logic

I think that a key problem with the advocacy or rejection of logic as
a basic modus operandus of the universe, is the view of 'what is
logic'. As I said, I adhere to the view that our universe is inherently
logical. What is logic? Normative habits of interactions that adhere
to a pragmatic final cause. What is the final cause? It is an
evolving, not an a priori, logic-of-interactions among the community.
This view is both Peircean and Aristotelian.

Now - those who reject this view, and say that the world is not
logical and that logic is strictly and only human, are viewing 'logic'
in a very different way than I am.

Truth and facts - I recall a long dialogue by Popper in The Open
Society on these two terms. A very good dialogue, for he does
indeed acknowledge that there is such a thing as 'truth'. An
evolving truth.

As for an information dynamics that only operates within efficient
causality, - well, that to me, is a mode of operation operative only
within random bits. To ignore the other three causes - I have a
problem with that. This type of analysis is what I call a 'unileveled'
frame. It operates only within a single level of reality (analog,
actual), made up of discrete bits that bump into each other. But,
there is a deeper level, operative as potentiality (the logic)...

So- it's a basic disagreement.

Edwina Taborsky
Bishop's University Phone:(819)822.9600 Ext.2424
Lennoxville, Quebec Fax: (819)822.9661
Canada JIM 1Z7
Received on Sat Sep 7 00:18:27 2002