- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

Paul Healey wrote:

> It appears, that when this notion of measure is used, the object has no
> identity — bias as in the case of coin flipping, dice throwing, …
> etc., does not belong to the object (=the schema) that is considered to
> be an abstract event. Both the frequency and equally-likely approach are
> just two extremes, that both suffer absorption when it comes to
> developing a winning strategy.

> If this is so, why should it be so dogmatically embraced as if the
> foundations of science depended on it ?

> Perhaps the a priori, is really about something much deeper then our
> culture is willing to take on ?: ‘ … truth is not a minted coin that
> can be given and pocketed ready-made. ‘ Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit
> —

‘Logic’ by itself, is not a sufficient basis for describing physical
reality, and neither is it a sufficient basis for usurping the
Behaviourist position on the Cartesian mind-body problem.

‘Logic’ as it is classically taught, is as "dead" as classical physics.

Quantum physicists, making the statement that classical logic is
insufficient for describing quantum effects, imply that:

 "The physical universe is fundamentally, not classically logical".

For many, this is as disturbing a statement as saying:

 "The universe is fundamentally uncertain."

and will no doubt lead to a great debate such as that between Einstein
and Bohr, except the new debate will be on the more general topic of:

  "How the macroscopic universe appears to be subjectively classically
   logical, and yet its microscopic foundations are physically
   quantum logical."

This is just the mind-body problem honed to a finer resolution.

In the same sense that classical physics was not _replaced_ but superceded
by a more modern physical paradigm, the Behaviourist position need not be
replaced, but instead superceded by a more general theory:

Both quantum and relativity theories have amused us for some time with
their "wow" implications in the macroscopic world:

  Schrodinger’s Cat, Twin Paradox,…

to name only two.

But the debate between proponents of classical logic and quantum logic,
will necessarily require a better understanding of the nature of debates
themselves, because debates are classically fought on the basis of
classical logic and now we have a debate which declares that classical logic
itself is in some way not sufficient or complete.

This debate actually began much earlier in human history, but its most
recent grandiose display is the failure of Alfred North Whitehead and
Bertrand Russell to find a strictly ‘classical logical’ basis for
mathematics.

This lead eventually to Goedel’s "uncertainty theory" which essentially
says that closed axiomatic systems, such as logic, are not complete,
but they are extendable in the same sense that classical physics was
extended by modern quantum physics and relativity theory.

OK, so what is the extension to classical logic that forms the basis
of this new quantum logic ?

It is "analogic".

We can say that analogic is a shell around classical logic:

   {analogy {logy} }

just as classical physics is the macroscopic subset of the
microscopic quantum physics:

   {quantum physics {classical physics}}

but really we should say:

   {quantum physics and relativity theory {classical physics}}

This way of organizing the paradigms as "set elements" is alittle
misleading though, and fuzzy theory can help to explain why. Essentially
it is misleading because the notion of a classical "set" notions derived
from "classical logic" and the new quantum logic requires the new notion
of set superpositions[1].

This inevitably leads one into a treacherous discussion regarding vector
theory and resultants as classically logical, and so they too must be
revamped to incorporate the new quantum logic.

It shouldn’t be surprising therefore, that vector theory has its paradoxes:

 "What happens when an immovable object meets an irresistable force."

is a classic example, but there are others; for instance, what happens
when +2 volts meets -2 volts,  or when +2 billion volts meets -2 billion
volts ?

Their resultants are both zero, and yet these are dangerously different
zeros. This eventually leads to the idea of a vacuum, and the zero point
energy and physicists have a hard time comming up with the idea that a
vacuum is an empty set, but instead use an ‘ad hoc’ model of abstract
probability waves in the vacuum to explain why it seems both empty and
not empty at the same time (like a Klein bottle, or zen’s version of ‘nothing’).

Since vector theory is a large part of relativity theory, you may have the
suspicion that the new logic can unravel the spatio-temporal paradoxes
of relativity theory as well; and you’d be right. When treated as complementary
variables, space and time reveal relativity theory’s inherent "uncertainty
principle". That "space" and "time" are complementary is quite apparent
to computer scientists and mathematicians studying formal language theory,
but as well it is known to holographers who do "spatial filtering" and
a more dynamic kind of filtering called "phase filtering" which involves
time, so we can refer to it as temporal filtering [2]

The Behaviorist stance is very much comparable to the idea that a hologram
is only the sum of the parts. That is, the holographic projection is only
the physical arrangement of many silver molecules. But without an observer,
is the holographic effect there ?  

More to the point, an optical illusion[4] is a highly subjective
experience; what one perceives is dependant on their state of mind
as much as the physical arrangement of the optical illusion itself.
Such effects skirt the mind-body divide and make their analysis
in strictly physical terms impossible, elements of psychology
and physiology are also necessarily brought into these "experiments".

Yet the optical illusion as a drawing on a piece of paper is
a physical "device" made from matter and communicating with its
observer through light[3] and so forms a valid physical experiment.
What quantum physics is finding out is that the physical world
reflects itself in the mind of the observer.

The observer effects the experiment, the experiment affects the
observer. This is a communications between the physical world
and the mental world and the trick is to negotiate a language;
like two different brands of modems trying to decide how to talk
to each other. But everthing is not mearly mechanical as
Behaviourists may announce, rather the mechanical and the
more dynamic subjective effects are integrally arranged.

An optical illusion is a physical arrangement; it is a sculpture of
patterns which is perceived by an observer to have a two or more
characteristics. The human characteristics which make us all
individuals are derived in the same way, but they are much too
complex and dynamic to be classified as deterministic and logical
as the Behaviourist position implies.

We are all essentially works of art built from matter, but it is
our perceptions on the local dynamic effects, which cannot be
simulated by any classically logical computer.

Like the individual silver atom in a hologram, as lonely individuals
we become more and more mechanical and predictable. But our social
arrangement provides us with the opportunity to reflect ideas and
actions off of each other to produce that holographic image of humanity.

In so doing we become more important than mear particles of society,
we affect it, and it affects us. Our decisions become our individual
character and our affect on the character of the whole.

This is where individuals become like self-moving silver atoms in a hologram.
Many people don’t "move" very much during their lives, they choose
a particle place to live and a character to seat themselves in
depending on their interaction with society. In much the same sense,
a dynamic hologram (not the static kind you usually see) would evolve
as time went on.

The holographic effect though is very dependant upon the organization
of the whole. If the organization of a society is chaotic,
the holographic image disappears along with its "virtual world"
in a puff of smoke and mirrors.  Society brakes down and reduces to the
Behaviourists model of dog-eat-dog:  

 Just a bunch of silver atoms that don’t care too much about each other.

A photograph, not a hologram.

The economic market is also such a dynamic "holographic" phenomena in
the sense that it too will collapse if the underlying substrate is too
chaotic. We speak of the inflated bubble bursting in this sense.
Keynesian the reboot is applied.

The more modern dynamic view of Hayek et al tends to think more in terms
of hot-swapping and dynamic regulation to keep the hologram of the market
constantly inflated. It’s alot like riding a bicycle, sometimes you need
to put a kick-stand down and take a rest from the balancing act,
one needn’t crash when tired of the constant riding.

[1] Bart Kosko’s "fuzzy subsethood", in his books "Fuzzy Thinking" and
    "Fuzzy Engineering"

[2] it gets complicated here, so I won’t elaborate further on this having
    little space and time at the moment; the margin is just too small.

[3] there are also auditory and other "illusions" leading to the ideas
    of synesthesia as a forms of "quantum" superposition of sensory channels.
    Here "quantum" refers not to purely  physical effect, but one which
    skirts the mind and body  divide or skirts the analogic and logic divide,
    or the subject and object divide more generally.

[4] http://members.aol.com/Ryanbut/profileblk.gif

     A Priori gaming seems a bit dull, because after all it is so simple
and controlled.  Black Jack, Roulette, and Video Poker all seem so
straight forward.  Yet try to win with mathematical theory.

     The culprit is dispersion.  Dispersion is enormous in such
endeavours.  At 47% (the approximate roulette odds) it is possible to
take 15 straight losses.  Perhaps more if Lady Luck really has a
vendetta.

     I keep thinking of the fact that all physical objects are
describable in mathematics, that they are determined in a strict causal
sequence, despite the complexity.  (Perhaps atoms do sometimes swerve on
their own!)

     Now the Casinos have all the games set for making a percentage
profit.  This is why you have 0 and 00 on the roulette wheel.  Watch out
for the Dealer shuffling everytime he starts losing at Black Jack.  This
keeps the odds even or in his favor (overall in his favor).  And, Video
Poker never quite pays out what it takes in.

     What to do with this A Priori mess!  Give up and lose those
magnificent riches that appear spontaneously in your mind when you think
of Winning.  Of course not.  Back to the grindstone.

     The Mathematics of Probability needs improvement.  New work needs
to be done.  Computers need to use brute force and solve the unruly
problems of probability.  The A Priori must prevail!

     "Tea, Earl Grey, hot."