main index

P00: frame around

P01: olicognography

P03: infrastructures




Graph Start

Core n°
Half complex graph








Harder (?) Logics

Do not miss that the purpose of this page, out being an introduction of links for future documents is to gather some naive comments on sorts of formalisms that may look like closer to our problems.

Basic Olicognograph: Exploring one Level Between Micro & Macro

Harmonization of Logics

Holism or Wholism

It is to make a difference since holism which can be an from overview belief also local with strange means from general theosophy missing local level of complex unity, mixing everythings and hot-stochastic agitation. This may be sympathetic when anchored in sorts of natural free life, in a small quiet place, dedicated to the organic agriculture for survival and spiritual metaphysics enough isolated so as to avoid religious controversies. There do as you like even if we think better to trust the cheese of your goats, right yeast, no foodborn microbial disease in excess, rather than thinking that your people is the choosen one for leading a monopoly of virtue and the holy-hotest goat cheeses business in the whole world, superior to any other cheese, other goats for the best profits ont that.

Wholism in our hope, better than a perfect complete goodwill, would be more a conscious nodes, with plenty of specificities given by its backyard and all during life a constant working hypothesis for maintenance of complex network well behaving with essential issues, relevant to most others.Working hypothesis, at humane distance range on how to comprehend enough, to make good practices with functions of most things at range and allowable; caring heterogeneity, curiosity and diversity of life in sustainable ways. That is without disconnecting uncaustiously complex networks but, cleaning, saving or repairing, preserving; not wasting too much of inputs, staying open to wise transformations, diffusing and exchanging wih positive effects for everyone; as far as you can and without prejudging about other parts of other networks or pretending how they should behave, exactly as you imagine. Behaving like positive cooperative nodes within networks having either understood how to cooperate either enough careful and modest for not disturbing environments only in negative ways. All requiring diffusion of careful information (better a 'choice' than a 'weapon' ). Act carefullly with flows, have fair sense of communication of essential knowledge, and so on.

Relevant scientific facts, at our social level, if truly existing should be very complex. Then, if you pretend to be scientific, think that deterministic formal representations of physics (and the corresponding formalism) of our biological-ecological levels should be much more complex than formal economy actually pretends. There may be also the problem with its algebra. In exact sciences, you can follow the measure in the experiments and have plenty of formulas including of special algebra. You may have empirical cover or umbrella of value enough and numerical analysis moreover probably convergent to the right values of main physical qualified phenomena. Anyhow in the condition of isolated systems as well as properly delimited systems containing open subsystems it can get far or a remain or residue will stay, in any instance small, well under maximum entropy. If higher than is either a mistake of calculus, a deficient comprehension or overspeculation. Think also that in complex world a minimum exist but may be not with unit of maximum complexity locally reached.

Articulation away ...

Infinite real number asymptotic formalism expect implicitly, complex unit stays for enough time. This, with complex units cannot be for long: a time's life, at best, often shortened. Such sort of formal behavior only apply in absolute cold conditions and perfectly isolated system (even with thermodynamics there is superfluidity of helium, which close to absolute zero temperature just a photon make this liquid 'burst out'. Also, apart from the fact that real infinite algebra is incomplete, and probabilities well smoothed by averaging, asymptotic methods do not like bifucations and do not care for transformations. Operations also are all ssumed simples: terms mathematic expression can become incredibly 'complicated', but operations stay almost perfect (addition, substraction, multiplication, division, derivation, integration). Phenomenological evidence of basic physics on one side do well with simple operations and iterations (time life is huge - for our scale - and pieces of amounts enough indifferent (not too framed by environments) so the formal problem of complicated operations is bypassed or operators as used in physics are enough simple. Transformations ? that is change of identity is care at the most dundamental level by quantic formalism then, for example, in chemistry, you have special management like the order of reactions and the Law of action of mass.

In social sciences, with much more speculations and denial of materialist anchors, narrower but overinflating conceptologic minds use only a 'small chunk hard to swallow' differential calculus. There it is hard to know if what you measure should stay with the same algebra. Any scientists with artistic practice in their fields of expertise, of course, prefer to use simple algebra, sometimes ignoring by the way that their field is biased compared to community practices, meanwhile experts prefer so to solve for the doctrinal fate of their discipline. In practice of most situations, algebra is always assumed to be the most simple and that creates wrongness. Moreover, delays of reporting measures on empirical processes are important and since most experiments are impossible, used estimates have often vanished their values.

The control of the environment of measures is very hard if not impossible. Sinece any have different position respect to models, roles if not of perspective the result is that most formalism in social sciences are to question. Regular continuity is doubtful but this is mostly ignored by formalism meanwhile well practiced. Values of averages are not necessarilly the best criteria. Rigidities and fragmentations promoted so are obvious and revealed when compared predictions and effectively measured. Diversity or heterogeneity are obivious but preferably ignored by policies like macroeconomics then also mismanaged since obvious in real microeconomics . Heterogeneity is essential but homogeneity imposed by 'mental imperialism', which fairly or unfairly pretends to make the rule of the economical law, and first of all, formalism is used as a justification to make the point of scientificity. Formal dogmatism is 'imbreakably', regular, simple, infinite, ideally normative and any should follow these convergence to nothingness of 'pensée unique' without mercy.

Mechanics of formalism of pure economy as well as many other formal alternative are all trying to be comprehensive since their science, all toward perfect utopia of their own. Economics calculus means, tries, repeats and simulates substitutes to experiments, often not balancing the essentialism of speculation toward realities; meanwhile also ignoring the realism of dialectic and the weakness of democratic practices, because also often uncaring already existing tools, and ignoring those available. Observed probabilities and statistics have either not good measures either are poorly managed. As a result you can find many small books of proper management of statistics and probabilities.

Logics: Alternatives to Primary First Order Logic (bleak imitations of)

Primary first order logic is the logic of yes or no: construction of logics starts with right or false assessment a core proposal. Then all is shaped not to meet contradictions in this; despite the 'no' (or false) evidenced hard and the yes could be no more than the myth of an impossible past (something like an ambition to inverse the time, ignoring that time is what you have: the reality and the picture you have of it as conscious mind. The global purpose of primary logic is to clear issues but it proceeds to examine and clear into rigorous procedures preciselly avoiding 'complications' as overlaps, confusions or transformations. May we observe that reality as it is has emerged because having solved prexisting contradictions and still going on with diversity and emergence. Life also emerged so: plenty of contradictions on which constructions develop to overcome the fate designed by entropy and scarcity of its brutality. Succeeding to establish regular processes also, in environments enough cooled for not to destroy more complicated intermediate states, so succeeding with life, to maintain, reproduce and diversify multiple small local disequilibria. Without having to redo all to, thanks to transmission of information; mainwhile having also environments enough diverse and rich were to pick all what is needed by economical maintenance and simultaneously taking advantage and accelerating local entropic trends there; Lucky Earth's societies if enough wise with Sun's inputs. Then in non single shot, like would be life and death of everythings, many intermediate 'things' have had their life between and as rigorous systems.

It is not to misundertand that first order logic intent to create a perfect formal system with numbers failed, so its use must be retamed. More in the compulsion of leaders that pretended to abused of it, for maintain the ambition they shared with ' determinism of progress'. Now, first order logic, determinism and progress have still a role to play if with not missing, at the same time 'con-fusion' with other means and care the abyss of dump and ghosts or illusions making the reality of cognititon. You practical users should also care plenty of problems of translation of formal methods and intentions of actions to develop in realities; like mirror's effects, switches of perspectives, 'quantic definitions' in retaming realities. To pursue further and stay on the trails of good use of formal and necessary methods; not toward the myth of global comprehension of fixed perfection but toward local cares of situations often 'discontinuous' and strategic game of continuity of common means and meanings: the illusions to have, come from, maintain and return afterall, all in the dust of the dump.

Todays' formal questions are about how other, second and of higher order logics proceed, out of the myth of global comprehension of perfection, eventually undercarried by first order logic. Then to learn how to use the diversity of non primary logics in more local ways with efforts of coordination or articulation. So as to express in practice and smart sense of solving formal antinomies, paradoxes, contradictions, enough phenomenologically related to societies essential issues. Coming this with good humane arts of technological sustainable cares; arts, also non material, eventually spiritual, with obligations of controls of speculations and of humane share of results. On diversity of logics: few introductory comments for profanes:

  • In common life, there is both cultural and cognitive reasoned treatments of common situations, communications, etc. with many simultaneous different purposes. To include pieces of learning, cultural expressions on what formal sciences propduce and publically diffused. With physical objective world(s) there are phenomenological evidence, social behaviors, scientific practices and variety of experiences. This makes most existing societies not 'non logical', at least copying, formulating operations in robust and logical ways. The aim is to be positivelly critical, criticize, behave better, should not ignore existing formal and practice basic knowledge; since they can even help you to renew questions, understand, respect and sustain your reasons, if your way is sustainable.
  • Formal sciences appeared and develop trying to build logical systems, mixing concepts and trying to make them 'pure' (decontextualized), to enhance epistemological logics and so on. Profanes or scientists all try to do this way when discussing but for most all since their own perspective and mixtures. Historically and until now scientific processes did it not just in a rigorous determinist way (despite preteding it for some). Rigorous ways have mostly been retrospective, after then submitted to the 'critics' of specialized peer reviews, expanding into tiny niches of same type of perfect ambition and overinflating them exuberantlywith covering comprehensive concets of their doctrine. They abuse now the tools of the revolution of information and can reach sooner some sort of insulated perfection and almost completed coherence. And most also having enough access to public media, for pretending to be essential. With less overinflated speculations formal sciences need to be diffusing like flavors, important in anything we manage, not to discard from democratic processes, less as small pieces of insulated expertise, nor as abused and biased comprenhension of everything as dogmatic systems, receiving highly complicated applied exact science, but never as panacea able to solve everythings.
  • Practically what an empirical and profane users can do is care about the modern mathematics taught during their secondary studies, keep on using basic tools (tables of truth, tree of decisions, problems posing) when setting practical problems, follows her/his logical feelings, care and listen common sense logic circulating accross societies, ask for synthesis handfully formated to their use, stay openminded, listen, ask frankly, keep tolerant, be positivelly careful, mostly anonymous democrats in their society. Be curious, respectful, cautious and modest in anything when out (their place or domain), their own societies like when traveling, trading, exchanging and behaving.

For some remarks on sorts of 'more piecewise logics' (many comments come from Encyclopedia Universalis):

  • Deontic logic (L.) is Logic of allowance or prohibition, mainly systematized by von Wright. It has a core paradoxe of 'reserved obligation'.
  • Imperative L. considers what 'have to be made' and has similarities with deontic L. but it is irreducible to it. It may be used in ethics. One of its problem or paradoxe is it lacks of formal truth.
  • Epistemic L. is about operators of belief and knowledge and can be considered as a reinterpretation of modal L. It can manage also concepts of 'positive and negative introspection' and is based on model set.
  • Modal L. are interested by the ways that values are right or false. They receive formal expressions as non trival extension of usual (common sense) logic. One of the historical philosophically enunciate started with Aristotle. Such logics are inseparable from an ontological system. Predicates L. which, with Aristotle, considered an essential relation and an accidental one between enunciate sentences. Modern forms of modal L. has been established by Lewis. Their mplication sets 5 basic forms of modal L. Godel showed that the construction of a semantic for intuitionist L. was equivalent to that of modal L.
  • Inductive L. is about implications. Seminal is the introduction by Carnap of the concept of partial implication which open inductive L. to theory of probability. It sets also a relation between classical implication and deductive implication. It is formal that is, based on independent proposals.
  • Propositional L. or logic of questions emerged with the observation that question (as one point) may behave as a quantificator. Both (question point and quantificator) transform an open sentence into a more complete one. Questions are of decisions, category belonging. Propositional L. uses a matrix and presuppose that, at least one unit will correspond to the matrix. Epistemic and deontic logics emergence allowed more subtle analysis of questions.

Now, for taking account of complexities, inuitvely we think you will have to examine closer if antinomies paradoxes and such complicated enunciates do not reflect realities and think about the ways they can be created, question, managed and be locally solved. Consider to be deductive as well as inductive: you face a situation, not to rush out because a paradoxe since it is life (neither to observe that any simple antinomy or paradoxe is not solvable, simple ones come from the fact that logic is tightened to the minimum expression. The sort of complex ones to the opposite may be used (so 'created') to fix a non desirable trend and thanks to the process redesign it, introduce criteria to change the 'course of the curse' or the argument use as a landmark: an obligation, be this more with sustainability and virtue rather than lone corruption and private discretionary abuse.

Bridging Qualitative Logics of Amounts and Logical Quantifications

Having an easy overview of the sort of qualitative-logics methods when combining with 'quantifications-qualified' is also 'activelly and sparsilly' explored by formal sciences, more probably than in arithmetic logics. Bridges between, have also their dispersed conceptions, eventually made harder by axiomatic processings of rigorous development of logics. Some relevant practices of logics could be:

  • Inductive L., deductive L. as related by partial implication and also open to a degree of confirmation. They manage concepts of rank, symmetry, adjustment, appropriatedness, learning by experience and relevancy.
  • Fuzzy L. introduced, between yes and no, a third indecisive part, on which operations are blindly assumed, while operated according some rules to decide, then retaken later according evolution. Its result is used in feed-back controlled systems that is 'real' electronic regulation. Rather managing exactly captured quantitative values these are in an interval or a qualitative value, say for example as hot, cold of between, substituing the non determined by a progressive scale, and applying a sort of 'normed' operations in this between. Theoretic pure logic at the respect may be what Smarandach have explored.
  • Three Valued or n-valued L.s have characteristics tables of truth adding one or more column(s) to the true and false issues. Various systems exist different by their table of truth. They are verifunctional that is the value of a complex enunciate is a function of a the values of its parts. Example of systems are from Kleene, Lukasiewicz, Bochvar, van Fraassen. intuitivelly, because questioning is the introduction of doubt between true-false binary or liner logic we have a special interest in. Moreover it seems that in computing ternary logic could fit as well as if not better than binary logic. Implicitly it is, in fact contained in delay and may be Turing's automata. Time's may be too, even linear of this sort considering time either not just as a segment but a cut of a line (or oriented 'arrow of time' or a branching process (at least a 'go on-happens-do not happened').
  • Continuum of induction: Carnap inductive logic leaded to a concept of scientific laws where language procedures were especially useful but not necessary. This was refuted by anti-inductivist epistemologists as Popper. Later Hintikka demonstrated the possibility of Carnap's system, where the degree of confirmation of universal enunciate is not nil.
  • Categories introduced to characterize mathematical structures, relating objects by arrows. The theory had to focus on more specific issues for being rigorous and useful; Especially applied to design algebraic topology. It manages concepts of homology, morphisms automorphism including isomorphism (structures that stay or transform preserving one properties or the other; sheaves in logic and geometry, equivalencies of structures or functors. All may be relevant to patterns exploration.
  • Non monotonous logics may be those were to find irregularities, interesting to approach in the quest for complexities. Irregulaties to managed between qualifications which may have discrete partial definitions, eventually bicharacterized or even a bit more. A real subject-object is, intuitivelly better model if qualified (so it can change of definition) and quantified, then named and characterized by a distribution of probability) and so on.
  • Quantification of logic may starts with semantics (logics of meaning) with fixed or variable domains. Observe that concepts crosses as entire logics. Have their own unified development or contained by pieces within others, eventually switching roles, like quantifier (which are terms like 'whatever', 'there exist', 'there exist one and only one'). Remember also that many concepts have a simple logical and/or mathematical expression meanwhile they are used with a different meanings in profane language. The point is not to confuse them (as reduction would like) but to question in abstract exercises of thinking, what sort of inspired processed can be between a pure, rigorous simple enunciate (you previously ignored) and complex reality of a term you are used to what could be a complex program. Being the ambition to fill these gaps with other things and esoteric hysterical short-cuts: determinism is logically as well as phenomenologically wrong but separating in a strict it just let the gap between open to unwise speculation as well as to 'conceptual entropic destructive curse'. May be be there to train yourselves profanes and knowers, negentropically conceptually preparing real issues could be better.