Coffee Space


Listen:

Origin of Logic

Something that really interests me is the origin of logic. There are many questions that interest me, such as:

I think the answers to these questions would reveal some interesting facts about the way we live and why we live. Perhaps these questions are too complicated for any of us to ever fully understand, but that sure won't stop me from trying to find the answers anyway. Below I will attempt to answer these questions when I think I get close to answering them.

Where did logic come from?

I've been toying with the idea that logic may be a product of randomness, where in the presence of a large random something the smaller random somethings just become background noise. This would in turn provide a relatively stable platform for other events to occur and one can see how some sort of binary logic may be formed if a world of randomness. Of course, outside this stable area, things are still chaos. But inside that random area, however unlikely, everything seems and remains to be stable.

Of course, this relies on a world where there are rules, or perhaps the rules themselves are randomly occurring at random intervals, if time itself is not one of those rules. In an infinite space, the probability of a finite Universe occurring with stable conditions could be said to be infinitely possible, where such a Universe would occur infinite times. It would then suffice to say that the Universe was no accident at all, in fact, the Universe was always going to be pulled into existence.

If this is of course true, I would expect random things to occur of a small magnitude that would not be predictable in any sense. This would be the 'background radiation' of such a place, where randomness defines structure. As time goes on, the dominating rule would disperse allowing more unstable rules through the net. In effect, I would expect the stability of the Universe to break down.

This would also hint that other structures of logic are indeed possible, where perhaps the most unlikely to occur event always occurs for example. It might be said that such a place not be stable enough for any kind of structure to survive, but of course there may be a structure so unlikely to survive that it does survive due to the nature of the 'Universe' it's in. Perhaps objects interact strongly when they are nowhere near one another and are also unpredictably interacting. Probability may be much more important to forming structures in such a place where the structure is dependant on how unlikely an event is, structures may be seen to overlay one another whilst interacting with the furthest parts of the overlay. As crazy as this sounds, perhaps this would explain why two quantum particles could become entangled for example, even over what we perceive to be great distances.

No theory is complete without predictability, hence I would predict that in a closed system we see elements of randomness. In the world we perceive, this would correlate with particles and anti-particles randomly coming into existence, collapsing back on themselves.

In some strange sense I'm of the opinion that if you can view something in terms of information (information theory), it's perfectly reasonable to look at it in terms of logic and probability. For example, if you look at a specific area of space, you may say that it contains the information matter or no matter (this may be extremely over simplified). It's then equally acceptable to look at it in terms of true or false for the question "matter?". Furthermore, you can then start to look at it in terms of the probability of finding matter there, a value from 0 to 1. The extra encoded information is from experience of nearby values which gives a point in space an awareness of it's surroundings without suggesting what it's surroundings actually are.

What's the purest form of logic?

I believe there is a simple answer to this, but the result is actually very profound:

A == A

This doesn't seem extremely significant at all, but let me tell you that it's extremely interesting that something can be itself, in a physical or abstract sense. Imagine if this didn't hold true, that something isn't guaranteed to be itself.

This at first doesn't sound very plausible, but consider a Universe where everything is constantly changing. "Frame to frame" (the fastest measurable time gap due to whatever limitation) yields the fact that it is more often than not what it last was. From a logic point of view, no rule is held globally for a significant amount of time for there to be any predictability in the system.

Does the Universe define logic or does logic define the Universe?

To me, this one is fairly obvious. If the Universe only exists in places with rules, then logic to me defines the Universe. Rules could also theoretically exist in places that the Universe does not. I think that when one can only exist in the presence of the other, but the other is not bound by this, one must rely on the other.

Other than nothing, randomness and logic, are there any other decision making techniques?

Although we haven't seen the true existence of nothing, I think we can at least predict how it would behave after seeing closer to nothing. There's no evidence I'm aware of that nothing would behave any other manner than doing nothing.

Randomness seems to occur everywhere. At the point we can't predict something at all, to the observer this is random. There may or may not be an explanation, but until the variables are known and understood for this effect it's the same thing.

Logic, I hope this has been obvious in the above as to how logic could occur.

So the question is, are there any others? If there are, where are they? There appears to be zero evidence for any other "decision" making process in the Universe. Whether a mixture or the purest form, all decision making techniques appear to be categorized in one of those areas.