[Fis] An Unbeatable Tradition?

[Karl Javorszky]

Silver bullet : silver algorithm

2024 01 24



Thank you, Marcus, for enumerating in a clear and concise way the problems
that are yet to be solved:

*creation of new adjacent possibilities surely follows `some type of
logic'! Why is THAT not discussed here?*

The cycles some of us have been bringing up the last few years are nothing
but the creation of new adjacent possibilities that follow a very simple
logic (that of pairs of natural numbers);

* what type of reasoning is needed?!*

The same good old reasoning Pythagoras, Archimedes et al have established,
will suffice. There has been a revolutionary quantum jump in the
possibilities of rhetoric since the days of the old Greeks. We can use
computers to draw pictures about interdependences that could never have
been explained to the wisest Greek in his time. Not only the observation of
the measurable appearances of Nature has made great leaps, but also the
treatment of purely logical symbols has undergone massive improvements. One
would not believe what depths of logic open up if one makes a general
systematism of patterns that appear if one reorders 136 mental tin
soldiers. The logic of one sorting order is almost axiomatic. The idea that
one place on a plane is the same as two ranks on two axes is a tool not
very much in use. The same elementary logic that applies when sorting your
books is as productive as a microbe. To understand the reasoning, it is
helpful to sort 12 books, once author-title and once title-author, and note
the number and length of the cycles during the reorder. That logic is the
logic which your question asks for.

*how one effectively differs between real and pseudo possibilities*

Having resorted the logical primitives in each possible way, one has the
universe of possibilities. Some reorders go well with some different
reorders together, in some cases there will be conflicts. A reorder
realized is a credit on the “certain” side of the ledger and a debit on the
“free to realize” side of the ledger.

The interplay discusses the properties of possible parts as predicted by
properties of possible wholes and the other way around. Order is composed
of reorders. Reorders are composed of cycles. Cycles are composed of
coincidences that can or not be the case.

Predicting from the bottom up (such coincidences are the case → such
reorder can be expected) and predicting from the top down (such reorders
are the case → such coincidences can be expected) meets in the carrier
medium of cycles.

*requires a Prime Mover*

The parts that move and transform are not moved by any outside force. We
still come back to Newton. He was very much liked for saying: “Relax, the
things do not jump up and pursue you, things are as such idle, no sorcery
is possible.” Now we say that any idea of an outside mover is irrelevant
because things move and change by their own volition, just because they are
so as they are. This is not advocating sorcery and pantheism. We point out
that we project unto a picture an imagination, how that was if it was not
moving/changing. The parts continuously try to arrange into a whole and the
wholes continuously try to arrange for circumstances that allow them to
consist of such parts as there are available. What is a whole on the middle
level, seen from below, is a part on the upper level. Connected are the
levels by the degree of certainty that 1 cycle is completed by *k
*coincidences,
and the reorder is completed by *t *cycles.

The system is by its design mis-calibrated. (Pardon: the well-calibrated
system has areas of mutual dis-calibrations is politically correct.) It
cannot ever come to peace within itself, in such segments and areas in
which parts are related to each other, because even though within the
Eddington delineation it is possible to refer to one occurrence by two
indices, the overall summation shows that there is an inbuilt inexactitude
relating to the number of wholes that can be built of parts and the number
of parts that can build wholes. There exists no single ideal order. Next to
that Gestalt are the realizable variants of combinations of optimal orders.



We are getting nearer, step by step. It is unfortunately unavoidable to use
those public words in our discussion the meaning of which is clear to all –
and these are, if we want it or not, the numbers.

Sorry for doing this snake oil salesman pitch: if you apply sorting and
ordering, the inner tension will decrease, if you apply mutual predictions,
variants can evolve, etc. Use your tautomat and generate tautologies that
fit for any need that will arise, etc.

The collection of learned friends from time to time sighs and wishes for a
nice clever hypothesis to advance its debates, but any time one offers a
rather complicated numeric truth table as the silver algorithm for every
need and a cure for all known questions, etc. the audience turns taciturn.
Why is that? People have no 12 books at home?



Thanks for pointing out didactic challenges.

Karl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240124/534888bb/attachment.html>