Re: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century

From: Dave Zachariah (
Date: Sun Apr 06 2008 - 08:41:35 EDT

on 2008-04-06 00:29 Paul Cockshott wrote:
> What about quantum logics for
> example, or the argument that since only a tiny portion of the sense data entering
> out eyes and ears makes it into conciousness, there has to be some sort of lower
> level logic used by the nervous system that is not reducible to or expressible
> directly in terms of the sort of re-writing rules that dominate the school of
> logic deriving from Frege.

I have not studied quantum computation but I think the issue here is 
analogous to digital circuits. The physical components follow certain 
laws, which we can in part model as a logical system, 'Boolean algebra' 
in this case. Isn't it better to distinguish laws from logic in this 

Suppose the circuit is faulty. We would say that it still follows 
physical laws but that it no longer can be modeled by the logical 
system. The physical implementation of the logic has broken down but the 
causal laws that govern the system remain albeit under different conditions.

> Consider the issue we were debating yesterday about the origins of money, and the empirical
> support for different theories. These assesments are not primarily made using deductive logic,
> but are judgments about the balance of probabilities given certain historical evidence.

I agree. Logic is only used for deducing consequences or predictions. 
The rest is, as you say, about assessments about the probabilities. Such 
assessments could perhaps be formalised in a Bayesian framework but that 
is not what we do in practice.

//Dave Z
ope mailing list

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 30 2008 - 00:00:18 EDT