Nothing makes sense
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-01-2014, 08:29 PM
RE: Nothing makes sense
(30-01-2014 07:59 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 02:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  The question is :- Are non-classical logics "ontologically real" or are they due to our "epistemic uncertainly" as humans or limitations due to our symbolic language being imprecise.

Boundary-related problems appear to be ontologically real rather epistemic artefacts. There is no additional information that can make a boundary condition disappear. If a coordinate that represents some real data happens to fall on a spatial boundary then that is really all that can be said of the matter. If we need to make a decision based on which region our coordinate falls and we abide by the law of the excluded middle then we are stuck; if we have failed to even think of this possibility our software can crash or it could corrupt our database. If we have considered the possibility then what do we do? How do we preserve the fact of the indeterminancy of the coordinate? If we arbitrariliy assign it to one of the two regions then we are actually losing information which may cause us to unintentionally obscure a pattern.

If we instead acknowledge that the law of the excluded middle is hurting us rather than helping us he can construct a many-valued logic that will enable us to not only represent these boundary conditions but also to make inferences about them. Enter fuzzy logic.

As far as I can see the law of the excluded middle does not hold for a subset of spatial data and this is intrinsic to the data rather than a product of our ignorance.

This example is but one of many where the laws of classical logic either fail or are a hindrance because a better logic models a particular slice of reality.

We can make the boundary problem go away by defining boundaries with zero extent. That is, areas tessellate the space and there are no points that lie outside the various areas.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 10:55 PM
RE: Nothing makes sense
(30-01-2014 08:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  We can make the boundary problem go away by defining boundaries with zero extent. That is, areas tessellate the space and there are no points that lie outside the various areas.

The boundary will have zero extent so the point will not be on the boundary but it will nevertheless be in two localities simultaneously and this would violate the law of excluded middle.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 11:50 PM
RE: Nothing makes sense
(30-01-2014 10:55 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 08:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  We can make the boundary problem go away by defining boundaries with zero extent. That is, areas tessellate the space and there are no points that lie outside the various areas.

The boundary will have zero extent so the point will not be on the boundary but it will nevertheless be in two localities simultaneously and this would violate the law of excluded middle.

It wouldn't because then it would be in two localities simultaneously and not not be in two localities simultaneously.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 10:37 AM
RE: Nothing makes sense
(30-01-2014 10:55 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 08:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  We can make the boundary problem go away by defining boundaries with zero extent. That is, areas tessellate the space and there are no points that lie outside the various areas.

The boundary will have zero extent so the point will not be on the boundary but it will nevertheless be in two localities simultaneously and this would violate the law of excluded middle.

I don't see why you think the point could be in two localities. If the localities tessellate, that is not possible.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 06:56 PM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2014 07:31 PM by Chippy.)
RE: Nothing makes sense
(31-01-2014 10:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  I don't see why you think the point could be in two localities. If the localities tessellate, that is not possible.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean. If the localities tessellate then they have been "tiled" with polygons. The polygons have edges that meet other edges. The boundary between the localities is legislated and defined in termed of lat/long. The series of lat/long coordinates that define the boundary will land on the intersection of polygons from locality A and polygons from locality B. They will not land on the actual boundary because we defined it to have zero extension but the polygons that form the tessellations still have edges and the coordinates will land on the the edges.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 07:22 PM
RE: Nothing makes sense
(30-01-2014 02:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Things get a little complicated with quantum mechanics...

But of course!

(30-01-2014 02:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  - and cannot go into it here - have to be brief otherwise I will be writing all night.

Undecided

(30-01-2014 02:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Does two electrons being in the different places at the same time but acting as one superposition violate the law of contradiction ?

Yes insofar as individual states are concerned, but not as regards the system state.

(30-01-2014 02:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Does not being able to measure the velocity and location of a individual subatomic particle like an electron violate the law of identity and just leave us in probabilistic darkness ?

That depends on one's definition of 'identity'. The rub here being that a naive definition of 'identity' will be essentially equivalent to a presupposition of classical physics, which would be invalid.

(30-01-2014 02:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  I don't think anyone knows the exact answers to these questions

But why let that stop me?
Tongue

(30-01-2014 02:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  - but for starters one is following the law of identity very strictly by defining the probabilities, particles, surrounding influences and mathematical relations - even though one does not have "discrete" answers to exact velocity, momentum or location.

Indeed.

(30-01-2014 02:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  It could be that these quantum effects are OUR epistemological limitations due to photons & other environmental factors disrupting the quantum superposition's and causing de-coherence to occur. Therefore WE have an epistemological knowledge barrier regardless of how accurate our instruments are by the very nature we are interfering with the experiments - it doesn't follow that logic is being violated in an ontological "absolute" universal sense.

Indeed so.

(30-01-2014 02:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Of course we are limited to know about the ontology because our epistemology is limited - hence a skeptic might claim the ontological logic is violated (of course they cannot know this either)

Most indeededly.




(30-01-2014 02:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  In any case - regardless of the answer to some of the quantum puzzles, we can practically use the profoundly accurate predictions from quantum mechanics - and this suggests that it follows the laws of contradiction & identity in the pragmatic sense.

The formalism of quantum mechanics - as a constructed description of experimental results - proceeds from said laws. I.e., non-contradiction is assumed inasmuch as the goal is to resolve apparent contradictions (spin up and down at the same time? THE DEVIL YOU SAY) by redefining identity to maintain the consistency of the whole ensemble.

(30-01-2014 02:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  From the fact is the science works and can be described in mathematical language even if probabilistic - we can infer that it follows the same logical principles as absolutes in all possible universes.

It is absolutely probable that the existence of probabilities is absolute.
Tongue

(30-01-2014 02:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Perhaps the same thing applies to quantum mechanics once we better understand the foundations of particle physics or some grand unified theory. Eg if reality was some 11 dimensional mathematical construct as its "true identity" then all will follow logically from the widest, most universal foundational ontology (I an no expert is string theory and this will end up being speculative but mathematically elegant even if in principle might not be able to be empirically confirmed - hence on the borders of science and more philosophical)

I'd say it's difficult to settle the chicken and egg problem, there. Does the universe conform to certain principles, or are the principles derived from our consideration of the universe?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 01:16 PM
RE: Nothing makes sense
(31-01-2014 07:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 02:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Things get a little complicated with quantum mechanics...

But of course!

(30-01-2014 02:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  - and cannot go into it here - have to be brief otherwise I will be writing all night.

Undecided

(30-01-2014 02:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Does two electrons being in the different places at the same time but acting as one superposition violate the law of contradiction ?

Yes insofar as individual states are concerned, but not as regards the system state.

(30-01-2014 02:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Does not being able to measure the velocity and location of a individual subatomic particle like an electron violate the law of identity and just leave us in probabilistic darkness ?

That depends on one's definition of 'identity'. The rub here being that a naive definition of 'identity' will be essentially equivalent to a presupposition of classical physics, which would be invalid.

(30-01-2014 02:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  I don't think anyone knows the exact answers to these questions

But why let that stop me?
Tongue

(30-01-2014 02:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  - but for starters one is following the law of identity very strictly by defining the probabilities, particles, surrounding influences and mathematical relations - even though one does not have "discrete" answers to exact velocity, momentum or location.

Indeed.

(30-01-2014 02:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  It could be that these quantum effects are OUR epistemological limitations due to photons & other environmental factors disrupting the quantum superposition's and causing de-coherence to occur. Therefore WE have an epistemological knowledge barrier regardless of how accurate our instruments are by the very nature we are interfering with the experiments - it doesn't follow that logic is being violated in an ontological "absolute" universal sense.

Indeed so.

(30-01-2014 02:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Of course we are limited to know about the ontology because our epistemology is limited - hence a skeptic might claim the ontological logic is violated (of course they cannot know this either)

Most indeededly.




(30-01-2014 02:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  In any case - regardless of the answer to some of the quantum puzzles, we can practically use the profoundly accurate predictions from quantum mechanics - and this suggests that it follows the laws of contradiction & identity in the pragmatic sense.

The formalism of quantum mechanics - as a constructed description of experimental results - proceeds from said laws. I.e., non-contradiction is assumed inasmuch as the goal is to resolve apparent contradictions (spin up and down at the same time? THE DEVIL YOU SAY) by redefining identity to maintain the consistency of the whole ensemble.

(30-01-2014 02:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  From the fact is the science works and can be described in mathematical language even if probabilistic - we can infer that it follows the same logical principles as absolutes in all possible universes.

It is absolutely probable that the existence of probabilities is absolute.
Tongue

(30-01-2014 02:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Perhaps the same thing applies to quantum mechanics once we better understand the foundations of particle physics or some grand unified theory. Eg if reality was some 11 dimensional mathematical construct as its "true identity" then all will follow logically from the widest, most universal foundational ontology (I an no expert is string theory and this will end up being speculative but mathematically elegant even if in principle might not be able to be empirically confirmed - hence on the borders of science and more philosophical)

I'd say it's difficult to settle the chicken and egg problem, there. Does the universe conform to certain principles, or are the principles derived from our consideration of the universe?

It looks like we pretty much agree - the part about the law of contradiction not applying to individual states (of quantum particles) but to the system state I also agree.
However I don't think the law of contradiction is violated for the individual states - because the 'individual states' don't actually exist independently (its only our naïve perception that there are 'independent' individual states)
IT IS A SYSTEM STATE ONLY only and hence there is no violation of the universal law of contradiction.

eg I can use naïve language and say 'an up quark exists' and someone will think its 'something you can look for'. However the notion of an individual independent up quark does not make any sense - it only exists as part of a combined system eg two up quarks + down quark = proton.
This is counter intuitive in terms of our intuitive notions of mereology (part/whole relations) eg and atom independently exists but can also be part of a molecule.

Doesn't part of you love mereology.

There is also a sense that everything is a system and nothing exists 'independently' and can be isolated without effecting the whole system. Clearly this is the case in quantum mechanics when de-coherence occurs due to influences from other particles 'outside' the superposition.

However what about humans ? Can a mind exist 'independently' of a body like Descartes thought experiment that we can have a disembodied mind ? I don't think so for similar reasons - we don't often realize the extent of embodied cognition and the idea of a 'separate mind' makes no sense.
This also has a bearing on ideas of God which are usually projections of our own mind just 'omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent'
How could it possibly make sense to have an independent 'mind with agency' which is "omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent' ???

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Baruch's post
01-02-2014, 01:18 PM
RE: Nothing makes sense
(30-01-2014 11:50 PM)donotwant Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 10:55 PM)Chippy Wrote:  The boundary will have zero extent so the point will not be on the boundary but it will nevertheless be in two localities simultaneously and this would violate the law of excluded middle.

It wouldn't because then it would be in two localities simultaneously and not not be in two localities simultaneously.

See my prev post.
It is a combined SYSTEM as a whole. The individual parts of the system do not exist independently. = hence law of contradiction is not violated.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 01:25 PM
RE: Nothing makes sense
(30-01-2014 07:59 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 02:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  The question is :- Are non-classical logics "ontologically real" or are they due to our "epistemic uncertainly" as humans or limitations due to our symbolic language being imprecise.

Boundary-related problems appear to be ontologically real rather epistemic artefacts. There is no additional information that can make a boundary condition disappear. If a coordinate that represents some real data happens to fall on a spatial boundary then that is really all that can be said of the matter. If we need to make a decision based on which region our coordinate falls and we abide by the law of the excluded middle then we are stuck; if we have failed to even think of this possibility our software can crash or it could corrupt our database. If we have considered the possibility then what do we do? How do we preserve the fact of the indeterminancy of the coordinate? If we arbitrariliy assign it to one of the two regions then we are actually losing information which may cause us to unintentionally obscure a pattern.

If we instead acknowledge that the law of the excluded middle is hurting us rather than helping us he can construct a many-valued logic that will enable us to not only represent these boundary conditions but also to make inferences about them. Enter fuzzy logic.

As far as I can see the law of the excluded middle does not hold for a subset of spatial data and this is intrinsic to the data rather than a product of our ignorance.

This example is but one of many where the laws of classical logic either fail or are a hindrance because a better logic models a particular slice of reality.

Quote:he can construct a many-valued logic that will enable us to not only represent these boundary conditions but also to make inferences about them. Enter fuzzy logic.
This appeals to a pragmatic use of fuzzy logic due to OUR epistemic limitations.
All of calculus presupposes this and does a brilliant job pragmatically. However as I mentioned fundamental physics does suggest reality is fundamentally discrete in terms od space-time and that there is no infinitely dividable continuum (in contrast to Cantor) If there is no infinitely dividable continuum then any boundary problems are our own epistemic limitations. Of course this doesn't discredit the use of fuzzy logic just as it does not discredit calculus for being profoundly useful tools.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Baruch's post
01-02-2014, 01:30 PM
RE: Nothing makes sense
(31-01-2014 06:56 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(31-01-2014 10:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  I don't see why you think the point could be in two localities. If the localities tessellate, that is not possible.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean. If the localities tessellate then they have been "tiled" with polygons. The polygons have edges that meet other edges. The boundary between the localities is legislated and defined in termed of lat/long. The series of lat/long coordinates that define the boundary will land on the intersection of polygons from locality A and polygons from locality B. They will not land on the actual boundary because we defined it to have zero extension but the polygons that form the tessellations still have edges and the coordinates will land on the the edges.

Somehow we seem to be talking past each other?

In my model, there is no point on a boundary. Boundaries are lines, and lines have zero width. Any point chosen lies in a locality.

Maybe that is not the way GIS databases are defined, but they certainly could be. I should ask my brother, he's in that business.Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: