∀x (x = x)

Or, as Bishop Joseph Butler so aptly expressed it, "Everything is what it is, and not another thing." — Fifteen Sermons (1729), Preface § 39.

No principle can be universal, for the simple reason that there is no possibility of verifying it for every place in the cosmos.

The concept of universality is purely theoretical and, as is well known, used to extend a principle in the most general way possible (general does not mean universal).

Typical of Aristotelian logic, this concept has been borrowed over and over again by philosophy, which has nothing to do with science, nor with mathematical logic in the strict sense.

Gioacchino de Candia, very good reply. I too hold this, with a slight exception: There can be physical situations in logical reasoning where we have to assert that something is itself and nothing else, something has some extension (extended nature), something has some change, etc. But here the universality does not come all by itself. Due to the maximality of the generality implied and the impossibility of having any other conclusion, we may be compelled to hold some principles as universal. But this is not prescribed for all situations. At least in some general to general situations this becomes a theoretical necessity.

Karl Pfeifer, you have said it in a few words. Thanks.

The principles of logic are generally considered to be universal and applicable to any field of study or domain of discourse. However, the application of these principles may require clarification of the specific ontology or concepts being discussed in a given field or domain. Additionally, different fields may use variations or extensions of basic logical principles, and there may be limitations to the applicability of these principles in certain contexts. In commonsense logic, the principles may be more flexible and open to interpretation, but it still require a certain level of ontological clarification.

Ex falso quidlibet sequitur, ex vero verum sequitur are candidates for being the most fundamental principles of logic.

> I doubt if the principles of logic can be applied universally except when the ontologies of the fields of discussion of the objects under logical treatment are clarified.

The ancient Egypts used ropes and winches to build the pyramids. Did they use machines? The answer depends on whether you consider winches machines. What should a question answering system say?

Does that mean a person should have a single fixed opinion on whether winches are machines or not? No, of course not. But for the current context, be it defined by time or persons one discusses with, a set of assumed axioms (propositions) should be maintained, which can be different to ones used in another context. For example, if you talk to a child, winches can be machines, if you talk to a technician, winches can merely be simple tools.

Regards,

Joachim

Ex falso quodlibet sequitur is denied in some logics to avoid the problem of explosion. Ex vero verum sequitur is sometimes denied because of its relation to the law of excluded middle (i.e. in classical logic p→p is equivalent to p v~p) which law some wish to reject. I suppose one could argue that ∀x (x = x) is not a principle of logic because '=' is not a relation between propositions whereas logic, strictly speaking, is about relationships between propositions. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If you mean by logic rules of inference, they apply only to sentences, but there they apply to all that are ‘well formed’. A principle like A=A is definitional of =,and so always holds.

While in answering up to now, a lot has been said which one may more or less agree with, including bishop Butler's famous 'bonmot', I find Ahmad's answer especially helpful - in deepening and accentuating the situation reflected by Raphael's thread starting question.

But I think, we 've to be aware that wrt science this is just the situation, which Quine reflects in his often mentioned discussion of the 'ontological commitment' of a formalized theory (prominently first in 'On what there is' ).

And we had in this thread's context a good start, to reflect the adequacy of Quine's suggested criterion

[ elsewhere, while accepting Quine's grosso modo setting of the question,

I gave (as a proposal) an in technical detail deviating (and even a bit more holisitic) account ] .

Friedrich Wilhelm Grafe, thanks. I have used a very generalized ontologically and epistemologically adequated ('adequated' in my opinion!) version of ontological commitment in my published books. Your suggestion is very good, I find....

I think that no principle is universal.

I do understand that nothing is universal. There can be those notions that are so universals that we cannot do without them in any theory or experiment.

In the logician Alfred Tarski's view, logical inferences are between sentences. So logic is dependent on the sentences being 'well formed' in the language. Then it is a matter of formal relations between sentences, which are valid or invalid inferences. So no, logic is not universal, it only applies to well-formed sentences. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tarski/#LogCon

William Berkson,

This intervention of yours, in my opinion, is difficult to accept. If inferences are "between" sentences, what is an inference in fact? I think Tarski has hereby intended the relativity of the well-formed state of sentences, and not any uselessness or diminution of the significance of sentences.

Now, sentences are not mere separate entities with respect to the attainment of a true conclusion that depends at least on the sentences that go before them in the inference. The validity of an inference depends on a system of some sentences.

Now, if there are no general rules of inference in the name of the importance of inferences' being between sentences, whole discplines of logic (the various logics) will dilapidate.

Hence, there are general rules. My question is about the existence of the most general of such rules, and the acceptability of these rules in all or a few theoretical circumstances. If the so-called most general rules of inference (and of course also their presuppositions) from sentences (not merely from the "between" of sentences) are applicable only in some general (which?) cases, which are these cases?

If they are applicable elsewhere or everywhere, what are the reasons? In this latter case, will logic encounter insurmountable problems in relation to the ontology that any given logic presupposes?

All these are ontological and methodological problems to be clarified. IT IS EASY TO WASH OUR HANDS OFF SAYING: YOU GO ABOUT WITH THIS WORK, AND WE ARE NOT BOTHERED. THE QUESTIONS ARE TO ME AND TO THOSE WHO WOULD BE HAPPY TO BOTHER THEMSELVES ABOUT THESE QUESTIONS.

Please note: These last few sentences are not aimed at you. They are for those who go cynical about logic.

Raphael

Tarski sharply distinguished syntax and semantics, with inference being determined by syntax only. As the article says he is on of the two most important logicians of the 20th century, if you disagree, you need at least to address his views. I, like my old teacher Popper, find them extremely helpful.

Thanks, William Berkson. I am happy to address these problems.

I find not only Tarski, but also Popper too rigid in the sense that they went too pragmatic about the first principles. At some point, of course, all of us must be pragmatic. But including as much of the generalities as possible would also be an ideal, If Tarski had done that while planning to limit himself to inference determined by syntax, would it not have been better?

Personally, I did not find his way as helpful as I would have hoped it to be. That is all.

Raphael

Muhammad Shahnewaz Bhuyan, why do you think that no logical principle is universal? Or, at least universal enough to be considered useful if used as universal?

https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-three-laws-of-logic.html

What about the nature of the logic that linguistic-analytic philosophy sustains and uses? Is it the same as what logicians use, or different, at least in the foundations of logic?

Of course, projected as the method of all thought, logic seems to be unique and defined.

But in actual practice the definition and use of the foundational principles of logic in the various scientific disciplines and in various philosophical schools differ.

Moreover, the manner in which the sub-disciplines and sub-schools of the sciences and philosophy connect their versions of logic with the material object of research in these sub-disciplines seem to differ.

This difference, in my opinion, is due to (1) the difference of their perception of the suitability of the foundational principles and methods of logic and (2) the perceived level of applicability of such logical principles and methods to the material objects of the said sub-sciences and sub-philosophies.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO CHARACTERIZE LOGIC VIA THESE APPLICABILITY CONSTRAINTS OR VICE VERSA? CAN THIS SORT OF ALTERATIONS AFFECT ALSO THE LOGIC OF LINGUISTIC-ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY?

Friends, if possible put this question to analytic philosophers too. Their responses and critiques are important for the project of IMAGINING THE POSSIBLE AND NECESSARY CHANGES IN LINGUISTIC-ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY IN THE FUTURE.

Corcoran characterizes pragmatic philosophies with the following general points within their outlook:

(1) The meaning of a proposition is to be identified with its experimental and practical meaning, i.e. with the totality of possible experience it predicts. (2) The truth of a proposition consists in the long-term realization (past, present, and future) of its meaning. (3) Belief in the truth of a proposition is warranted to the extent that it has been tested in practice and found to be satisfactory (by the person or community having the belief). [Corcoran 2019]

The one thing that Corcoran does not mention (nor does any other logician, scientist, or thinker so far, as my knowledge goes) is that pragmatists never include under ‘propositions’ the foundational propositions of systems. My question here is about the propositions in the form of possible pan-disciplinary foundational principles for all sciences and philosophy together. Pragmatic kinds of definition of the demands of ‘practical’ meaning, prediction, etc. are not to be found useful or realizable at the propositional formulations of the foundational Categories or of other first principles.

Not that no pragmatism is accessed to while attempting to find the foundational Categories of all sciences and philosophy. But the said kind of Categories have the least pragmatism at use. Before laughing at the attempt, one should at least recognize that such an attempt aims to reduce the element of pragmatism from science, thought and life.

Moreover, realization of the “working” demand as the condition for anything to possess rationality has been misused by sciences, technologies, cultures, and human individuals everywhere as a part-licence to justify what they have already been doing. Such pragmatism, encountered consistently everywhere, in all strata of human action, science, philosophy, society, etc., works for me as the major academic trigger to reflections on, and to plan an exciting but base-level reform of, the foundations of thought, sciences, and humanities – of course in the simple manner that I can. If such pragmatism were in principle an unexceptionally insuperable human fate, no science and thought would have grown in the foundations, methods, and results, the sciences as it was centuries ago would have sufficed for the human race today; and no other, more general, thinking would have taken shape and would exist.

Unfortunately for the various shades of pragmatism in scientistic thinking and its practice on human feeling, thinking, bodies, lives, society, politics, and finally on humanity as such and the environment, there does exist thought that is or attempts to be more general than the sciences. Would I be permitted to try the same in a different manner? Their very existence in whatever meagre capacity invalidates the lethargic conclusion and claim that pragmatism is an insuperable fate of humans. I do not now theorize on the unethical and inhuman aspects of pragmatic practices!

Well, it is helpful to begin with making a distinction between human-communication logic, engineering logics, and novelty logics. These two logics serve two very different purposes and mixing the two or trivializing the difference will only add further confusion.

Thus, I set up logic as the art of working with distinctions in a disciplined manner. And I always will ask what my interlocutors are trying to communicate (tell me, ask me, point out to me) before I begin looking at other questions.

So when you ask, "Which principles of logic are universal? And why?", my question for you is, which logic did you have in mind when you wrote down that question? Human communication logic? One or all engineering logics? Which one of the many novelty logics?

I am also very curious what you had in mind when you wrote, "in common sense logic everything goes"? Could you clarify what you are attempting to communicate with "common sense logic" and "everything goes"?

Margaretha Hendrickx, I appreciate the questions you have put forth.

Let me begin citing your definition: "I set up logic as the art of working with distinctions in a disciplined manner." I find it very good.

Let me contribute a parallel definition: Logic is the art of working with further conclusions from similarities and distinctions. (Please note: this is an ad hoc definition written inspired by your definition. Nothing exceptional about my definition.)

There are many (dozens of) versions of philosophical logic, mathematical logic, computational logic, etc. The most fundamental principles of all these seem to be the commonsense principles of Identity, Excluded Middle, etc. which the more than 2300 years of Western logical traditions have not lost.

"Everything goes" is a statement made lightly in order to signify the ignorance of distinctions between the various kinds of logic.

@all You raise an important point. It is true that the principles of logic cannot always be applied universally, as they depend on the ontologies and concepts specific to each field of discussion. For example, the logical principles applied in mathematics are different from those used in linguistics or philosophy.

However, there are certain logical principles that can be applied across different fields of study. For example, the law of non-contradiction, which states that a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time, is a logical principle that can be applied universally.

It is also important to note that the level of precision and rigor required in logical reasoning may vary depending on the field of study. In some fields, such as mathematics, the logical principles are very precise and rigorous, while in other fields, such as literature, the logical principles may be more flexible and open to interpretation.

In any case, it is important to clarify the ontologies and concepts being discussed in each field of study before applying logical principles, in order to avoid any misunderstandings or misinterpretations.

Margaretha Hendrickx, as you have promised in the message, I am sure you will share your thoughts. I wait for them. Kindly read also my reply to Ahmad Al Khraisat hereunder.

Ahmad Al Khraisat, thanks for the contribution.

I have been working on a long-term book project: SCIENTIFIC AND META-METAPHYSICS: CAUSAL GROUNDING OF PHYSICS, MATHEMATICS,

AND LINGUISTIC-ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY.

In that work I have written a good bit on the extents, manner, and fields in which the fundamental principles of ordinary logic may well be applied. But the thoughts therein are expressed in a stray manner, and without citing anyone because these are my own reflections. Hence I am not able to quote from that text.

But one thing to mention in general is this: When the truth probability of a strain of arguments in any field of study or conversation does not end in clear indications on purely ontologically based questions (of identity, difference, and/or excluded middle) at the base of the questions being discussed, it is advisable to apply any of these three principles with great caution -- a healthy suggestion that many philosophers and scientists have not been following.....

MATHEMATICS AND CAUSALITY:

A SYSTEMIC RECONCILIATION

Raphael Neelamkavil

What are the bases of the problem of incompatibility of causality with mathematics and its applications? I suggest that it is the dichotomy between mathematical continuity and discreteness on the one hand and the incompatibility of applying any of them directly on the data collected / collectible from some layers of phenomena from some layers of nature. I clearly point at the avoidance, by expressions like ‘from some layers of phenomena from some layers of nature’, of the centuries of epistemological foolishness, because this is the point at which phrases and statements involving ‘data from observation’, ‘data from phenomena’, ‘data from nature’ etc. are very gross, without epistemological and ontological astuteness.

If causal continuity between partially discrete “processual” objects is the case, then the data collected / collectible cannot be the very processual objects or provide all knowledge about the processual objects. But mathematics and all other research methodologies are based on human experience and thought based on experience. Hence, it is important to define the limits of applicability of mathematics to the physics of data is the only way to approximate beyond the data and the methodologically derived conclusions beyond the data.

The same may be said also about logic and language. Logic is the broader rational picture of mathematics. Language is the symbolic manner of application of both logic and its quantitatively qualitative version, namely, mathematics, with respect to specific fields of inquiry. Here I do not explicitly discuss ordinary conversation, literature, etc. We may do well to instantiate logic as the formulated picture of reason. But reason is limited to the procedures of reasoning by brains. What exactly is the reason that existent physical processes undergo? How to get at conclusion based on but beyond data and methods? If we may call the universal reason of Reality-in-total with a name, it is nothing but Universal Causality.

How to demonstrate this as the case? ((To be developed further.))

A caveat is in place here: When I write anything here, you have the right to ask me constantly for further justifications. And if I have the right to anticipate some such questions, I will naturally attempt to be as detailed and as systemic as possible in my formulation. Each sentence is merely a part of the formulation. After reading each sentence you may pose me questions, which certainly cannot all be answered well within the sentences or after the sentences in question.

Hence, I tend to be as systemic as possible in each of the following sentences. Please do not accuse me of being too complex in my expressions. Your (and our) mathematics, physics, and logic can be very complex and prohibitive for some. But would we all accuse these disciplines or the readers if the readers find them all complex and difficult? I do not create such a state of affairs in these few sentences, but there are complexities here too. Hence, I express my helplessness in case any one of you finds these statements complex.

Insistence on mathematical continuity in nature is a mere idealization. It expects nature to obey our merely epistemic idealization where processes outside are vaguely presented primarily by the processes themselves in a natural manner, represented by the epistemic activity of the brain in a natural manner, and idealized via concepts expressed in words and sentences by the symbolizing human tendency to capture the whole of the object by use of a part of the human body-mind. The symbolizing activity is based on data, but the data are not all we have.

Insistence on mathematical continuity in nature as a natural conclusion by application of mathematics to nature is what happens in all physical and cosmological (and of course other) sciences insofar as they use mathematical idealizations to represent existent objects and processes. Logic and its direct quantitatively qualitative expression as found in mathematics are powerful tools. But, as being part of the denotative function of symbolic language, they are tendentially idealizational. By use of the same symbolizing tendency, it is perhaps possible to a certain extent to de-idealize the same symbols in the language, logic, and mathematics being used to symbolically idealize representations.

Merely mathematically following physical nature in whatever it is in its part-processes is a debilitating procedure in science and philosophy (and even in the arts and humanities), if this procedure is not de-idealized effectively. If this is possible at least to a small and humble extent, why not do it? Our language, logic, and mathematics too do their functions although they too are equally unable to capture the whole of reality in whatever it is, wholly or in in parts, too far beyond the data and their interpretations!

This theoretical attitude of partially de-symbolizing the effects of human symbolizing activity by use of the same symbolic activity accepts the existence of processual entities as whatever they are. Perhaps such a generalization can give a slightly better concept of reality than is possible by the normally non-self-aware symbolic activity in language, logic, and mathematics!

This theoretical attitude facilitates and accepts in a highly generalized manner the following three points:

(1) Mathematical continuity (in any theory and in terms of any amount of axiomatization of logical, mathematical, physical, biological, social, and linguistic theories) is totally non-realizable in nature as a whole and in its parts: because (a) the necessity of mathematical approval of any sort of causality in such a cosmology and by means of its systemic physical ontology falls short miserably in actuality, and (b) logical continuity of any kind does not automatically make symbolized representation activity adequate enough to represent the processual nature of entities as derivate from data.

(2) Absolute discreteness in nature, which, as of today, is ultimately of quantum-mechanical type based on Planck’s constant, continues to be a mathematical and physical misfit in the physical cosmos and its parts (may not of course be so in non-quantifiable “possible worlds” due to their absolute causal disconnection) and is a mere common-sense mathematical compartmentalization: (1) because the aspect of the causally processual connection between any two quanta is logically and mathematically alienated in the physical theory of Planck’s constant, and (2) by reason of the “epistemology of box-type thinking” (see Ruth Edith Hagengruber, Uni-Paderborn) implied by the non-self-aware symbolic activity of body-minds.

(3) Hence, the only viable and thus the most reasonably generalizable manner of being of the physical cosmos and of biological entities is that of existence in an extended (having parts) and changing (extended entities and their parts impacting a finite number of others in a finite amount) manner. Existence in Extension-Change-wise manner is nothing but causation. Thus, every existent is causal. There is no minute measuremental iota of time wherein such causal existing ceases in any existent. this is CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE PROCESSUAL OBJECTS.

The attitude of treating everything as causal my also be characterized by the self-aware symbolic activity by symbolic activity itself, in which certain instances of causation are avoided or increased or avoided incrementally. This is at the most what may be called freedom. It is fully causal, but causal not in a specific set of manners and causal in some other specific set of manners.

PHYSICS and COSMOLOGY even today tend to make the cosmos either (1) mathematically presupposedly continuous, or (2) discrete with defectively ideal mathematical status for continuity and with perfectly geometrical ideal status for specific beings, or (3) statistically indeterministic, thus considered partially causal, or even considered non-causal in the interpretation of statistics’ orientation to epistemically logical decisions and determinations based on data. If not, can anyone suggest proofs for an alleged existence of a different sort of physics and cosmology until today?

A topology and mereological physical ontology of CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE PROCESSUAL OBJECTS, fully free of discreteness-oriented category theory, geometry, functional analysis, set theory, and logic, are yet to be born. Hence, the fundamentality of Universal Causality in its deep roots in the very concept of the To Be (namely, in the physical-ontological Categories of Extension and Change) of all physically and non-vacuously existent processes, is yet alien to physics and cosmology till today.

LINGUISTIC PHILOSOPHY and even its more recent causalist child, namely, DISPOSITIONALIST CAUSAL ONTOLOGY (1) attribute an overly discrete nature to “entities” without ever attempting to touch the deeply Platonic (better, geometrically atomistic) shades of common-sense Aristotelianism, Thomism, Newtonianism, Modernism, Quantum Physics, etc., and without reconciling the diametrically opposite geometrical tendency to make every physical representation continuous, (2) logically comatose about the impossibility of linguistically definitional approach to the processual demands of existent physical objects without first analyzing and resolving the metaphysical implications of existent objects irreducibly being in finite EXTENSION and CHANGE, and (3) hence, unable to get at the CAUSALLY CONTINUOUS (neither mathematically continuous nor geometrically discontinuous) nature of the physical-ontologically “partially discrete” processual objects in the physical world.

PHENOMENOLOGY has done a lot to show the conceptual structures of ordinary reasoning, physical reasoning, mathematical and logical thinking, and reasoning in the human sciences. But due to its lack of commitment to building a physical ontology of the cosmos and due to its purpose as a research methodology, phenomenology has failed to an extent to show the nature of causal continuity (instead of mathematical continuity) in physically existent, processually discrete, objects in nature.

HERMENEUTICS has just followed the human-scientific interpretative aspect of Husserlian phenomenology and projected it as a method. Hence, it was no contender to accomplish the said fete.

POSTMODERN PHILOSOPHIES qualified all science and philosophy as being perniciously cursed to be “modernistic” – by thus monsterizing all compartmentalization, rules, laws, axiomatization, discovery of regularities in nature, logical rigidity, etc. as an insurmountable curse of the human project of knowing and as a synonym for all that are unapproachable in science and thought. The linguistic-analytic philosophy in later Wittgenstein too was no exception to this nature of postmodern philosophies – a matter that many Wittgenstein followers do not notice. Take a look at the first few pages of his Philosophical Investigations, and the matter will be more than clear.

THE PHILOSOPHIES OF THE SCIENCES seem today to follow the beaten paths of extreme pragmatism in linguistic-analytic philosophy, physics, mathematics, and logic, which lack a FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPT OF CAUSALLY CONCRETE AND PROCESSUAL PHYSICAL EXISTENCE.

Hence, it is useful for the growth of science, philosophy, and humanities alike to research into the CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE “PROCESSUAL” OBJECTS.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Mathematical_Continuity_in_Nature_Vs_Causal_Continuity_between_Partially_Discrete_Processual_Objects_Have_patience_to_read_till_the_end

I believe it is common knowledge that mathematics and its applications cannot prove causality directly. What are the bases of the problem of incompatibility of physical causality with mathematics and its applications in the sciences and in philosophy? The main but general explanation could be that mathematical explanations are not directly about the world but are applicable to the world to a great extent. Hence, mathematical explanations can at the most only show the ways of movement of the processes and not demonstrate whether the ways of the cosmos are by causation.

No science and philosophy can start without admitting that the cosmos exists. If it exists, it is not nothing, not vacuum. Non-vacuous existence means that the existents are non-vacuously extended. This means they have parts. Every part has parts too, ad libitum, because each part is extended. None of the parts is an infinitesimal. They can be near-infinitesimal. This character of existents is Extension, a Category directly implied by To Be.

Similarly, any extended being’s parts are active, moving. This implies that every part has impact on some others, not on infinite others. This character of existents is Change. No other implication of To Be is so primary as these. Hence, they are exhaustive.

Existence in Extension-Change is what we call Causality. If anything is existent, it is causal – hence Universal Causality is the trans-science physical-ontological Law of all existents. By the very concept of finite Extension-Change-wise existence it becomes clear that no finite space-time is absolutely dense with existents. Hence, existents cannot be mathematically continuous. Since there is change and transfer of impact, no existent can be absolutely discrete in its parts or in connection with others.

Can logic show the necessity of all existents being causal? We have already discussed how, ontologically, the very concept of To Be implies Extension-Change and thus also Universal Causality.

What about the ability or not of logic to conclude to Universal Causality? In my argument above and elsewhere showing Extension-Change as the very exhaustive meaning of To Be, I have used mostly only the first principles of ordinary logic, namely, Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle, and then argued that Extension-Change-wise existence is nothing but Universal Causality if everything existing is non-vacuous in existence. For example, does everything exist or not? If yes, let us call it non-vacuous existence. Hence, Extension as the first major implication of To Be. Non-vacuous means extended, because if not extended the existent is vacuous. If extended, everything has parts.

A point of addition now has been Change. It is, so to say, from experience. Thereafter I move to the meaning of Change basically as motion or impact. Naturally, everything in Extension must effect impacts. Everything has further parts. Hence, by implication from Change, everything causes changes by impacts. Thus, we conclude that Extension-Change-wise existence is Universal Causality. It is thus natural to claim that this is a pre-scientific Law of Existence.

In such foundational questions like To Be and its implications we need to use the first principles of logic, because these are the foundational notions of all science and no other derivative logical procedure comes in as handy. In short, logic with its fundamental principles can help derive Universal Causality. Thus, Causality is more primary to experience than the primitive notions of mathematics.

Logical equivalence and equality have different connotations of validity, however rigidly they are asserted. Thus, e.g., the De Morgan Law: Not (b and a) is equivalent to Not b or Not c. This is an equivalence, not equality. If an equality may be termed “true”, it directly connotes the final positive boundary value of the equality-premiss. The reference to the matter-of-fact is here epistemically valid, if the statement is shown true.

But the “true” of an equivalence is not of the absolute truth of the equality. Hence, the validity of the equality is less in the equivalence.

The sinking of validity of the equality in the equivalence is the sign of an orientation to some modality created by some counterfactuals.

Traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity.

This is clear. But how to show that they are universal, especially when we cannot count any one truth as final and fully defined? This is the issue here.

NEW GENERATION SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY: HOW?

I believe that relativising induction and deduction and connecting them with one another under some very general framework of thought will be a grand starting point to revolutionize the foundations of the whole of philosophy and science, and of logic and linguistic analytic philosophy in particular.

Induction or Deduction: Mutually Exclusive in Logic, Science, Mathematics, and Philosophy of Science?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Induction_or_Deduction_Mutually_Exclusive_in_Logic_Science_Mathematics_and_Philosophy_of_Science

Logic, as we commonly understand it, is a system of thought based on the reasoning capabilities of the human mind. It allows us to take premises, apply rules, and arrive at conclusions. We view these principles as universal due to their applicability to the wide range of situations we encounter in our daily lives.

However, when we push beyond the confines of human experience and begin to probe the complexities of the universe, we find instances where these principles appear to falter. Traditional logic isn't always equipped to handle the strange, often counterintuitive phenomena observed in realms such as quantum physics.

Particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously in a quantum superposition, an assertion that seems to defy the Law of Non-Contradiction. Entangled particles influence each other instantaneously over vast distances, which challenges our logical understanding of cause and effect.

These instances do not necessarily mean our logical principles are incorrect, but they highlight that our traditional logical framework may be incomplete. It's like trying to comprehend a three-dimensional object with two-dimensional understanding—our perspective is inherently limited.

While the principles of logic remain powerful tools for navigating the world as we perceive it, we must remain cognizant of their limitations. They represent one dimension of a multifaceted reality, and unlocking a more comprehensive understanding of the universe may require us to augment, or even transcend, our conventional logic.

Alessandro Rizzo,

This is a very good realization: "However, when we push beyond the confines of human experience and begin to probe the complexities of the universe, we find instances where these principles appear to falter." Mostly it is so. The whole of analytic logic is developed for just for normal life-situations, technically scientific applications, and today for direct computer applications. Of course, this need not be the case with math. Math has a wider set of background considerations today. Ordinary logic is always based on direct needs.

But the following is difficult from the viewpoint of the realistic necessities behind the formulation of the foundations of any sort of logic. "Particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously in a quantum superposition, an assertion that seems to defy the Law of Non-Contradiction. Entangled particles influence each other instantaneously over vast distances, which challenges our logical understanding of cause and effect."

Either it is because such physics is extremely fragile; otherwise it is because any sort of logic cannot really apply to such physics. Even counterintuitive forms of logic falter there!

Hence, I have been following a different course of thought in order to conceptualize what basically would be problematic in quantum, statistical, and other sorts of counterintuitive physics. You can see some such works of mine in very short summary forms in some of my discussion questions (suggested at the end of this intervention).

I recognize that you are an informatics person. An information for you: Just today I have finished the work of a 200 pp. book in English and Italian:

COSMIC CAUSALITY CODE AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICS, MIND, AND VIRTUAL WORLDS

and

IL CODICE DI CAUSALITÀ COSMICA E L’INTELLIGENZA ARTIFICIALE: FILOSOFIA ANALITICA DI FISICA, MENTE, E MONDI VIRTUALI.

Now I must begin searching for a publisher....

Here are the said suggestions to some of my discussions in RG:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Irrefutable_Argument_for_Universal_Causality_Any_Opposing_Position

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Criteria_to_Differentiate_between_Virtuals_and_Existents_in_Scientific_Theories

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Reification_of_Concepts_in_Quantum_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Mathematics_and_Causality_A_Systemic_Reconciliation

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Linguistic_Philosophys_Inconsistencies

Dear Raphael Neelamkavil,

Your exploration of the philosophical underpinnings of quantum physics is both thought-provoking and challenging. As someone who has grappled with the mysteries of the quantum world, I appreciate your efforts to question and redefine our understanding of these complex concepts.

You rightly point out the limitations of conventional logic when applied to quantum phenomena. Indeed, the quantum world often seems to defy our everyday understanding of reality. Quantum superposition and entanglement, for instance, challenge our intuitive grasp of cause and effect, as well as the principle of non-contradiction. However, I would argue that this does not necessarily mean that these principles falter, but rather that they take on new meanings in the quantum realm.

Your concept of Universal Causality is intriguing. The notion that everything that exists is in causation, even quantum-mechanical processes, is a bold one. I would argue, however, that causality in the quantum realm may not be as straightforward as in the macroscopic world. Quantum mechanics often deals with probabilities rather than certainties, which adds a layer of complexity to our understanding of causality.

Your criteria for differentiating between "virtuals" and "existents" is an interesting approach to understanding scientific theories. The idea that anything not in Extension-Change is non-existent is a compelling one. However, I would caution against too rigid a definition of existence. The quantum world has shown us that reality can be far stranger than we might imagine.

Your discussion of reification in quantum physics raises important questions about the nature of mathematical entities like wave functions. It's true that we must be careful not to confuse our mathematical models with the physical reality they represent. However, these models have proven to be remarkably successful in predicting the behavior of quantum systems, which suggests that they capture some essential aspect of quantum reality.

Finally, your analysis of potential energy and the wave function collapse is insightful. These concepts are indeed more complex than they might appear at first glance. However, I would argue that they are useful tools for understanding and predicting the behavior of physical systems, even if they do not correspond exactly to physical entities or processes.

Your exploration of these topics is a valuable contribution to the ongoing dialogue about the nature of quantum reality. However, there are a few points to discuss.

1. **Universal Causality**: While your concept of Universal Causality is intriguing, I believe that causality in the quantum realm may not be as straightforward as in the macroscopic world. Quantum mechanics often deals with probabilities rather than certainties, which adds a layer of complexity to our understanding of causality. It's not that causality doesn't apply, but rather that it may manifest in ways that are not immediately intuitive.

2. **Existence and Non-Existence**: Your criteria for differentiating between "virtuals" and "existents" is an interesting approach. However, I would caution against too rigid a definition of existence. The quantum world has shown us that reality can be far stranger than we might imagine, and phenomena that don't fit neatly into our conventional understanding of existence may still have significant physical implications.

3. **Reification in Quantum Physics**: Your discussion raises important questions about the nature of mathematical entities like wave functions. However, while we must indeed be careful not to confuse our mathematical models with the physical reality they represent, these models have proven to be remarkably successful in predicting the behavior of quantum systems. This suggests that they capture some essential aspect of quantum reality, even if they don't correspond exactly to physical entities or processes.

4. **Potential Energy and Wave Function Collapse**: Your analysis of these concepts is insightful. However, I would argue that they are useful tools for understanding and predicting the behavior of physical systems, even if they do not correspond exactly to physical entities or processes. The wave function collapse, for instance, may not be a physical process in the conventional sense, but it is a crucial concept in the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

I appreciate your efforts to challenge conventional wisdom and push the boundaries of our understanding. Even though we may not agree on all points, such dialogue is essential for the advancement of science.

Alessandro Rizzo, thanks a lot for the fine formulations. Very wise and thoughtful. Congrats. At the end of this intervention I give 2 of my discussions, which are on the QM and Statistical notions that are involved in physics. Let me express just a few thoughts hereunder, with an introductory statement: I have been into this field of publication at least for more than 2 decades; but by way of reading and reflection, I have been in it for more than 3 decades.

Our statistical measures, e.g., of the position of an electron at a given time, does not depend on the model of statistical interpretation that we give, but instead, they depend on the very statistically managed measurements and their proportions of certainty of discovery, prediction, determination, or definition thus achieved. Hence, the varied successes of QM and statistical physics at this level in predicting the related phenomena are all due to the application of the mathematical apparatus, and the model thus achieved, to physical instruments.

That is a sort of algorithm-driven instrumentalization, in a general sense. This, e.g., is exactly why quantum informatics and the various quantum technologies can have success stories.

Let me illustrate this sort of success with a simple example. There are two leaves on a tree at a distance of one meter, but one over the other. Drops of water fall onto the first, and get flown onto the second. We create a signaling system as the drops fall on the first and the second leaves. The nature of light signals take care of the technology behind the signaling. We do not have to bother why light signaling is the way it is!

Here we know that the drops are not exactly spherical / globular. But, for the purpose of mathematical applications, we consider them as spherical drops and reduce them even into the shape of points for the sake of "mathematical precisioning" within the context of the mathematics available -- but which does not harm the signaling. We know clearly that theoretically these are not absolute truths or models...!

The signaling system is related directly to the temporal and spatial approximations of the falling of the drops on the two leaves. As the signals fall on another electronic device (at a distance), and the signals trigger a certain motion on the device. Using this system, let us suppose that we can instrumentalize some other physical process. Whatever the actual physical process and the shapes involved in fact are, the system works and produces the expected results!

We may later give a detailed physical explanation of the approximations involved in the implementation of the theory of, say, "Water Drop Signaling". These are not merely interpretations, but also closer approximations to what is happening in the reality externally to our interpretation. Note clearly: the theoretical model and approximations used in it are all just approximations of what really is the case in nature. We are not able to delve into all the processual layers of the object set and unearth all possible explanations of the processes and all their layers.

In order to apply our theory of the specific and precisioned processes with all their complexity in physics, we need to create instruments that work in accordance with this new theory and other related these physical and other theories which work only at a certain level of instrumentation in the given case. What works at the electronic level need not work at the nano level of physical activity.

We cannot also finalize our theory by stating that whatever works at the nano level is final and that there are no deeper layers within the object set. Even as we discover deeper layers and begin to formulate methods of instrumentation at that level, the instruments can continue to work without any hindrance. The only thing is that the instruments can further be made more precisioned and more effective. This does not work as an argument against the existence of the deeper layers beyond the nano structures!

That is, this means that the first set of interpretations and their instruments can go on to work and produce technological successes. They will continue to yield successes. This is why even now Newtonian physics yields many successes, especially at the engineering level!

Similarly, the successes of QM need not suggest that they capture some essential aspect of quantum reality in a very exact manner. Of course, this is the case to a certain extent (say, statistically), but this certainly at a certain narrowly real interpretational level.

The statistics here is a model, and therefore, is based on the measures of our ability to capture the causes and the processes within a given circumstance and sample. Statistics is thus the admission of the extent of reach into the exact correspondence of the truth projected by our measurements with respect to what is actually happening in the object process!

But this fact of lack of absolute truth in our models and theories does not affect the successes at the level of application of the possible experimental results of the theory! Now you see clearly that what quantum physicists call as the statistical truths of quantum physics are not truths but models, using which there are certain instruments and their theory of apparatus-wise obedience of quantum physics.

This is also the case with respect to Relativity. Just take the case of the Lorentz factor: Root of [(1 - (v-squared) divided by (c-squared)]. What does it in fact mean? That I am willing to measure the movement process (v) of a particle only in terms of the experimentally rather well determined / fixed luminal and luminally comparable energy propagations c.

But this means also (and exactly) that, since I use luminal velocity as the criterial velocity (merely because I have natural vision and instrumentational vision at the level of c at this epoch of the history of advancements in science), my calculation forbids v from exceeding the luminal velocity limit c!!!

Does this mean that there should not be superluminal velocities?

If there are real-valued (not complex-valued) superluminal velocities, whereby the superluminal velocity in question is C1, C2, etc., which can replace the c, and c can be placed at the place of v in the nominator, in the Lorentz factor. Thus, we have a real solution for the EPR problem, too!

After all, the c is not fixed or fixable as an absolute constant except by a convention that has proved it to be so in our region of the universe, and not for all the possibly existing worlds! Using this convention, we can continue to make our Water Drops Signaling work. But this success in measuring the lack of temporal lag in the working of the instrument need not mean that c is a universal constant for all the regions of the cosmos.

The cosmos may have a finite number of local universes or even an infinite number of them. In both the cases -- and in the latter case surely -- c may be replaced with C1, C2, etc. in other regional universes. That is, the highest possible velocity within a big bang local universe anywhere in the infinite-content cosmos can only be determined by the maximum density achieved at any one big bang of the given local universe, in a series of its oscillations between bangs and crunches. (I have treated this in my book of 2018 and in some discussions in RG, which will be given at the end of this reply.)

Nevertheless, miraculously clear and working precision is to be had in many scientific theories and experiments, both on earth and in the outer space, using this special theory of relativity! Even QM uses the Lorentz factor freely!

Should these successes mean that the Lorentz factor should be an eternally fixed proof for the so-called criterial limit-nature of c?

Now I believe we can think of a possible solution for the EPR problem! I have suggested one such in 3 of my works. I think, therefore, that what we need is a range of differently-valued c and the many relativity theories in terms of them.

I have discussed such questions in detail, including a detailed theoretical solution to the EPR problem, in three of my printed books (2014, 2015, and 2018).

I should salute you for your openness and genuineness of scientific spirit, which permit you to see many important points in the notion of theory formation in science and philosophy. Not merely of my ideas, but also of others ideas.

I am a mad man. I have dedicated my life to some such projects in the form of books. To avoid peer reviewers' ire is not easy. Hence, I may not get the most renowned publishers to publish my books. I should also forget about publishing articles in reputed peer-reviewed journals! This is my fate, and also my pleasure. I think some future acceptance (at least after a few years or decades of my death) is forthcoming.

And kindly take a look at the following discussion sessions. I think you will enjoy them. And thereafter I give a SET 2 of discussion links, which give the discussions on the cosmological problems suggested above.

SET 1:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_basic_insecurities_of_physics_especially_of_statistical_physics

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Causality_Necessary_in_Physics_Philosophy_and_Other_Sciences_in_Place_of_Statistical_Bayesian_and_Other_Theories_of_Causality

SET 2:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_the_cosmic_or_local_black_hole_singularity_be_of_infinite_density_and_zero_size

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Source-Independent_Velocity_of_Pure_Energy_vs_Causality_vs_Superluminal_Velocities

https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_the_cosmos_is_1_finite-content_or_2_infinite-content_Is_there_finite_or_infinite_creation

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology

Dear Raphael Neelamkavil,

Your thoughtful and extensive response is deeply appreciated. The time and dedication you've devoted to these intricate concepts shine through, and your perspective brings a refreshing viewpoint to our discourse.

You assert that our statistical measures in physics are heavily influenced by the mathematical models we've formulated, a position that resonates with accuracy. These models, while approximated by nature, have served as the bedrock of our comprehension of quantum mechanics, enabling us to generate predictions from this understanding. However, as you astutely pointed out, this doesn't necessarily indicate that these models encapsulate the entire scope of quantum reality. Perhaps it's more accurate to state they represent our best tools available for interfacing with and comprehending the quantum world, given our current technological capabilities and conceptual understandings.

Your analogy of abstracting water droplets to points for mathematical precision provides an excellent illustration. Fundamentally, the models we employ in physics are simplifications of reality, designed to encapsulate the most pivotal aspects of the physical phenomena we investigate. But it's crucial to avoid mistaking these models for reality itself. They merely represent our best current methods of describing and predicting reality.

Your comments concerning the Lorentz factor and the speed of light are strikingly thought-provoking. Indeed, the assumption that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit in the universe is underpinned by empirical observations within our observable universe and within the framework of the theory of relativity. The concept of superluminal speeds would require us to radically revise our understanding of the universe.

Your courage and determination to challenge the established scientific framework are admirable. Authentic progress in science often originates from those brave enough to question the status quo and expand the boundaries of our understanding. I'm confident that your work will find the audience and appreciation it deserves, for the truth in science has a peculiar way of making itself known, irrespective of its immediate reception.

The possibilities you suggest, such as various relativities predicated on differing c values, are genuinely captivating. This kind of innovative thinking often ushers in paradigm shifts in scientific thought.

Your ongoing commitment to these questions is inspiring, and I anticipate with eagerness the exploration of the discussions you've linked. I hold firm in my belief that science thrives on open discourse and a diversity of perspectives. Hence, although we may not concur on all points, the value of dialogue is irrefutable.

Thank you for your participation in this intellectually stimulating conversation.

Alessandro Rizzo, I have revised my previous reply and detailed it further, also extending its cosmological implications. In fact, I had written the earlier version of the response in a hurry, in about 15 to 20 minutes. Hence the revision of the same.

Please see also the SET 2 list of RG discussions, given at the end of the revised response. These are the cosmological ones. Thanks.

Dear Raphael,

Embracing your insights, the light cast by statistical measures in our understanding of quantum mechanics is impressive. They serve as a beacon in the labyrinth of quantum phenomena, born from the marriage of algorithms and instrumentalization.

The water drop signaling system, as you've painted, is a vivid illustration of mathematical approximations at work. Science walks a tightrope between reality and approximation, juggling precision with pragmatic simplicity. The certainty of mathematics may not always mirror the uncertainties of reality, and vice versa.

The discussion of various levels of physical activity and the evolution of our tools to meet these levels holds significant weight. As we continue to broaden our understanding, we must also adapt and refine our toolkit. A set of tools apt for one scenario might not apply to another.

In addressing the interpretations of quantum reality, you are pushing the envelope, provoking us to reevaluate our grasp of the universe. Though we navigate the quantum realm with the compass of statistics and models, we must stay mindful that these are but the footprints of reality - giving us direction, but also concealing a sea of unknowns.

Your exploration of the Lorentz factor and the hypothesis of superluminal velocities are mind-stretching. The cosmos, in its vast expanse, may hide surprises that challenge our ingrained theories.

Your proposition of different relativities based on maximum velocities is intriguing, urging us to step outside our comfort zone. Your suggestion hints at the reality that the map we hold is not the territory, and our comprehension of this territory is in a state of perpetual evolution.

Closing my response, I am reminded of the sentiment that the tranquility between our scientific theories and the universe's phenomena is born from understanding. Our quest is to deepen this understanding, and your insightful contributions are a cornerstone of this journey.

Eager to continue this enlightening exchange,

Alessandro

Thanks, Alessandro. Giusto adesso ho visto che sei italiano! Just 2 days ago I finished a work in English and in Italian: Cosmic Causality Code and Artificial Intelligence: Analytic Philosophy of Physics, Mind, and Virtual Worlds, circa 200 pp., and its self-made Italian version (corrected by native speakers): Il Codice di Causalità Cosmica e l’Intelligenza Artificiale: Filosofia Analitica di Fisica, Mente, e Mondi Virtuali, circa 220 pp.

Am looking for a publisher.

Raphael

Certo Raphael,

ti suggerisco di considerare Elsevier. Questo editore, con una forte presenza internazionale, è leader nel campo dei libri e delle riviste di scienza e tecnologia.

Ciao Alessandro! Ma loro normalmente accettano solo libri dai professori...!

I have been revising this short discussion paper of mine in RG. It is an attempt to correct some basic attitudes in physics. Just now I have written an introduction to it. Please read it here. In a few days I shall upload the whole lead-text of this discussion for your reading and comments. Here please find only the introduction:

FOUNDATIONS OF AXIOMATIC PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE

1. INTRODUCTION

I get surprised each time when some physicists tell me that either the electromagnetic (EM) or the gravitational (G) or both the forms of energy do not exist, but are to be treated or expressed as waves or particles propagated from material objects that of course exist. Some of them put in all their energies to show that both EM and G are mere mathematical fields, and not physically existent fields of energy propagations from bodies.

This is similar in effect to Newton and his followers thinking honestly and religiously that gravitation and other energies are just miraculously non-bodily actions at a distance without any propagation particles / wavicles.

Even in the 21stcentury, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity and its various versions have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists – miracles such as the mere spacetime curvature being the meaning of gravitation and all other sorts of fields.

A similar veil has been installed on the minds of many physicists by quantum physics too. We do not discuss it here. Hence, I have constructed in four published books a systemic manner of understanding these problems. I do not claim perfection in any of my attempts. Hence, I keep perfecting my efforts in the course of years. The following is a very short attempt to summarize in this effort one important point in physics and in the philosophy of physics.

I BELIEVE THAT THE TRADITION OF LAPPING UP WHATEVER THEY SAY BASED ON THEIR MANNER OF USING MATHEMATICS SHOULD STOP FOREVER. PHYSICISTS ARE NOT TO BEHAVE LIKE MAGICIANS, AND THEIR READERS SHOULD NOT PRACTICE RELIGIOUS FAITHFULNESS TO THEM.

The Fallacies of Space, Time, and Spacetime in Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fallacies_of_Space_Time_and_Spacetime_in_Physics

Physical and Exact Sciences and Axiomatic Philosophy: Introducing Grounding (long text)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical_and_Exact_Sciences_and_Axiomatic_Philosophy_Introducing_Grounding_long_text

Causality and Statistics: Their Levels of Effect and of Explanation

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Causality_and_Statistics_Their_Levels_of_Effect_and_of_Explanation

The Fate of “Source-Independence” in Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Monopoles

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fate_of_Source-Independence_in_Electromagnetism_Gravitation_and_Monopoles

Can what are termed "mathematically consistent" natural laws necessarily be physically consistent? If they can be, then mathematics becomes physics (and for that matter it becomes any other mathematical science). But if math is different from all these sciences, the adequacy and applicability of math to physics and other sciences cannot be 100%. If that is the case, it is very important that physics (and other sciences) be helped constantly to choose the most suitable math. This help can come from the same science/s only in a partially realizable manner. Nor can math take up this task fully well. Hence, a generic science beyond all these including math and logic must take charge of improving the remaining portions of inadequacy and inapplicability of math to physics and the sciences. Which could that science be? I hold that this most general science need not contain all that philosophy has so far understood itself to be. But something of the philosophy of these sciences combined with the philosophy of math, logic, etc. would be an ideal option.

Essential Reason in Physicists’ Use of Logic: And in Other Sciences Too!

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Essential_Reason_in_Physicists_Use_of_Logic_And_in_Other_Sciences_Too

Preprint ESSENTIAL REASON IN PHYSICISTS' USE OF LOGIC: IN OTHER SCIENCES TOO

How Does Physics Know? The Epistemology Presupposed by Physics and Other Sciences

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_Does_Physics_Know_The_Epistemology_Presupposed_by_Physics_and_Other_Sciences

Preprint MATHEMATICAL SOURCE OF FLAWS IN COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES: MATHE...

Preprint THE EPISTEMOLOGY PRESUPPOSED BY PHYSICS AND OTHER SCIENCES R...

PHYSICAL-PROCESSUAL REPRESENTATION OF IRRATIONAL NUMBERS

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical-Processual_Representation_of_Irrational_Numbers

THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS

3.1. Traditional Physical Categories

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Ontology_behind_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Grounded_Physical-Ontological_Categories_behind_Physics

Grounded (New) Physical-Ontological Categories behind Physics

Preprint THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS: CRITIQUE OF TRADITIONAL PHYSICA...

A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS: Beyond the Two Millennia

https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_SIMPLE_GAME-CHANGER_CAUSALITY_FOR_PHYSICS_Beyond_the_Two_Millennia

https://www.researchgate.net/post/DEFINITION_OF_THE_ONTOLOGY_BEHIND_PHYSICS_5_Paragraphs

DEFINITION OF THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS (5 Paragraphs)

THE ANOMALY IN MATHEMATICAL / THEORETICAL PHYSICS (Short Text)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_ANOMALY_IN_MATHEMATICAL_THEORETICAL_PHYSICS_Short_Text

Here a serious and somewhat complex matter to discuss:

NON-FOUNDATIONS OF ‘WAVICLES’ IN EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX: Bases for Quantum Physics to Evolve (Maybe a physical-ontological Breakthrough)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/NON-FOUNDATIONS_OF_WAVICLES_IN_EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN_PARADOX_Bases_for_Quantum_Physics_to_Evolve_Maybe_a_physical-ontological_Breakthrough

Preprint A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS Beyond the Two Millennia

AGAINST COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION, etc.: A Critique of Identity, Simultaneity, Cosmic Repetition / Recycling, etc.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/AGAINST_COSMIC_ISOTROPY_CONFORMAL_CYCLIC_COSMOS_ETERNAL_INFLATION_etc_A_Critique_of_Identity_Simultaneity_Cosmic_Repetition_Recycling_etc

Preprint ESSENTIAL LOGIC, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS, ...

WHAT IS THE MYSTERIOUS STUFF OF INFORMATION? A Short but Clear Definition

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_THE_MYSTERIOUS_STUFF_OF_INFORMATION_A_Short_but_Clear_Definition

Preprint COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION:...

THE PLANCK ERA / QUANTUM ERA and “DISAPPEARANCE” OF PHYSICAL CAUSALITY: “OMNIPOTENCE” OF MATHEMATICS

https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_PLANCK_ERA_QUANTUM_ERA_and_DISAPPEARANCE_OF_PHYSICAL_CAUSALITY_OMNIPOTENCE_OF_MATHEMATICS

Logician Alfred Tarski made clear that truth and logical consequence can be strictly defined within a formal language https://www.google.com/search?q=tarski%20truth%20and%20logical%20consequences&tbm=

Thanks. And your comments to it?

Preprint PLANCK ERA or QUANTUM ERA,and ”DISAPPEARANCE” OF CAUSALITY. ...

Preprint IS THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT SACROSANCT?

Preprint CAUSAL HORIZONAL RESEARCH: A METHODOLOGY IN PHYSICS Raphael ...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_INFORMATION_WHAT_IS_ITS_CAUSAL_OR_NON-CAUSAL_CORE_A_Discussion

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

Preprint LINGUISTIC HERESY OF DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM: PHYSICAL-BIOLOGI...

Preprint LINGUISTIC HERESY OF DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM: PHYSICAL-BIOLOGI...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/ONTOLOGICAL_DIFFERENCES_OF_CHARACTERISTICS_OF_ARTIFICIAL_AND_BIOLOGICAL_INTELLIGENCE_ALGORITHMS_AND_PROCEDURES_Against_Exaggerations

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHY_EXACTLY_THE_WAVE-PARTICLE_DUALITY_Phenomenal_Ontological_Commitment_POC_as_the_Solution

https://www.researchgate.net/post/UNTENABLE_REIFICATION_OF_CONCEPTS_IN_PHYSICS_With_Examples

Preprint WHY EXACTLY WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY? Phenomenal Ontological Co...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/DO_PHYSICAL_QUANTA_EXIST_Why_Should_CONSCIOUSNESS_Be_Treated_Quantum-Biologically

https://www.researchgate.net/post/DO_PHYSICAL_QUANTA_EXIST_Why_Should_CONSCIOUSNESS_Be_Treated_Quantum-Biologically

https://www.researchgate.net/post/HEIDEGGER_How_a_Philosopher_Destroys_His_Own_Thoughts_Coherence_and_Adequacy

Preprint FROM PHYSICAL ONTOLOGY TO LINGUISTICS AND INFORMATION

Preprint UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY AND THE PHYSICAL-ONTOLOGICAL DEFECT OF N...

Preprint DIFFERENCES IN THE CONCEPTS OF CAUSALITY IN METAPHYSICS AND ...

Preprint BEYOND CAUSAL ITERATION QUANTIFIABILITY IN LINGUISTIC SPACE-TIME

Preprint BEYOND THE CAUSAL ITERATION METHOD. Short Text (Beyond Judea Pearl)

Preprint REFERENCE, APPLICABILITY, AND ADEQUACY OF UNIVERSALS, INFORM...

Preprint DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM. A 20TH CENTURY LOGICAL AND LINGUISTIC HERESY

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379311007_INEVITABILITY_OF_COSMOLOGICAL_ONTOLOGICAL_AND_EPISTEMOLOGICAL_REVISION_OF_TYPES_OF_LOGIC

Preprint Introducing GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX: COSMOGENETIC CAUSALITY

Preprint Chapter 6. COSMOGENESIS IN QUANTUM COSMOLOGY

Preprint Chapter 9. GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE COSMOLOGY Part I

Preprint GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE COSMOLOGY (22 pp.) Part II