[Fis] FIS 2015, Workshop on Combinatorics of Genetics, Fundamentals

[Jerry LR Chandler]

List:

Their exist many forms of formal logics. 

One of the several concepts important to logic is an ancient concept:

If antecedents, then consequences.

In recent decades, the concept of para-consistent logic has emerged.
It has found many applications, particularly in the cybernetics of control systems.

Para-consistent logics are tolerant of apparent or so-called "inconsistencies" among several premisses.

Para-consistent logics are worth studying as they motivate consequences from antecedents.  One key author is Graham Priest.

One of the principle questions that para-consistent logics raise is "How does one compose premisses?"  not necessary dependent on the geometric metrics rules of a  line.

Cheers

Jerry



 
On Oct 20, 2014, at 6:44 AM, Karl Javorszky wrote:

> Workshop on the Combinatorics of Genetics, Fundamentals
> 
>  
> In order to prepare for a fruitful, satisfying and rewarding workshop in Vienna, let me offer to potential participants the following main innovations in the field of formal logic and arithmetic:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)      Consolidating contradictions:
> 
> The idea of contradicting logical statements is traditionally alien to the system of thoughts that is mathematics. Therefore, no methodology has evolved of appeasing, soothing, compromise-building among equally valid logical statements that contradict each other. In this regard, mathematical logic is far less advanced than diplomacy, psychology, commercial claims regulation or military science, in which fields the existence of conflicts is a given. The workshop centers around the methodology of fulfilling contradicting logical requirements that co- exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 2)      Concept of Order
> 
> We show that the pointed opposition between readings of a set once as a sequenced one and once as a commutative one is similar to the discussion, whether a Table of the Rorschach test depicts a still-life under water or rather fireworks in Paris. The incompatibility between sequenced and commutative (contemporaneous) is provided by our sensory apparatus: in fact, a set is readable both as a sequenced collection and as a collection of commutative symbols. We abstract from the two sentences “Set A is in a sequential order” and “Set A is a commutatively ordered one” into the sentence “Set A is in order”.
> 
> The workshop introduces the idea and the technique of sequential enumeration (aka “sorting”) of elements of a set, calling the result “order”, and shows that different sorting orders may bring forth contradicting assignments of places to one and the same element, resp. contradicting assignments of elements to one and the same place.
> 
> 
> 
> 3)      The duration of the transient state
> 
> We put forward the motion, that it is reasonable to assume that a set is normally in a state of permanent change – as opposed to the traditional view, wherein a set, once well defined, stays put and idle, remaining such as defined. The idea is that there are always alternatives to whichever order one looks into a set, therefore it is reasonable to assume that the set is in a state of permanent adjustment.
> 
> We look in great detail into the mechanics of transition between Order αβ and Order γδ, and show that the number of tics until the transition is achieved is only in the rarest of cases uniform, therefore partial transformations and half-baked results are the ordre du jour.
> 
> 
> 
> 4)      Standard transitions and spatial structures
> 
> The rare cases where a translation from Order αβ into Order γδ happens in lock-step are quite well suited to serve as units of dis-allocation, being of uniform properties with respect to a numeric quality which could well be called an extent for “mass”.
> 
> These cases allow assembling two 3-dimensional spatial structures with well-defined axes. The twice 3 axes can even be merged into one, consolidated space with 3 common axes, the price of the consolidation being that every 1-dimensional statement has in this case 4 variants. The findings allow supporting Minkowski’s ideas and also some contemplation about 3 sub-statements consisting of 1-of-4 variants, as used by Nature while registering genetic information in a purely sequenced fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> 5)      Size optimization and asynchronicity questions
> 
> The set is the same, whether we read it consecutively or transversally. The readings differ. We show that the functions of logical relations’ density per unit resp. unit fragment size per logical relation are intertwined, making a change between the representations of order as unit and as logical relation a matter of accounting artistry. (“If I want more matter, I say that I see 66 commutative units; if I want more information, I say that I see 11 sequences of 6 units.”)
> 
> The phlogiston (or divine will) fueling the mechanism appears to be the synchronicity of steps of order consolidation happening. Using the concept of a-synchronicity we can understand that we can, for reasons of epistemology, perceive only that what is asynchronous, and as a corollary to this, perceive not that what is synchron, which we have reason to call dark matter or dark energy.
> 
>  
> These are the main ideas to be presented at the FIS meeting 2015. Hopefully, the main event, dealing with Society’s answer to change in fundamental concepts of information, will find the proceedings revolutionary enough to merit observation from close quarters.
> 
> 
> 
> Karl
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20141020/e49957c3/attachment.html>