Topics

C.S. Peirce, Spencer Brown, & Me


 

Cf: Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/07/19/charles-sanders-peirce-george-spencer-brown-and-me/

Dear Laws of Form Group,

Here's an expanded version of my initial post to the old group.
I'll use it partly as a test but also to anchor whatever posts
from the original series still seem relevant and anything else
I might have to say along the same lines.



James Bowery left a comment on my blog and opened a thread
in the Yahoo! group devoted to discussing the mathematics
of George Spencer Brown’s Laws of Form. I’ve been meaning
to join that discussion as soon as I could work up the time
and concentration to think about it — at long last I think
I can do that now. I’ll use the above heading to blog any
bits from my side of the conversation I think might serve
a wider audience.

It’s been a long time since I joined a new discussion group
so I thought I’d start by posting a bit of the old-fashioned
self-intro.

Regards,

Jon

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache


 

Cf: Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 11
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/01/18/charles-sanders-peirce-george-spencer-brown-and-me-11/

All,

There's a new “Laws of Form” group in town. James Bowery et al. have
just revived the earlier group on a new platform and everything looks
pretty handy so far. There's an honest-to-goodness 60s vibe about it
for me since it's well-known to those in the know how Spencer Brown's
work builds on Peirce's, not just because his calculus of indications
resurrects aspects of Peirce's alpha level logical graphs but because
the broader scope of his interests touched on inductive reasoning and
the whole welter of knotty tangles in the pragmatics of communication,
computation, concept formation which Ashby, Arbib, Bateson, Korzybski,
R.D. Laing, McCulloch, Peirce, Polanyi, Watzlawick, and others probed
in the matrix of quasi-paradoxes and games people play with symbols.

All of which inspires me to revise and extend the series of posts
I shared with the old group a few years back, fixing in passing
the large number of now broken links.

Regards,

Jon

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache


 

Cf: Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 1
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/07/20/charles-sanders-peirce-george-spencer-brown-and-me-1/

All,

Here's a piece of CSP-GSB related biography I shared with the
previous Laws of Form group when I signed on a few years ago.



It’s almost 50 years now since I first encountered the volumes of
Peirce’s Collected Papers in the math library at Michigan State,
and shortly afterwards a friend called my attention to the entry
for Spencer Brown’s Laws of Form in the Whole Earth Catalog and
I sent off for it right away. I would spend the next decade just
beginning to figure out what either one of them was talking about
in the matter of logical graphs and I would spend another decade
after that developing a program, first in Lisp and then in Pascal,
converting graph-theoretic data structures formed on their ideas to
good purpose in the mechanics of its propositional reasoning engine.
I thought it might contribute to a number of ongoing discussions if
I could articulate what I think I learned from that experience.

Regards,

Jon


BAD T
 

Hi,

Does anybody could help me on Luhmann's idea of Form and Medium? Is there any research discussed on such topic?

Regards

Badrol.


On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at 7:24, Jon Awbrey
<jawbrey@...> wrote:
Cf: Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 1
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/07/20/charles-sanders-peirce-george-spencer-brown-and-me-1/

All,

Here's a piece of CSP-GSB related biography I shared with the
previous Laws of Form group when I signed on a few years ago.



It’s almost 50 years now since I first encountered the volumes of
Peirce’s Collected Papers in the math library at Michigan State,
and shortly afterwards a friend called my attention to the entry
for Spencer Brown’s Laws of Form in the Whole Earth Catalog and
I sent off for it right away.  I would spend the next decade just
beginning to figure out what either one of them was talking about
in the matter of logical graphs and I would spend another decade
after that developing a program, first in Lisp and then in Pascal,
converting graph-theoretic data structures formed on their ideas to
good purpose in the mechanics of its propositional reasoning engine.
I thought it might contribute to a number of ongoing discussions if
I could articulate what I think I learned from that experience.

Regards,

Jon






 

Cf: Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 2
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/07/21/charles-sanders-peirce-george-spencer-brown-and-me-2/

All,

Here's a lightly revised, link-repaired edition of a previous post.



I’m making an effort to present this material in a more gradual and
logical order than I’ve ever managed to do before. There are issues
about the relationship between episodic and semantic memory that are
giving me trouble as I try to remember how I came to look at things
the way I do … but never mind that now. I’ll eventually get around to
explaining the forces that drove me to generalize the forms of logical
graphs from trees to cacti, as graph theorists call them, and how that
made the transition to differential logic so much easier than it would
have been otherwise, but I think it would be better now to begin at
the beginning with the common core of forms introduced by CSP and GSB.

Here’s a couple of articles I wrote for that purpose:

Logical Graphs
https://oeis.org/wiki/Logical_Graphs

Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems
https://oeis.org/wiki/Propositional_Equation_Reasoning_Systems

There are versions of those articles at several other places on the web
which may be better formatted or more convenient for discussion:

Logical Graphs (Wikiversity)
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Logical_graph

Logical Graphs (Inquiry Blog)
1. https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2008/07/29/logical-graphs-1/
2. https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2008/09/19/logical-graphs-2/

One big issue arising at the beginning is the question of “duality”.
Both C.S. Peirce and Spencer Brown understood they were dealing with
a “very abstract calculus”, one which could be interpreted for the
purposes of ordinary propositional logic in two different ways.

Peirce called the two different ways of interpreting the abstract graphs
his “entitative” and “existential” graphs. He started out with a system
of graphs he opted to interpret in the entitative manner but switched over
to the existential choice as he developed his logical graphs beyond the
purely propositional level.

Spencer Brown elected to emphasize the entitative reading in his
main exposition but he was very clear in the terminology he used
that the forms and transformations themselves are independent of
their interpretations.

Table 1 at either of the locations linked below has columns for
the graph-theoretic forms and the parenthesis-string forms of
several basic expressions, reading them under the existential
interpretation.

Table 1. Syntax and Semantics of a Calculus for Propositional Logic

a. https://oeis.org/wiki/Theme_One_Program_%E2%80%A2_Appendices#Table_1._Syntax_and_Semantics_of_a_Calculus_for_Propositional_Logic

b. https://oeis.org/wiki/Differential_Logic_%E2%80%A2_Part_1#Cactus_Language_for_Propositional_Logic

The Tables linked below serve to compare the existential and entitative
interpretations of logical graphs by providing translations into familiar
notations and English paraphrases for a few of the most basic and commonly
occurring forms.

Table A. Existential Interpretation
https://oeis.org/wiki/Theme_One_Program_%E2%80%A2_Appendices#Table_A._Existential_Interpretation

Table B. Entitative Interpretation
https://oeis.org/wiki/Theme_One_Program_%E2%80%A2_Appendices#Table_B._Entitative_Interpretation

Table C. Dualing Interpretations
https://oeis.org/wiki/Theme_One_Program_%E2%80%A2_Appendices#Table_C._Dual_Interpretations

Regards,

Jon


 

Cf: Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 3
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/07/31/charles-sanders-peirce-george-spencer-brown-and-me-3/

All,

Here's the next installment in my bio-graphical intro,
with all the links repaired and the graphics upgraded.

Re: Laws of Form
https://groups.io/g/lawsofform/topic/c_s_peirce_spencer_brown/79916661

There are a number of “difficulties at the beginning” that arise here.
I’ve been trying to get to the point where I can respond to James Bowery’s
initial comments

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/11/30/time-topology-differential-logic-6/#comment-33608

and also to questions about the relation between Spencer Brown’s
imaginary logical values and the development of differential logic.

The larger issue I see at this point has to do with the relationship
between the “algebra” and the “arithmetic” of logical graphs. Peirce
came right up to the threshold of discovering that relationship several
times in his later work on existential graphs but never quite pushed it
through to full realization. It was left to Spencer Brown to bring it
to light.

The relationship between Primary Arithmetic and Primary Algebra
is discussed in the following article.

Logical Graphs ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Logical_Graphs )

• Primary Arithmetic as Semiotic System
https://oeis.org/wiki/Logical_Graphs#Primary_arithmetic_as_semiotic_system

• Primary Algebra as Pattern Calculus
https://oeis.org/wiki/Logical_Graphs#Primary_algebra_as_pattern_calculus

The other issue has to do with my using a different J₁ than Spencer Brown.
I believe I even called it J₁′ in the early days but eventually lost the
prime as time went by. As far as I can remember, it initially had to do
with negotiating between the systems of C.S. Peirce and Spencer Brown but
I think I stuck with the variant because it sorts the types of change —
modifying structure and moving variables — into different bins.

Image Files
===========

This Blog
I₁ : https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/axiom-i1.jpg
I₂ : https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/axiom-i2.jpg
J₁ : https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/axiom-j1.jpg
J₂ : https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/axiom-j2.jpg

Oeis Wiki
I₁ : https://oeis.org/wiki/File:Initial_I1.jpg
I₂ : https://oeis.org/wiki/File:Initial_I2.jpg
J₁ : https://oeis.org/wiki/File:Initial_J1.jpg
J₂ : https://oeis.org/wiki/File:Initial_J2.jpg

See also the discussions at the following locations.

Logical Graphs • Formal Development
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2008/09/19/logical-graphs-2/

Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems
https://oeis.org/wiki/Propositional_Equation_Reasoning_Systems

Regards,

Jon


 

Cf: Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 4
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/08/06/charles-sanders-peirce-george-spencer-brown-and-me-4/

All,

Two things that had a big impact on my studies of Peirce and Spencer Brown
over the years were my parallel studies in mathematics and computer science.
In the overlap between those areas came courses in logic, mathematical
linguistics, and the theory of formal languages, grammars, and automata.
My intellectual wanderings over a nine-year undergraduate career would
take me through a cycle of majors from math and physics, to communication,
psychology, philosophy, and a cross-cultural liberal arts program, then
back to grad school in mathematics. The puzzles Peirce and Spencer Brown
beset my brain with were a big part of what drove me back to math, since
I could see I had no chance of resolving them without learning a lot more
algebra, logic, and topology than I had learned till then.

Resources
=========

Prospects for Inquiry Driven Systems
https://oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/Prospects_for_Inquiry_Driven_Systems
https://oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/Prospects_for_Inquiry_Driven_Systems#Bibliography

Mathematical Notes
https://oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/Mathematical_Notes

Regards,

Jon


 

Cf: Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 5
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/08/12/charles-sanders-peirce-george-spencer-brown-and-me-5/

All,

| Continuing the salvage and update of posts lost when Yahoo! Groups defuncted.
| That's just the way the internet cookie crumbles when capitalism incorpulent
| takes over the web that a science-minded ARPA once built at taxpayer expense.

Peirce's Law Proof Animation
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/peirces-law-2-0-animation.gif

Here are blog and wiki versions of an article I wrote on Peirce’s Law,
an axiom or theorem (depending on your choice of logical basis) which
distinguishes classical from intuitionistic propositional calculus.
Aside from its pivotal logical status it affords a nice illustration
of several important features of logical graphs in the style of
Peirce and Spencer Brown.

Peirce’s Law
============
• Inquiry Blog ( https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2008/10/06/peirces-law/ )
• OEIS Wiki ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Peirce%27s_law )
• MyWikiBiz ( http://mywikibiz.com/Peirce';s_law )
• Wikiversity ( https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Peirce';s_law )

Here's another resource on the relationship between
Classical and Intuitionistic Propositional Calculus:

Propositions As Types Analogy
https://oeis.org/wiki/Propositions_As_Types_Analogy

Regards,

Jon


 

Cf: Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 6
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/08/18/charles-sanders-peirce-george-spencer-brown-and-me-6/

Cf: Logical Graphs
https://oeis.org/wiki/Logical_Graphs

All,

The formal system of logical graphs is defined by a foursome of formal equations,
called “initials” when regarded purely formally, in abstraction from potential
interpretations, and called “axioms” when interpreted as logical equivalences.
There are two “arithmetic initials” and two “algebraic initials”, as shown below.

Arithmetic Initials
===================

Figure I₁
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/axiom-i1.png

Figure I₂
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/axiom-i2.png

Algebraic Initials
==================

Figure J₁
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/axiom-j1.png

Figure J₂
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/axiom-j2.png

Spencer Brown uses a different formal equation for his first algebraic initial —
where I use “a (a) = ( )” he uses “(a (a)) = ”. For the moment, let’s refer to
my J₁ as J_1a and his J₁ as J_1b and use that notation to examine the relationship
between the two systems.

It is easy to see that the two systems are equivalent, since we have the following
proof of J_1b by way of J_1a and I₂.


a a
o---o
|
@

=======J1a {delete}

o---o
|
@

=======I2 {cancel}

@

=======QED J1b

In choosing between systems I am less concerned with small differences
in the lengths of proofs than I am with other factors. It is difficult
for me to remember all the reasons for decisions I made forty or fifty
years ago — as a general rule, Peirce’s way of looking at the relation
between mathematics and logic has long been a big influence on my thinking
and the other main impact is accountable to the nuts and bolts requirements
of computational representation.

But looking at the choice with present eyes, I think I continue to prefer
the {I₁, I₂, J_1a, J₂} system over the alternative simply for the fact it
treats two different types of operation separately, namely, changes in
graphical structure versus changes in the placement of variables.

Regards,

Jon


 

Cf: Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 7
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/08/21/charles-sanders-peirce-george-spencer-brown-and-me-7/

All,

Here's an ice-breaker on the question of logical boundaries ...

A statement P that implies both Q and ¬Q is called a false statement,
and anyone can prove anything at all from a false statement, as we
all too frequently observe on the political front these days.

There is however a reasonable way of handling boundaries, for instance,
as illustrated by the circumference of a region in a venn diagram, and
that is by means of differential logic. I’ve been tortoising my way
toward the goal line of explaining all that, and it’s going a bit slow,
but there’s a gentle introduction at the other end of the link below,
if you wish to achilles ahead.

Differential Propositional Calculus • Part 1
https://oeis.org/wiki/Differential_Propositional_Calculus_%E2%80%A2_Part_1

Regards,

Jon


 

Cf: Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 8
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/08/22/charles-sanders-peirce-george-spencer-brown-and-me-8/

Re: Boundary Logic

For me, the heart of the matter is “what is the purpose of logic and
what is the purpose of mathematics and what is their relationship?”

There are semiotic situations which appear to violate the
initial conditions of logic but there are ways of approaching
them without reducing our brains to jelly from the getgo.
Charles S. Peirce, following on Aristotle’s negotiation of
the boundary between logic and rhetoric, developed his theory
of triadic sign relations in large part to manage just these
sorts of situations.

I’m determined to keep my gnosis close to the grinstone for
the time being but here is a smattering of old notes which
give a hint as to Peirce’s way of approaching the question.

C.S. Peirce on “General” and “Vague”
https://oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/EXCERPTS#Excerpt_6._Peirce_.28CP_5.448.29
https://cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2009-March/thread.html#13437
1. https://cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2009-March/013437.html
2. https://cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2009-March/013446.html
3. https://cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2009-March/013448.html

Regards,

Jon


Lyle Anderson
 
Edited

Jon,
We are sentient beings inside a large, but finite Universe.  The Laws of Form tell us that there can be no distinction without intent or motive.  How can we determine the motive of the Creator of the Universe?  The answer is that the CotU would have to cause an artifact or artifacts to appear in the Universe that would tell us His motive.  He would have to structure that artifact so that when GSB finally came around to "discovering" the Laws of Form, it would be obvious that is was the correct artifact to use. 

I postulate that the artifact is the Hebrew Scriptures which tell us that the CotU created an "inhabited World" full of living things, and living beings.  That He created "Man" as a Living Being that He could work with to develop His Universe.  That He arranged the evolution of the Universe so that the Beings who believe in Him and follow His Commandments would be separated from those who believe they know better.  

My advice is to everyone is to stay as close to the Scriptures as is possible when exploring the motives of the CotU.  I am advocating this as a matter of "Science" not "Religion" and as a way of identifying "False Science" and "False Religions" that will lead one to Perdition.  For example, any "science" that postulates a Universe without "Motive" is a "False Science".

Here is what I have written on this so far.  My next topic will be to "for any boundary, to recross is not to cross."  It turns out that this has sociological and salvational implications

Best regards,
Lyle.
https://www.scribd.com/document/470732777/Unified-Theory-of-Everything


rsmyth64
 


Lyle,

I took a quick glance at your scribd document.  I don't agree with a couple of things:

1.  You write, "For a particular theory or hypothesis to become socially accepted, experiments usually need to be
repeated by other investigators. This research is easy to arrange if the experiment supports, or
advances the currently acceptable “scientific” theory. However, when a particular theory reaches
the status of scientific dogma, then any experiment that questions the dogma will be hard to
conduct and if it is conducted then the experimenter being treated as a heretic to a religious
system." (p. 2)

Here you are trying to argue that science is equivalent to religion.  There is nothing that is farther from the truth.  You are correct about entrenched theory becoming "dogma" or, what Thomas Kuhn, in his THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS, would call a paradigm.  But if you read Kuhn -- and if you haven't yet, you really need to, as it provides a basic understanding of how science works that your writing lacks -- you would see that the scientific method provides a process for coming to a consensus around the emergent paradigm that challenges the old dogma. He provides many excellent examples. The problem with religion is that you could argue all you want with someone about an assertion/belief, providing as much evidence as you can, and still not change his/her mind... 

I should point out that the example of calling out a "global warming denier" that follows this passage (especially in examining at time frame as short as 18 years) as an example of "scientific dogma" or "the religion of science" is incredibly problematic.  


2.  You write, "The most important original source is the Holy Scriptures themselves. Once you begin to believe
in the Bible as the Word of the CotU, you will begin to read and study it under the guidance of
the Presence (aka Spirit) of the CotU. This is not a religious assertion. This is a scientific
assertion of how the universe actually works." (p. 4)

It is not religious assertion to say that the Bible is the Word of the CotU?  This is a "scientific assertion of how the universe actually works"?!!  If it's scientific, there would be an experimental basis for proving it right or wrong, or replicating the process.

I hesitate to comment on this, for I suspect that these topics lie far outside of the interests of most people in this group.

Richard




On Wednesday, January 27, 2021, 02:20:56 PM EST, Lyle Anderson <lylephone@...> wrote:


[Edited Message Follows]

Jon,
We are sentient beings inside a large, but finite Universe.  The Laws of Form tell us that there can be no distinction without intent or motive.  How can we determine the motive of the Creator of the Universe?  The answer is that the CotU would have to cause an artifact or artifacts to appear in the Universe that would tell us His motive.  He would have to structure that artifact so that when GSB finally came around to "discovering" the Laws of Form, it would be obvious that is was the correct artifact to use. 

I postulate that the artifact is the Hebrew Scriptures which tell us that the CotU created an "inhabited World" full of living things, and living beings.  That He created "Man" as a Living Being that He could work with to develop His Universe.  That He arranged the evolution of the Universe so that the Beings who believe in Him and follow His Commandments would be separated from those who believe they know better.  

My advice is to everyone is to stay as close to the Scriptures as is possible when exploring the motives of the CotU.  I am advocating this as a matter of "Science" not "Religion" and as a way of identifying "False Science" and "False Religions" that will lead one to Perdition.  For example, any "science" that postulates a Universe without "Motive" is a "False Science".

Here is what I have written on this so far.  My next topic will be to "for any boundary, to recross is not to cross."  It turns out that this has sociological and salvational implications

Best regards,
Lyle.
https://www.scribd.com/document/470732777/Unified-Theory-of-Everything


 

Cf: Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 9
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/08/22/charles-sanders-peirce-george-spencer-brown-and-me-9/

Re: Boundary Logic

A wider field of investigation opens up at this point, spanning the diversity of interactions among languages we use, and systems of signs in general, to the thoughts ever streaming through our heads, to the universes we talk and think upon, from Plato’s Heaven to Gaia’s Green Earth to the Tumbling Galaxies Beyond.

The complexities in play when we consider a domain of Signs, a domain of Ideas, and a domain of Objects all wound up in relationship to one another is what Peirce’s “semiotics” or theory of sign relations is all about. Viewing the enterprise of logic within the broader frame of semiotics not only gives us more insight into its means and ends but affords us more “elbow room” for carrying out its operations.

To make a long story short, we don’t have to “escape language” because we don’t live inside any language or system of signs, even if we get so confused sometimes as to think we do. We live in that wider world of reality and only use languages and other systems of signs to describe what little we can of it.

Regards,

Jon


Lyle Anderson
 

Dear Richard,
You are the second person who has had an adverse reaction to that paragraph.  The other was Stan Tenen who let me review early drafts of his book "The Alphabet That Changed the World."  That is where I first encountered George Spencer-Brown and "Laws of Form."  He wasn't able to get beyond what he said was an attack on "Science," so coupled with your reaction, I think I will take that out.  Thank you.

My study of science of Neurolinguistic Programming tells me that "the meaning of the communications it the response it elicits."  The response I am seeking is to have people consider the idea that the Hebrew Scriptures are the main way that the Creator of the Universe communicated His motive for creating the Universe.  Trying to do this without evoking religious stereotypes and prejudices is hard.  

For example, I have been struggling with having to describe "the cross." It is the Second Axiom in Laws of Form.  Without it there is nothing.  How can I convey the idea that when Jesus said, "Pick up your Cross, and follow me" He was making a mathematical statement? I would appreciate any ideas or suggestions that you , or anyone in the group, might have on how to do that. Answering the question "Why are we here?"  is the only thing that has lasting importance.

Best regards,
Lyle


 

Cf: Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 10
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/08/25/charles-sanders-peirce-george-spencer-brown-and-me-10/

All,

With any formal system it is easy to spend a long time
roughing out primitives and reviewing first principles
before getting on to practical applications, and logical
graphs are no different in that respect. But the promise
of clearer and more efficient methods for solving realistic
problems is what led me to the visual calculi of Peirce and
Spencer Brown in the first place, so my aim through all our
rehearsal of rudiments is to make a bridge to applications
a few steps closer to what the real world throws our way.

I’ve been thinking how to make the transition from basic ingredients
of logical graphs and laws of form to slightly more interesting examples,
still “toy worlds” as AI folk call them but suggestive to some degree of
what might be possible in the long run. I’ll spend a few days gathering
assorted examples I’ve worked up before and try presenting those.

Regards,

Jon


Lyle Anderson
 

This Thesis, "Systematic Analysis of Algorithms" that  I wrote forty years ago may be of interest to the group.  I found an algorithm for systematically analyzing Jonassen's and Knuth's celebrated "Trivial Algorithm Whose Analysis Isn't" by introducing (on page 42) a new kind of "delta function" that I modestly called the Anderson Delta.  This new delta function is closely related to the Kronecker and Dirac delta functions, except that its domain is a Boolean space with possible values True and False. The Anderson delta maps the Boolean space into the numbers 0 and 1.
I am still amazed what we were able to do with PDP-8 based word processors and spinwriter "printers".
https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2175&amp;context=theses


 

Cf: Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 14
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/01/31/charles-sanders-peirce-george-spencer-brown-and-me-14/

Re: C.S. Peirce, Spencer Brown, and Me • 11
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/01/18/charles-sanders-peirce-george-spencer-brown-and-me-11/

Re: Laws of Form
https://groups.io/g/lawsofform/topic/c_s_peirce_spencer_brown/79946926
::: Dirk Baecker
https://groups.io/g/lawsofform/message/24

<QUOTE DB:>

Watzlawick's request for a pragmatic calculus of communication up to now
was never appropriately answered. W. Barnett Pearce and Vernon E. Cronen
(Communication, Action, and Meaning : The Creation of Social Realities, 1980)
did important studies on this as did Anthony Wilden (System and Structure :
Essays in Communication and Exchange, 1972), but we still lack it.

</QUOTE>

Dear Dirk,

Watzlawick's request for a pragmatic calculus of communication recalls
McCulloch's earlier question whether the human capacity for insightful
learning and reasoning demands a grasp of trans-dyadic relations, or not.

<QUOTE McCulloch>

But the problem of insight, or intuition, or invention — call it what you will —
we do not understand, although many of us are having a go at it. […] Tarski
thinks that what we lack is a fertile calculus of relations of more than two relata.
I am inclined to agree with him, and if I were now the age I was in 1917, that is
the problem I would tackle.



That process of insight by which a child learns at least one logical particle,
“neither” or “not both”, when it is given only ostensively — and one must be
so learned — is still a little beyond us. It may perhaps have to wait for
a potent logic of triadic relations, but I now doubt it. (McCulloch, p. 15).

</QUOTE>

The way I see things today, my motto would be “Context Precedes Calculus”
if I had to sum it up as briefly as possible. In other words, the first
order of business is finding the right context for understanding the
phenomena and problems at hand. As far as the human capacity for
conversing with nature and our fellows goes, pragmatic thinkers
informed by Peirce would no doubt point to the context of triadic
sign relations and declare, “Eureka! This Must Be the Place.”

References
==========

• McCulloch, Warren S. (1961), “What Is a Number that a Man May Know It,
and a Man, that He May Know a Number?”, Ninth Alfred Korzybski Memorial
Lecture, General Semantics Bulletin, Numbers 26 and 27, pp. 7–18,
Institute of General Semantics, Lakeville, CT.
Reprinted in Embodiments of Mind, pp. 1–18. Online:
1. http://www.vordenker.de/ggphilosophy/mcculloch_what-is-a-number.pdf
2. http://www.generalsemantics.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/gsb-26-27-mcculloch.pdf

• McCulloch, Warren S. (1965), Embodiments of Mind, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.


 

Cf: Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 15
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/02/05/charles-sanders-peirce-george-spencer-brown-and-me-15/

Re: C.S. Peirce, Spencer Brown, and Me • 11
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/01/18/charles-sanders-peirce-george-spencer-brown-and-me-11/
Re: Ontolog Forum
https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/8HfnSonF-rY
::: Michael DeBellis
https://groups.google.com/g/ontolog-forum/c/8HfnSonF-rY/m/h97uRlBEAgAJ

<QUOTE MDB:>

I've just started taking Peirce seriously in the last year or so and some of his more complex ideas still aren't completely clear to me but here goes: Has anyone come up with an OWL upper model (i.e., something like the upper models in Cyc and BFO) based on Peirce's work? I've come to appreciate Peirce as a major figure in the history of logic, information theory, semiotics, etc. but I've never quite been able to map his ideas into a logical model in OWL. I'm not sure if this is because trying to do so isn't consistent with what Peirce is trying to do or just that I still haven't grasped his ideas completely. Or perhaps the subset of FOL that OWL supports isn't powerful enough to map to Peirce. At an initial reading it seems like there should be a good fit because (at least as I understand it) one of Peirce's core ideas of symbols (as opposed to icons or indexes) seems like a perfect fit to the triple model (Subject Predicate Object) that is the foundation (RDF/RDFS) for OWL. Would like to know your opinions on this.

</QUOTE>

Dear Michael,

Google still reminds me I spent some time on the RDF-Logic List

( https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/ )

back around the turn of the millennium (January 2001 )

( https://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?hdr-1-name=from&;hdr-1-query=Jon+Awbrey&index-grp=Public_FULL&index-type=t&type-index=www-rdf-logic&resultsperpage=40&sortby=date-asc ).

I was especially intrigued by the prospect of using triples as
a fundamental data structure. Now the (subject, verb, object)
triples of RDF and the (object, sign, interpretant) triples of
Peirce's semiotics are ostensibly different data types in their
concrete descriptions but that may not obstruct integration too
much if the triples are defined abstractly enough and implemented
polymorphically enough. As far as I can remember, though, the
concrete connotations tended to get in the way of cross-cultural
or trans-silo communication at that time.

That is not, however, the largest obstacle to harmonizing the
logic of Peirce with the ways of FOL as she is spoke today.
I'll take that up when I next get a chance ...

Regards,

Jon