>>13376776>>13376774There is no doubt that this universe is exceptionally complex. And yet built from basic rules. But depending on the circumstance and environment, different rules and logic apply.
Which came first the natural memristor or material implication?
For myself my answer is that I believe that any working philosophy HAS to reflect some real element of the actual world.
If the philosophical idea has any merit, it has to have a practical analogy OR application OR it has be rigorously logically consistent using the rules it set up.
For example: You have Boolean algebra but your washing machine still uses fuzzy logic for its programming execution decisions. And do all washing machines use the same fuzzy logic rules. No some manufacturers use entirely different rule sets to others.
Another example is engineering mathematics. An entirely abstract language used by engineers to solve practical problems. The key to the math is its rigorous logical internal consistency. Yet other mathematical systems exist, such as Peano maths and so on,
>Maybe in this way, the notion of rule sounds some easy to accept. So, these are not hard rules, but more like heuristics.I need to sort of agree. Heuristic systems which approach 100% consensus become either rules, sciences, maths or logic systems.
It all comes down to internal consistency. Any system that is rigorously consistent will have practical application. But will also already exist in nature. So which came first? I think nature.
We just discover its rules. And those rules cannot exist without the matter. A circle does not exist unless you've seen it in nature.
Ok have opened so many cans of worms but I have to go now. Mother's calling and I have to give her a sponge bath.
Here's my point I want to impress: Really foundational earth shifting ideas, such as automated computation, or faster than light travel, already exist in some form or other in philosophy. Its a matter of connecting nature to our ideas.
bye
