Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:49 am 1. All logic is dependent upon a series of selected assertions which are rooted within a sea of potentially selectable assertions. A computer cannot select which assertions to begin with.

2. All assertions are empty in themselves

given they are dependent upon a progression to further assertions.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:49 am Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?

1. All logic is dependent upon a series of selected assertions which are rooted within a sea of potentially selectable assertions. A computer cannot select which assertions to begin with.

2. All assertions are empty in themselves given they are dependent upon a progression to further assertions. This empty nature of the assertion is not programmable given the emptiness exists prior to computation. Computation is a byproduct of this empty nature but this emptiness is not programmable given emptiness is not programmable.

3. All assertions, as empty in themselves, are inherent middles to further assertions. This middle nature necessitates all assertions as center points to further assertions given the assertion leads to another assertion. Each assertion is a centerpoint and this nature of a centerpoint is not programmable.

4. Logic is thus rooted in a trifold nature: a chosen assertion, the emptiness of said assertion, and the assertion as a center point. This trifold nature to logic necessitates logic, at its roots, being unprogrammable.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:49 am Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:43 am "Programmable"? This implies an expected programmer.

If you are trying to understand how nature's logic can initiate anything, it has to do with 'contradiction' as being the FORCE of nature. That is, given nothing, everything in such a state is 'true' for being certainly 'false' by our relative perception of it. But this is permissible where no being exists as a 'source'. Nature only appears to 'cause' but is actually just the set of continously infinite abstract possibilities that exist in nothingness. Then the patterns that define subsets of this Totality consistently, are such that can define a 'logic' ...a rule of the patterns that define what we call 'laws' of nature.

While I understand most here do not (or cannot) fathom reality to be just a manifestation of patterns, nature is just the mathematical expression of abstract possibilities based on nothing at all. ONLY this can assure reality exists. The alternative is to either claim some religious belief or just to remain agnostic for pragmatic reasons only.

As to 'programming', if you are thinking of how evolution operates, that is a pattern of 'self-programming': Whichever FITS the pattern of the particular world (subset of Totaltity), gets to survive where other options could have otherwise existed. Technically, no 'program' exists either. The patterns that remain consistent have LONGER extension than those that don't. Thus, if you maintain fitness to the pattern, you illusively interpret 'cause' as existing because of the fact that patterns seem to repeat from the perspective of being IN the 'pattern'.

Skip wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:47 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:49 am 1. All logic is dependent upon a series of selected assertions which are rooted within a sea of potentially selectable assertions. A computer cannot select which assertions to begin with.

No. Logic is dependent upon the ability to discern causal links between events and/or phenomena.

2. All assertions are empty in themselves

If they were empty, there would be nothing to assert.

given they are dependent upon a progression to further assertions.

No. Assertions serve different purposes in different situations.
"Your pants are on fire." doesn't require any further progression.

The rest is equally vacuous.
What you're talking about is a particular kind of logical formula - and even that, out of context. Logic itself is way bigger and more pervasive than that. It starts with a paramecium thinking: My back end feels warmer than my front end. My back end feels better than my front end. Therefore, warm is better than cold.
A minute later, it came up with the first problem: How can all of me feel warm?
And then the first logical solution: I can swim backward, toward the warm.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 10:04 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:49 am Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?

I'm sticking with - computers are programmable - LOGIC is fundamental and unchangeable.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:33 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:49 am Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?

1. All logic is dependent upon a series of selected assertions which are rooted within a sea of potentially selectable assertions. A computer cannot select which assertions to begin with.

2. All assertions are empty in themselves given they are dependent upon a progression to further assertions. This empty nature of the assertion is not programmable given the emptiness exists prior to computation. Computation is a byproduct of this empty nature but this emptiness is not programmable given emptiness is not programmable.

3. All assertions, as empty in themselves, are inherent middles to further assertions. This middle nature necessitates all assertions as center points to further assertions given the assertion leads to another assertion. Each assertion is a centerpoint and this nature of a centerpoint is not programmable.

4. Logic is thus rooted in a trifold nature: a chosen assertion, the emptiness of said assertion, and the assertion as a center point. This trifold nature to logic necessitates logic, at its roots, being unprogrammable.

Yes it is. The assertion at the core of logic is also known as a decision problem.

A determination is the same thing as "choice function" in non-deterministic programming.

This ultimately boils down to the age old philosophical questions of determinism vs free will.
Neither of which precludes a programmer.

In quantum physics this is known as superdeterminism.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:14 pm Yet the choice is determined by a subsidiary program. The program which determines which subsidiary program will be used cannot be chosen except by another program beyond it, and one beyond that. Telling the computer how to make a choice necessitates the computer as not being able to completely exert free will in choice.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:20 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:14 pm Yet the choice is determined by a subsidiary program. The program which determines which subsidiary program will be used cannot be chosen except by another program beyond it, and one beyond that. Telling the computer how to make a choice necessitates the computer as not being able to completely exert free will in choice.

The program is chosen.

The choice isn't.

If you want "completely free choice" - then choose to travel faster than the speed of light.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:30 pm Free will (choice) results in imagination as the formation of possibilities from prior possibilities that are not normally linked together. As such free will results in confusion, confusion results contradiction and paradox, something a computer cannot entertain without shutting down the program. People however can operate on contradictions and paradoxes thus manifesting free will (choice).

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:38 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:30 pm Free will (choice) results in imagination as the formation of possibilities from prior possibilities that are not normally linked together. As such free will results in confusion, confusion results contradiction and paradox, something a computer cannot entertain without shutting down the program. People however can operate on contradictions and paradoxes thus manifesting free will (choice).

That's not true. Anomalies, paradoxes, contradictions and errors happen all the time in programs.

And then the program handles those; or throws its hands up in the air and passes the problem onto another system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_handling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrupt

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:43 pm The manifestation of this free will exists through the creation of art, this art occurs through the manifestation of contradictions/paradoxes ie through the imagination. A computer cannot create art only replicate it as it cannot imagine new possibilities. Given art is the new manifestation of how something occurs, ie the art of metal working, a computer cannot create a new "how" it can only exist through a "how".

The creation of contradiction/paradox, through imagination, is free will as choice.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:45 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:43 pm The manifestation of this free will exists through the creation of art, this art occurs through the manifestation of contradictions/paradoxes ie through the imagination. A computer cannot create art only replicate it as it cannot imagine new possibilities. Given art is the new manifestation of how something occurs, ie the art of metal working, a computer cannot create a new "how" it can only exist through a "how".

The creation of contradiction/paradox, through imagination, is free will as choice.

Can a human create art or only replicate it by re-interpreting their own experiences?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03xMIcYiB80

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFkFf6Zu8i4