But this e-mail didn't go through even though it was sent to the right
5.3.2012 14:50, Tuukka Virtaperko kirjoitti:
> You got everything about right. I'd like to refine the idea just a bit.
>> I understand this. You are creating a set of "romantic quality" and
>> simplifying such a set with 4 variables. As you say, these variables
>> must be "defined", otherwise such a set is useless. As you are aware,
>> there are many different ways to formalize "Romantic Value", and the
>> choice of variables is important so that we can all agree on them
>> (define). It may also be important to have non-overlapping variables,
>> so we do not get caught up in one variable changing the nature of
>> another since this can get messy and require complex algebra, which
>> will only expand exponentially with each new relationship (infinitely
>> growing recursion?). Keeping it as simple as possible is important as
>> was said by William from Occam. It is understood that such simplicity
>> is just a formality, and life is not simple. It is also understood
>> that we are not trying to reduce life to a set of equations. Words do
>> not reduce life to the static, they simply add to the dynamic nature
>> of life, as I see it.
> From a /logical/ point of view, there is no romantic quality. That is
because logical symbols cannot be /logically/ proven to correspond to
any kind of sensory experiences. Furthermore, any arbitrary argeements,
according to which they do, cannot be expressed by means of formal logic.
> Instead, romantic quality is, /from a logical point of view/, defined
as the intersection of opposite subjective and objective patterns.
"Opposite" means that if the romantic levels are R1, R2, R3 and R4,
level R1 is the intersection of the bottom pattern (inorganic) of LILA
and the top pattern of subjective quality in RP. The intersection is
assumed to be nonempty, even though its content cannot be logically
expressed. This "oppositeness" is how, in a formal context, the concepts
"objective quality" and "subjective quality" acquire different meanings.
> Even if romantic quality were an ordinary set, it is, technically,
not "simplified with 4 variables". Instead, it is split into four
subsets, each of which has exactly one predecessor (in order of
emergence) and exactly one successor.
> A variable, on the other hand, is used to decide, how many subsets do
we want to have. This variable is what I called "accuracy" earlier. If
accuracy is set to 4, each pattern system (subjective quality, objective
quality, normative quality) is split to 4 subsets, with the subsets of
objective quality forming the static value patterns in LILA.
> As far as I can tell, any logic is dependent on arbitrary axioms.
> Math is logic, and the equalization of mass and energy through a
> constant conversion is simply a logical conversion of units. That is
> E=m only the units are different. The interesting thing about the
> relationship between energy and mass is that it is a "phase change"
> similar to water going to vapor. Like the evaporation of water, the
> phase change of mass to energy requires energy input (heat of
> vaporization), so that it takes energy to get energy. This then
> becomes self realizing so that a fire can spread using its own energy.
> Here you are ignoring what is called "the symbol grounding problem".
No axiomatized logic has any "units" in the sense physics does. The
difference between logic and physics, or at least on of the differences,
is that logic does not even aim to solve the symbol grounding problem,
whereas physics, in some sense, does.