Re: opinions vs knowledge - The Cave is Constructed

Dear Colleagues:

The recent series of posts on opinions, knowledge and logics
stimulate one to compare the differences between scientific logics
and other practises in other disciplines.

The gradual accrual of scientific knowledge over the centuries can be
associated with the development of scientific technologies - some of
which promote the human weal. A critical component of the history of
science and the traditions of scientific research is the free
exchange of precise information on the circumstances surrounding
experiments, measurements, and observations. The free communication
of information within a community promotes the development of a
community with common methods of approach and reasoning.
Mathematical logic contributes to the genesis of descriptive
rationals of experiments and observations. A critical aspect of the
scientific approach to logic is that the openness of the systems
allows skeptics (of any persuasion) to repeat critical observations
and to come to their own conclusions. Over sufficiently long
durations, this method of developing a scientific logic is judged to
be successful. It is an open process and is transparent to all those
who seek to explore the mysteries of nature.

The accrual of mathematical knowledge is remarkably similar; however,
the nature of mathematical logic (model theory) appears to develop
from the internal coherence among logic, symbols, language and
external events / processes in the non-mathematical world. The
capability to re-produce the logic of a proof is considered the basic
test of its validity.

The deep intertwining, interweaving and interlacing of the logic
structures of science and the logic structures of mathematics are
mutually re-enforcing toward one another. New observations in
science stimulate new observations in mathematics and vice versa.
The cumulative success of these relationships is among the
foundational pillars of the informational sciences such as FIS.
>From the perspective of the concepts of "Organic Communication", I
note the deep similarity between the conceptual dynamics of organic
communication in living systems and the corresponding conceptual
dynamics of generating logical communications.

Recent posts to this list have included several highly personalized
narratives about personal perspective of logic. Most remarkably,
these postings have included the intertwining of specialized local
knowledge restricted to highly restrictive presuppositions of
individual philosophers. One can obscure the deeper issues relating
scientific activity and logic by introducing related topics, such as
causality. Such tightly focused definitions (grounded in personal
philosophies) are remote from both modern science and the traditional
processes of science.

Norbert introduces another point of view by suggesting that nature is
intrinsically logical. I am uncertain of the precise nature of the
definitions that Norbert is using. Many, many varieties of
mathematical logic exist. If a system has a "logic" what are the
manifestations of this logic? Is the logic of a system based on
formal grammars and strings of symbols? To what extend would the
logic of a system be dependent on the (human) artifacts known as the
"m-k-s" system of measurements, ie, the real number line? Can one
assign a meter to a system logic? (Robert Rosen argued against this
possibility for biological systems.)

The Platonic title to this series of posts, Re: opinions vs knowledge
- The Cave is Constructed, motivates a cynical comment - one puts
one's energy into the construction of a cave if one wishes to stay in
the dark rather than become enlightened.

Cheers

Jerry LR Chandler

>Dear all,
>
>It is really have some difficulty to understand how we can think that
>"logic" is a (narrow) human invention!!!????
>
>We DISCOVER the world and the universe around us but we don't INVENT it. We
>discover slowly by slowly how the world "works". We transform a given
>reality and by interacting with it (mostly still in extremely "unconscient"
>way) we produce changes and we (RE) invent things. And so on.. This is the
>process of evolution.
>
>To think that LOGIC has something to do with my individual understanding (or
>agreement) seems to be a kind of very radical anthropocentrism. Or however
>we call it.
>
>If the world is what it is, and if I don't agree with a lot of things (in
>fact I don't agree with war, racism, crazy dubble yuu�s, etc...) it does not
>mean that there is NO LOGIC in the whole process!
>
>If I perceive something as a chaos, it doesn't mean that there is no
>intrinsic logic in it.
>
>Logic also doesn't mean determinism! This would be in fact a very narrow
>understanding of logic.
>
>I am not sure, but I think Ted said: "I wonder what the FIS agenda is
>thought to be by anyone who assumes logic is somehow embedded in the
>mechanics of the universe."
>
>I don't think that I understand correctly: first of all the universe is not
>at all "mechanic".. the view of a mechanistic universe has been overcome at
>least 100 years ago. Of course I think that there is an intrinsic logic in
>the evolution of the universe, our solar system, our planet, and the whole
>evolution (including ourselves) on it.
>
>Or, maybe we should define clearly what every one of us understands by
>LOGIC.
>
>For me, a system has its intrinsic logic - if its regulations, laws and
>interactions lead to pragmatic consequences, which are NOT deterministic
>(!), but are "free" to happen in a frame of limited possibilities (given
>exactly by the logic of the system).
>
>And I think that this discussion makes sense when we try to understand and
>define the concept of INFORMATION.
>
>There is an obvious relation between logic (how I am used to understand the
>concept) and structural Information of an open dissipative system.
>
>regards
>Norbert
Received on Sun Sep 8 23:33:28 2002