<div><p class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US">Dear Joseph, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US">Hi!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US">I quote your 2010 manuscript (by the way, compliments! yours is a
noteworthy paper! Furthermore, you were also able to make the unreadable
Lupasco very clear!) that the FISers can find here: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US">http://apcz.pl/czasopisma/index.php/LLP/article/viewFile/LLP.2010.009/967
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US">"<i>The key postulate, as formulated by Lupasco, is that every real
phenomenon, element or event e is always associated with an anti-phenomenon, anti-element
or anti-event non-e, such that the actualization of e entails the
potentialization of non-e and vice versa, alternatively, without either ever
disappearing completely. The logic is a logic of an included middle, consisting
of axioms and rules of inference for determining the state of the three dynamic
elements involved in a phenomenon (“dynamic” in the physical sense, related to
real rather than to formal change, e.g. of conclusions).<o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><i>4.2. Axioms<o:p></o:p></i></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><i>The three fundamental axioms of classical logic, in
one version, are the following:<o:p></o:p></i></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US"><i>1. The axiom of identity: A is (or =) A.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US"><i>2. The axiom of non-contradiction: A is not (or 6=) non-A.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US"><i>3. The axiom of the excluded middle: there exists no third term ‘T’ (‘T’
from third) that is at the same time A and non-A.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US"><o:p><i> </i></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US"><i>Based on his “antagonistic” worldview, according to Basarab Nicolescu (see
Nicolescu 1996), <o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><i>Lupasco “rewrote” the three major axioms of classical
logic as follows:<o:p></o:p></i></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US"><i>1. (Physical) Non-Identity: There is no A at a given time that is
identical to A at another time.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US"><i>2. Conditional Contradiction: A and non-A both exist at the same time, but
only in the sense that when A is actual, non-A is potential, reciprocally and
alternatively, but never to the limit of 100%.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US"><i>3. Included Middle: An included or additional third element or T-state (‘T’
for ‘tiers inclus’, included third).<o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US"><o:p><i> </i></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US"><i>The evolution of real processes is therefore asymptotically toward a non-contradiction
of identity or diversity, or toward contradiction. The mid-point of
semi-actualization and semi-potentialization of both is a point of maximum
contradiction, a “T-state” resolving the contradiction (or “counter-action”) at
a higher level of reality or complexity.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US"><i>Lupasco deserves the historical credit for having shown that a logic of the
included middle is a valid multivalent logic, with the indicated terms. At a
single level of reality, the second and third axioms are essentially equivalent.
In Nicolescu’s extension of the logic, the T-state emerges from the point of
maximum contradiction at which A and non-A are equally<o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US"><i>actualized and potentialized, but at a higher level of reality or
complexity, at which the contradiction is resolved. His paradigm example is the
unification in the quanton (T) of the apparently contradictory elements of
particle (A) and wave (non-A). In contrast to the Hegelian triad, the three
terms here coexist at the same moment of time. The logic of the included middle
does not abolish that of the excluded middle, which remains valid for simple,
consistent situations. However, the former is the privileged logic of
complexity, of the real mental, social and political world.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US"><i>The logic of the included middle is capable of describing the coherence between
levels of reality. A given T-state (which operates the unification of A and
non-A) is associated with another couple of contradictory terms at its higher
level (A^1, non-A^1), which are in turn resolved at another level by T^1. <o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US"><i>According to Nicolescu, the action of the logic of the included middle
induces an open structure of the set of all possible levels of reality, similar
to that defined by Gödel for formal system</i>s"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><br></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US">Lupasco’s “linguistic joke”
(forgive me this expression, but, in this context, is something positive, not
negative!) is very intriguing and well done, but the problem is always the
same, as every kind of logic (…including maths, to be honest…) is based on
axioms that stand just for who believe they are true. I give you an example, by examining
Luparsco’s postulates. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US">(Physical) Non-Identity: There is no A at a given time
that is identical to A at another time.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">It
is not true: an atom of hydrogen today is identical to an atom of hydrogen
tomorrow. I would also say that a square
is always a square, or in my mind a centaur is always a centaur, but I suppose
that you are talking in a physical, not mathematical or psychological sense,
therefore I prefer the example of the atom.
And do not say that the hydrogen atoms of today and of tomorrow are two
different atoms, because, according the definition of hydrogen atom, I cannot
distinguish the one from the other!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Conditional Contradiction: A and non-A both exist at
the same time, but only in the sense that when A is actual, non-A is potential,
reciprocally and alternatively, but never to the limit of 100%. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Actual
and potential reminds too much the scientifically untenable Aristotle… How can
you say what is potential and what is actual?
Actual and potential compared to what?
The bullet that killed John Kennedy is actual when you think that it
reached Kennedy, but is potential if you think that it did not kill Jaqueline… Therefore,
your concept of actual and potential requires a subjective observer who states
what is actual and what is potential. You
may argue that you are talking about Lagrangian and Hamiltonians, but it does
not help, in this case. Indeed, the
concept of energetic gradient descent, for example in Fokker-Planck equations,
this time, cannot help you, because they do not talk of the EXISTENCE of potentiality of actuality, but just of an
energetic path of a random walk towards lesser energetic levels (on the other
side, at which low energetic level can you say that potentiality finish and
actuality is present?). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US">3. Included Middle: An included or additional third element or T-state (‘T’
for ‘tiers inclus’, included third).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US">This axiom reminds me… the Borsuk-Ulam theorem! Two antipodal points (call it A and non-A)
become a point T, when projected in a different dimension… The only difference
is that, according Lupasco, A and non-A
become T in a dimension higher, while, according the Borsuk-Ulam theorem, A and
non-A become T in a dimension lower…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><br><p class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0cm;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
line-height:115%;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; text-align: start;"><font face="courier new, monospace"><b>Arturo Tozzi</b></font></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0cm;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
line-height:115%;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><font face="courier new, monospace">AA Professor Physics, University North Texas</font></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0cm;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
line-height:115%;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; text-align: start;"><font face="courier new, monospace">Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy</font></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0cm;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
line-height:115%;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; text-align: start;"><font face="courier new, monospace">Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba</font></span></p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0cm;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
line-height:115%;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><font face="courier new, monospace"><a href="http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/" style="font-size: 14px; color: rgb(5, 68, 126); line-height: normal; text-align: start;">http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/</a><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; text-align: start;"> </span></font><br></p></div><br>
<br>
<blockquote>
----Messaggio originale----<br>
Da: "Joseph Brenner" <joe.brenner@bluewin.ch><br>
Data: 07/12/2016 15.15<br>
A: "fis"<fis@listas.unizar.es><br>
Cc: <tozziarturo@libero.it><br>
Ogg: Fw: [Fis] Fwd: R: Re: Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ??? Logic<br>
<br>
<!--
-->
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Dear Folks,</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Arturo wrote:</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">"therefore logic, in general, cannot be anymore useful in the
description of our world. </font>I'm sad about that, but that's
all." </font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">The answer is to change logic from one of
propositions (<font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Lesniewski-Tarski) or
mathematics (Zermelo-Fraenkel) to one of the states of real processes (Lupasco;
Logic in Reality). Why this is not even considered as an option for serious
discussion is a great mystery to me.</font></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div>Arturo also said:</div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div>"The concepts of locality and of cause/effect disappear in front of the
puzzling phenomenon of quantum entanglement, which is intractable in terms of
logic."</div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div>Here, I fully agree; Logic in Reality also does not apply to quantum
phenomena. It is limited to description of processes involving thermodynamic
change in which there is a mutual interaction between elements as
individuals, including people. I do not claim it allows causal prediction,
but logical inference. </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Arturo:</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div>"The same stands for nonlinear chaotic phenomena, widespread in nature,
from pile sands, to bird flocks and to brain function. When biforcations
occur in logistic plots and chaotic behaviours take place, the final systems'
ouputs are not anymore causally predictable."</div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Here, I agree with Arturo but for a different
reason. The non-linear phenomena mentioned are <em>too simple. </em>In crowd
behavior, individual interactions are absent or meaningless -
information_as_data. Brain behavior of this kind is of lower complexity and
interest, involving mostly lower level</font><font face="Arial" size="2"> functionalities, although they they may accompany higher
level cognitive functions. </font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">I look forward to point by point refutation
of or agreement with the above.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Best wishes,</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Joseph</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div><blockquote id="mail-app-auto-quote" style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 10px; BORDER-LEFT: #85af31 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite="14810194750000006369"><div class="js-helper js-readmsg-msg"><div id="style_14810194750000006369_BODY"><blockquote><div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 18px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 10px; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(133,175,49) 1px solid; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; orphans: auto; widows: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px" cite="x-msg://63/14801811490000025350"><div dir="ltr"><div style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri">
<div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div></div></div></blockquote></blockquote></div></blockquote><br></div></div></blockquote>
<p>
</p><hr>
<p></p>_______________________________________________<br>Fis mailing
list<br>Fis@listas.unizar.es<br>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<br>
<br>
</blockquote><br>