Re: Are there things that don't evolve?

If you are merely talking about the consistency of creation, we're on the
same page. But getting into the description of creation and the
application of logic and math is a different matter. The most direct
application requires idealization. But there appear to be problems with
quanta, so much so that different logics have been proposed. I have to
consider them new logics. But I do not know enough about them to evaluate
the science-logic match.

The description of creation may go on at various levels. Hunter-gatherers
are aware of many things that contemporary individuals don't recognize,
but would not be likely to be aware of traffic. Most of what we need to
watch for is outside of the level of science, but somebody needs to know
the science to produce the artifacts. Sometimes they do not know enough.
I once owned a car that did not run well, even with the attention of an
engineer that came out from Detroit to check it out. Lousy design because
nobody in the company at the time knew enough to get it right.
Fortunately, I don't have to know the physics, chemistry, etc., in order
to drive a car safely. But no knowledge of engineering would have helped
me when the engine tended to die intermittently.

As to contemporary logic, how do you apply the pair
        (p&~p) --> q
        (p&~p) --> ~q
to a real situation? Aristotle used the propositional calculus without
formalizing it, but would not have accepted the pair. Also, in modern
logic 'All unicorns have ten legs' is true, but not for Aristotle.
Descriptions can be consistent in different ways.
Dave

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 02:03:53 EST Philtill@aol.com writes:
Dave,

I can see that you really love logic.

Here is the point, my **only** point, one last time before I give up this
attempted communication:

Do you think that the mathematical logic that is inherent in nature is
evolving? As a theoretical physicist I can assure you that it is not.

All electrons have half-integral spin. All particles with half-integral
spin have wavefunctions that are anti-symmetric with respect to particle
exchange. Therefore, all electrons have wavefunctions that are
anti-symmetric with respect to particle exchange. Nature didn't need
permission from human logicians before this could be true. It was
already true for about 13.7 billion years before humans arrived on the
scene. I don't care to quibble about how this feature of nature fits
into any formal logic system (or fails to fit). The simple fact is that
it is inherently true of nature that a causal relation "A \in B" and
another causal relation "B \in C" ensures the condition "A \in C". This
is a fact of nature which illustrates the essential logic of nature. It
is NOT evolving.

We could not develop any physics if the universe were irrational and
incomprehensible, or if rationality could evolve so that it was
essentially different in one era of the universe compared to another era.
 The rationality and comprehensibility of nature is **not** evolving.
This is an essential thing about reality, not a formal logic system
developed by humans. I am not, nor ever have been, talking about formal
logic systems.

God bless,
Phil
Received on Tue Mar 28 15:31:03 2006