Hi Harv,

my response was very quick due to time/money constraints.

A little more detail:


Quoting:

"P1: Human experience establishes classical logic as 'true'"

This premise is back to front. Classical logic makes human experience possible. To have "experience" a pattern must conserve against comparison with new patterns. To conserve, requires that it not contradict itself, not flip into something else.

But you may ask, how do you know it didn't flip into something else? And that the something else didn't fit O.K.? But to have any connection of patterns, any fit together, requires constancy at some level, surely? And constancy requires non-contradiction.

What is this: "true"? This measuring rod that "classical logic" is calibrated by?

It is the law of non-contradiction.

But classical logic is based already on the LNC.
So there is no need to calibrate it again? So what is being calibrated? Not classical logic, but "human experience"? LNC with classical logic establishes that "human experience is not contradictory"; as a preferred premise?

"P2: Evaluation of classical logic leads to certain axioms which all of classical logic must be consistent".

It is not just an axiom. Evaluation requires conservation of the pattern being evaluated. No evaluation is possible unless LNC is already there? Or how can you know what is being evaluated? WE are evaluated, created, by LNC; it appears.

"P3: Other 'logics' can be constructed that are self-consistent to their axioms. "

Self-consistence is impossible without LNC; it is a contradiction in terms to talk of constructs here (except that only a layered system could give an illusion of violating LNC; but it is an illusion). Even if patterns kept changing; a construct would require some constant relations that did not contradict into something else. Connections require consistency; so require LNC it appears.

"P4: Other 'logics' can be constructed without the LNC axiom."

No construction can occur without conservation of pattern which requires LNC. Layering may create an illusion of evading LNC.

"C5: The LNC axiom might be limited to human experience"

"Experience" has no meaning without pattern conservation; LNC required for this. Layering (which may produce layers with limited consciousness thus potential for conflict with other layers) may produce ambiguities and illusions of evading LNC.

"C6: Alan is wrong and should cease and desist talk about mumbo jumbo".

Harv, any structure, any logicians' argument, requires bucket-loads of pattern conservation thus LNC. For starters, the logician himself mustn't suddenly turn into a cat, or a star. No argument, no words, can survive comparisons with other data unless they conserve themselves. If everything can contradict, what a mess.

Jesus said to his captors that they would have no power over Him if it hadn't been granted by His Heavenly Father. As God is Existence; one might say the adventurous logicians are using the power of LNC to construct the illusion of dodging it. By layering and restricted consciousness an illusion might be possible; but such ambiguity still requires some application of LNC to get off the ground.

Consciousness gives humans the freedom to choose to live in LNC?

Regards,

Alan