...

Edited April 29, 2014 by hoola

[hoola]

it seems logical that if enough additional universes were added to the "roster", and if the only force felt or transmitted between adjoining universes is gravity, and if that manifests itself as the dark force, then at some point the dark force increases would slow the expansion of our universe, leading to collapse of our universe and perhaps others, with similar cause...

Edited May 12, 2014 by hoola