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 those 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”
cc: Cybernetics • Laws of Form • Ontolog • Peirce • Structural Modeling • Systems Science
Inquiry Into Inquiry 
Obviously this is your blog unless my discovery makes it mine—the way columbus discovered america and said it is his .(I am a bit paranoid and suffer from some delusions of grandeur but i sometimes wonder if stuff I have written is being published under someone else’s name. I( do remember one biologist i once talked to about a proeject/idea i was working on I saw a paper with that idea in one of his papers a year later and wondered if he had had the same idea already, or perhaps forgot our conversation, or lifted it—–as an experienced academic he had the resources to quickly turn an idea into a paper, and i didnt.)
So since its your blog i cant tell you what to write (tho just a nod to ‘ishi crew’ (i’m the last californian
indian—see wikip—but that article is inaccurate since i didnt die, nor plan to, or will, or can—even judges know this when they try to electrocute me –about 9 times a day, but they keep trying like sissyphus) but just say everything you wrote you got from my books (i used CS Pearce as a writing name; i also wrote as William Pearce when i wrote Turner diaries, and god when i wrote the bible.)
(Since you link to ‘philosophy of information’ , why Ishi can’t die is called the black hole information paradox’)
Also, it might be nice to ‘cut to the chase’. (notice i dont follow my own advice–do as i say, not as i do is my golden rule–or there might be a (gold) bug in that program (see edgar allen poe).).
Do you use GSB/CSP for any applications? I studied that stuff a bit from a basically applied math view –ie to see if the formalism could be used to make solving some problems easier than using other formalisms. (To me the reigning formalisms seem to be category theory combined with nonlinear dynamics, which sort of combines all kinds of tools—logic, feynman path integrals, graph and knot theory, statistical physics, etc. Azimuth blog by john baez does this sort of thing —for one example. )
I see you link to Louis Kauffman (wo i’ve met since he is sort of a family friend though not to me really–he’s serious, i’m not) —he also does that (and interestingly takes GESB seriously while my impression is most math/science people dont. GSB to me is a bit more like E Mach—value mostly in his concepts and explorations in formalism, though there are lots of ‘competing ‘ formaliisms like category theory, petri nets, etc. ).
(There are also all these things like the physics TOE ‘E8’ or something–lots of pictures which i dont understand),
I just wonder if i should learn this stuff. If i do maybe i could get a fields medal using it—i could use the money (i use money to spend—my dream job besdies doing math stuff would be spending money. Maybe i’ll have 2 jobs–you need 2 these days to pay the rent.)
I think possibly one application might be to things ike ‘conjunction fallacy’ or ‘linda paradox’ in behavioral economics, and some other ‘counterintuitive’ resutls discussed on Azimuth blog, quanta mag, etc., maybe Allais paradox, These are sort of half math/logic and half psychology problems.
(they may have relevance for things like recognizing ‘fake news’).
I vaguely remember one very interesting post you had on using the minimum number of symbols to say something. J Baez has some like this (and one can go back to things like ‘sheffer’s stroke’ in logic (i think (but my logic is rusty if i even have any left—maybe i could have alt-logic like alt-left and alt-facts–got lots of those) used by Gentzen to sort of prove the consistancy and completeness of ZFC—but it was a new axiom, so outside of ZFC). I wonder if there is some m minimum number of symbols one can use to do something.I guess if one writes a phD thesis on CS Pearce or theology you can get a job ; i’m not sure i want to do that or get that kind of job. Maybe math is too hard, so i can do alt-math. prove 0=1 and win an alt-fields medal. Or spend money for a living–buy me a printing press or fed reserve bank and grow my own to spend.)
i don’t reccomend my blogs or FB pages (nothing illegal but many find some stuff on them disturbing—thats why i post them—many are linked to problems that im interested in solving tho i cant–so i keep a list there. FB is ishi.crew and ishi.crew.9 (i’m a crew of 1—in my area gangs are called crews). my other blog is https://infodynamics.blogspot.com
(ps has anyone made valuable comments on your work? either pro- or con- —i did see one mention saying you were spamming blogs—i didnt view it that way but could see maybe their blog might not have been the place to put your stuff.)
Pingback: Survey of Animated Logical Graphs • 3 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Survey of Animated Logical Graphs • 4 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Survey of Animated Logical Graphs • 5 | Inquiry Into Inquiry