<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6002.19567" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Lucida Sans'; mso-font-kerning: 0pt">Dear
Arturo,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Lucida Sans'; mso-font-kerning: 0pt"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Lucida Sans'; mso-font-kerning: 0pt">Thank
you for your encouraging comment. Please see responses in blue.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Lucida Sans'; mso-font-kerning: 0pt"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Lucida Sans'; mso-font-kerning: 0pt">You
wrote:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">“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></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: -18pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><! 1.(Physical) Non-Identity: There
is no A at a given time that is identical to A at another
time.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">It is not true: an atom of hydrogen today is identical to
an atom of hydrogen tomorrow. 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></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; mso-font-kerning: 0pt"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; mso-font-kerning: 0pt"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">The key thing about my Logic in Reality is to understand
to what it does <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">not</I> apply: it does
not apply to simple single entities and to entities between which there is
no interaction or none to all intents and purposes. The atom of hydrogen today
and tomorrow are in a different position in space-time and so non-identical in
this sense but so what.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: -18pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><! 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></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">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. <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; mso-font-kerning: 0pt"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; mso-font-kerning: 0pt"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">Again, your reference is to a catastrophic event, not a
process. There are an infinite number of potential things, and you are right
that an observer is needed, but this is not a drawback. The observer does not <I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">determine</I> what is primarily actual and
potential. But I see the actuality and potentiality of say, mutual
understanding, as being as real as the actual and potential energy of
a swinging pendulum. Aristotle is indeed untenable without the
re-interpretation and extension possible today in terms of quantum
physics.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">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
or 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 is finished and actuality is
present?).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; mso-font-kerning: 0pt"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; mso-font-kerning: 0pt"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; mso-font-kerning: 0pt"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">a) I understand that the mathematics to which you refer
does not apply, but that does not mean that an appropriate one might not be
found. I have repeatedly asked people, without success, for a mathematical
formulation of the Lupasco expression of his logic as a series of implications
(of implications, <I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">etc.</I>).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; mso-font-kerning: 0pt"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">b) I am not talking about random walks, but interactive
processes in which there is reciprocity of actuality and potentiality of both
components in the interaction. <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Neither
actuality nor potentiality is ever finished for the complex energetic processes
I am talking about. </I>I can show that any infinite regress is avoided since at
a certain point no further information is provided by a further
iteration.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">3. Included Middle: An included or additional third
element or T-state (‘T’ for ‘tiers inclus’, included
third).<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">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></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; mso-font-kerning: 0pt"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; mso-font-kerning: 0pt"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">Fascinating!! Please tell me more, <I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">e.g.</I> does this have macroscopic
implications? Even better: can we discuss BUT in terms of complexity? In that
case, BUT is a theory that may apply to EMERGENT SIMPLICITY! The Earth's orbit
is simpler than the process it took to get the Earth in it. The thing to be
sure of, for LIR to apply, is that the antipodal points are not isolated
abstractions but parts of an interactive
system. <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Lucida Sans'; mso-font-kerning: 0pt"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Lucida Sans'; mso-font-kerning: 0pt">I
look forward to your response and that of other FISers with great interest.
</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Lucida Sans'; mso-font-kerning: 0pt"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Lucida Sans'; mso-font-kerning: 0pt">Best
wishes,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">Joseph</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=tozziarturo@libero.it
href="mailto:tozziarturo@libero.it">tozziarturo@libero.it</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=joe.brenner@bluewin.ch
href="mailto:joe.brenner@bluewin.ch">Joseph Brenner</A> ; <A
title=fis@listas.unizar.es
href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es">fis@listas.unizar.es</A> ; <A
title=pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es
href="mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es">pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Friday, December 09, 2016 3:50 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Brenner and Lupasco logic</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormalCxSpFirst style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 107%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><A
href="http://apcz.pl/czasopisma/index.php/LLP/article/viewFile/LLP.2010.009/967">http://apcz.pl/czasopisma/index.php/LLP/article/viewFile/LLP.2010.009/967</A>
<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormalCxSpMiddle style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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-INDENT: -18pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if
!supportLists]--><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 107%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">1.<SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><!--[endif]--><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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-INDENT: -18pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if
!supportLists]--><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 107%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">2.<SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal">
</SPAN></SPAN><!--[endif]--><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 12pt 0cm; LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-add-space: auto; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><FONT
face="courier new, monospace"><B>Arturo Tozzi</B></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormalCxSpFirst
style="MARGIN: 12pt 0cm; LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-add-space: auto; mso-layout-grid-align: 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: 12pt 0cm; LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-add-space: auto; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><FONT
face="courier new, monospace">Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormalCxSpFirst
style="MARGIN: 12pt 0cm; LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-add-space: auto; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><FONT
face="courier new, monospace">Comput Intell Lab, University
Manitoba</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormalCxSpFirst
style="MARGIN: 12pt 0cm; LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; mso-add-space: auto; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT
face="courier new, monospace"><A
style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; COLOR: rgb(5,68,126); LINE-HEIGHT: normal"
href="http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/">http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/</A><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"> </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></BODY></HTML>