Evolution and Logic

( Gavin
Ritz 2010.11.06.10.51NZT)

[ Martin Lewitt
Nov 5 0243 MDT]

(Gavin
Ritz 2010.11…5.15.15NZT)

[From Rick Marken (2010.11.04.1545)]

Gavin Ritz
(2010.11.05.10.32)

Rick Marken (2010.11.04.1415) to Chad

Why is the word “logic” being co-opted for this,

Hi there Martin

I don’t know why you say the “word”
logic (I think you may be meaning the colloquial term), this is what I mean by
logic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

In language that you and I are conversing
in is made of only three logical forms, declarative statements, imperative statements
and interrogative statements.

Mathematics is only logical constructions
using declarative logic (Boolean Logic) with either true or false outcomes (and
the 4 logical conjunctions). All axiomatic theorems in mathematics are made up
of logical statements, which are True.

Imperative statements are:

  •  Define the sum of any two
    
    integers
  • Find the money
  • Drive to the movie house.
  • Go sub (Basic programming command)
  •  Formulate an objective concerning
    
    the sum of any two natural numbers.

These statements in normal daily discourse
make up a huge amount of our communication (and our theory building). A command
in logic can be an objective, goal, mission; it can be informal or formal.

The reference signals in PCT are commands,
the perceptual controlled variable in PCT are commands in logic language-ing.

The human genes “command” our
organism.

Commands in imperative logic are not true
or false but in obeying them the command is satisfied or if not obeyed “not”
satisfied.

How one creates a mathematical calculus
with this is another issue.

Does this effect PCT?

Yes, In every single way.

Regards

Gavin

is it to make
commands as a way a relating to others seem more resonable?

···

On 11/4/2010 8:38 PM, Gavin Ritz wrote:

[Martin Lewitt Nov 5, 2010 1722]

(Gavin Ritz 2010.11.06.10.51NZT)

[Martin Lewitt Nov 5 0243 MDT]

          (Gavin

Ritz 2010.11…5.15.15NZT)

[From Rick Marken
(2010.11.04.1545)]

          > Gavin Ritz

(2010.11.05.10.32)

Rick Marken
(2010.11.04.1415) to Chad

          Why is the word "logic" being co-opted for this,
          Hi

there Martin

          I

don’t know why you say the “word”
logic (I think you may be meaning the colloquial term),
this is what I mean by
logic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

          In

language that you and I are conversing
in is made of only three logical forms, declarative
statements, imperative statements
and interrogative statements.

          Mathematics

is only logical constructions
using declarative logic (Boolean Logic) with either true
or false outcomes (and
the 4 logical conjunctions). All axiomatic theorems in
mathematics are made up
of logical statements, which are True.

          Imperative

statements are:

  • Define the sum of any two integers
  • Find the money
  • Drive to the movie house.
  • Go sub (Basic programming command)
  •             Formulate an objective concerning
    
    the sum of any two natural numbers.
          These

statements in normal daily discourse
make up a huge amount of our communication (and our theory
building). A command
in logic can be an objective, goal, mission; it can be
informal or formal.

          The

reference signals in PCT are commands,
the perceptual controlled variable in PCT are commands in
logic language-ing.

          The

human genes “command” our
organism.

          Commands

in imperative logic are not true
or false but in obeying them the command is satisfied or
if not obeyed “not”
satisfied.

          How

one creates a mathematical calculus
with this is another issue.

The colloquial understanding of logic seems pretty close to what is

described in the Wikipedia article, which is deductive and inductive
reasoning.

You appear to be putting forward imperative logic as possibly having

a calculus that would at least supplement the value of boolean
logic. Are you equating imperative logic to the imperatives of
physical laws, i.e., having descriptive and predictive value? That
would not seem to conflict with or require more more than inductive
and deductive reasoning.

          Does

this effect PCT?

          Yes,

In every single way.

translation: "Even PCT must be consistent with physical laws."  Or

are you trying to say more?

inquiringly,

    Martin L
···

On 11/5/2010 4:20 PM, Gavin Ritz wrote:

      On 11/4/2010 8:38 PM, Gavin Ritz wrote:

Regards

Gavin

           is it to make

commands as a way a relating to others seem more
resonable?

( Gavin
Ritz Nov 6, 2010.13.31NZT)

[ Martin Lewitt
Nov 5, 2010 1722]

(Gavin
Ritz 2010.11.06.10.51NZT)

[ Martin Lewitt
Nov 5 0243 MDT]

(Gavin
Ritz 2010.11…5.15.15NZT)

[From Rick Marken (2010.11.04.1545)]

Gavin Ritz
(2010.11.05.10.32)

Rick Marken (2010.11.04.1415) to Chad

Martin

The colloquial understanding of logic seems pretty close to what is described
in the Wikipedia article, which is deductive and inductive reasoning.

Inductive and deductive reasoning is part
of logic it’s not the logic.

You appear to be putting forward imperative logic as possibly having a calculus
that would at least supplement the value of boolean logic.

Yes, that’s correct, I’m not
personally putting it forward it’s been done by other individuals.

Are you equating
imperative logic to the imperatives of physical laws,

Nope, the physical laws are only as such
because of the logic of the mathematics behind them. Otherwise they would not
be laws. The logic is the form the law is the content.

i.e., having
descriptive and predictive value? That would not seem to conflict with or
require more more than inductive and deductive reasoning.

Logic can’t be in conflict with it self
otherwise it would not be logic.

Does
this effect PCT?

Yes, In
every single way.

translation: “Even PCT must be consistent with physical laws.”
Or are you trying to say more?

Yes I am saying more, PCT can be
mathematically circumscribed by an Imperative calculus then it would be
impossible for proponents to says it’s not consistent with logic, hence a
strong substrate on which to tackle its proponents. As it stands now it’s
very hard to convince people to take a look from another position.

Regards

Gavin

inquiringly,

Martin L

Regards

Gavin

is it to make
commands as a way a relating to others seem more resonable?

···

On 11/5/2010 4:20 PM, Gavin Ritz wrote:
On 11/4/2010 8:38 PM, Gavin Ritz wrote: