-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
/
pritam_3.html
918 lines (753 loc) · 51.2 KB
/
pritam_3.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
<html>
<head>
<title>Nature of Logic and Logic of Nature</title>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
line-height:115%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;}
.MsoPapDefault
{line-height:115%;}
/* Page Definitions */
@page WordSection1
{size:595.45pt 841.7pt;
margin:14.15pt 21.7pt 20.45pt 21.25pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US style='word-wrap:break-word'>
<div class=WordSection1 align='center'>
<br>
<br>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;line-height:normal' align='center'><span
style='font-size:40.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:
24.0pt'>Nature of Logic <img width=47 height=32
src="Nature%20of%20Logic%20=__=%20Logic%20of%20Nature_files/image001.png"> Logic
of Nature : <b>1</b></span></p>
<br>
<br>
<div align="center"><span lang=EN-GB style='font: size 20px.0pt;line-height:140%;font-family:
"Times New Roman",serif'> - Pritam Sarkar</span></div></div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b><i><span style='font-size:
16.0pt;line-height:115%'> </span></i></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b><span style='font-size:14.0pt;
line-height:115%'>1. Introduction :</span></b><span style='font-size:14.0pt;
line-height:115%'> </span> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;text-indent:106.25pt'>It is hard
and possibly impossible to distinguish between <i>the</i> presentation and <i>a</i>
representation of any state of affair. At the same time, it is evidently
impossible to distinguish between the nuances of a phenomenon, and its abstract
representation when the redundant degrees of freedom are beyond the scope of
observability <a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><sup><sup><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[1]</span></sup></sup></a>.
Yet the validity and necessity of a sense underlies its falsifiability <a
href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[2]</span></sup></sup></a> -
which when further sensed through experience, affirms degenerately, the reason
followed<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><sup><sup><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[3]</span></sup></sup></a>.
Therefore, <b>in being capable of making intelligible sense out of any sensible
worldly phenomenon, a cognitive faculty requires <i>a-priori</i>s and <i>reasoning</i>
to proceed to a <i>posteriori</i> episteme<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4"
title=""><sup><b><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[4]</span></sup></b></sup></a>. </b>This being
the basic framework of generating sense, one further hinges upon the
skepticisms of the <i>uniqueness </i>and <i>choices </i>of <i>a-priori</i>s
with that being interacted with the <i>trajectory of reasonings</i>.</p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'>
When we have come along this far with the epistemological groundwork over the
principle of sufficient reasoning <a
href="https://cogito-journal.github.io/pritam_2.html"><span style='color:#1155CC'>[1]</span></a><a
href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[5]</span></sup></sup></a>,
from the time of Liebniz, Spinoza, Kant, later on Schopenhauer and recently
Kripke - <b>we claim the totality of universal possibilities, never to
outperform the totality of language</b>. That being the case, we irresistibly
and innately consider <i>reason</i> to be <i>the only thing in itself <a
href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title=""><sup><b><sup><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[6]</span></sup></b></sup></a></i>
- where among many, <i>the<b> logic of nature</b></i> is one certain case, with
possibilities of being degenerately many. That is clearly where we consider the
different laws of nature, with parameters only changed from static to anything
dynamic. A clear visualisation would be to keep any physical equation unchanged
except varying any constant in it, which will produce a distinct motion that
isn’t captured inside the preconceived law(s) of nature. Therefore the
supposition that <b>the reason in language is sufficient enough to capture the
reason in nature</b>, is rudimentary in epitomising phenomena in natural
science. What follows in this article, with the exposition of foundational
questions in the epistemological basis of science and sense; will be directed
towards a <b>Science of Sense.</b> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:14.0pt;
line-height:115%'> </span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b><span style='font-size:14.0pt;
line-height:115%'>2. Concretizing the Context :</span></b><b><span
style='font-size:13.0pt;line-height:115%'> </span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in'>
The necessity of distinguishing <b>what can be said to be true </b>or, <b>what
appears to be true </b>and <b>what is true</b> is fundamental is understanding
the sufficiency of language and the totality of senses. This is further
involved in dissecting <b>logical necessity</b> and <b>natural necessity</b>
corresponding to a possibility in the category of thoughts. The sole purpose of
being sceptical regarding nature, reason and language is their virtues of
explainability, with arbitrary coherence; although with enough room for
inconsistency always <a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title=""><sup><sup><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[7]</span></sup></sup></a>.
<u>We must not take for granted the ability to speak and sense</u>; as this is
the key ingredient behind saying - <i>There is at least one Universe with
theories about the Universe in it</i>, where the sole originator is nothing but
beings like us, with common-enough intelligibility. It’s phenomenal how a thing
like ‘language’ and ‘reasoning’ came about under very spontaneous planetary
morphisms, and is capable enough to produce possibilities beyond the
constraints of this planetary nature - i.e. you can imagine, say or write about
yourself flying in the sky; or anything arbitrary, since <b>language
necessarily totalizes all things that can be said, or are apparently true</b>.
</p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'>
Therefore further question arises - <b>what essential features does an
expression must satisfy in order to be coherent enough to appear as a truthful
possibility? </b>The question hinges around things that can be said but has
nothing to do with what is strictly possible in nature. This is the section of <i>representability
of expressions in every I-Language</i>, where it seems to us that - thoughts
generated in cognitive-faculties can be such that its truth, defies natural
constraints or laws of nature, although being a very consistent sense, i.e. I
am swimming in the clouds - is logically consistent and makes proper sense -
but can never be a natural possibility. Thus it is obvious, and depicts the<b>
emergence of un-nature from within nature </b>with the whole process of
emergence still being a <b>natural </b>one, and will be exploited later on. <a
href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[8]</span></sup></sup></a></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'>
This article concerns the distinction and relation of Logic of Nature, meaning <u>the
immanent reasoning of natural phenomenon as far as we’ve been able to make
sense of yet,</u> and Nature of Logic, meaning <u>the coherent reasonable
constructions that we analytically perform as a cognitive agents</u>. Here
logic is not necessarily encapsulated within propositional systems - [which
should preferably be <b>reducible logic</b>, since the system is the
consequence of countably many a-priori truths which means that <i>every
possibility in the system can be reducible to countable-knowledge</i>] - rather
is the general scheme of <b>reasonability</b>, that which gives birth to logic.
Now, in order to proceed further, it is necessary to clear the ground for the
scope of <b>Nature(</b><u>in</u><b>) of Logic </b>and <b>Logic of Nature(</b><u>ex</u><b>)</b><a
href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[9]</span></sup></sup></a>.
Some notational clarifications are along the way : </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b>Logic</b> - <i>An unambiguous
construction to reason </i>[that whose structure is independent of
representation].</p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b>Nature</b> (<u>in</u> = <b>In</b>trinsic)
[of a thing] - <i>that which </i>(attribute(s)) <i>are immanent to a
thing/being</i>. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b>Nature</b> (<u>ex</u> = <b>ex</b>trinsic)
-<i> that which is outside</i> [the universe that encompasses the trees I look
outside].</p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in'>●<span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span>Note that
there are two Natures in the discourse, and you can, in principle, consider the
<i>Nature(<u>in</u>) of Nature(<u>ex</u>)</i> and this possibly, if constructed
solely from an analytical and dialectical basis, will be the Ultimate Theory of
Nature. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b><span style='font-size:14.0pt;
line-height:115%'>3. Nature(</span></b><u><span style='font-size:14.0pt;
line-height:115%'>in</span></u><b><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:
115%'>) of Logic :</span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in'><span
style='background:white'> </span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in'><span
style='background:white'>It's not arbitrary to choose to mention Nature of
Logic before Logic of Nature since - as I have conveyed in my previous article
[1] - sense originates in a <b>cognitive-facility</b> and the rest of the
intelligible world is a representation through that. As Chomsky significantly
proposes the immanence of <b>innate characteristics</b>, those that generate
conceptions from event and preconceptions Somewhere in this trajectory, there
lies the rudimentary structure of reasoning as an <b>a-prior basis</b> of
epistemology, which is wished here to capture essentially as the intrinsic
nature of logic and reasoning. </span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in'><span
style='background:white'> Logic allows the paradigm which can be
reducible into countably many simple<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title=""><sup><sup><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
background:white'>[10]</span></sup></sup></a> situations, and every possibility
being the <b>combination of those simple possibilities</b>. So, <b><i>deductibility
to reducibility</i></b> is my road to generalise the scope of logic, in which
the Turing Machines represent the reducible possibilities. In every way, I must
acquire <i>an unambiguous system to reason about a possibility</i>. </span><a
href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-information/#:~:text=First%20published%20Mon%20Feb%203,actions%20or%20operations%20conceived%20broadly"><span
style='color:#1155CC;background:white'>Plato.stanford.edu</span></a><span
style='background:white'> writes regarding <i>Logic and Information</i> <a
href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;background:white'>[11]</span></sup></sup></a>
- Logic is the study of consequence, which when unwrapped, means - <i>The
consequence of some apriority, </i>originated through a certain choice <a
href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;background:white'>[12]</span></sup></sup></a><i>.</i>
</span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in'><span
style='background:white'> There is a remarkable exposition on the
ontology of logic, i.e. the structure and nature of logic by Immanuel Kant, in
is </span><a
href="https://cdchester.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Lectures-on-Logic-The-Cambridge-Edition-of-the-Works-of-Immanuel-Kant-in-Translation-Immanuel-Kant.pdf"><span
style='color:#1155CC;background:white'>Lectures on Logic [2]</span></a><span
style='background:white'> : </span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in'><span
style='background:white'> </span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;
font-family:"Courier New"'>Everything in nature, in the inanimate as well as
the animate world, happens according to rules, although we do not always know
these rules. Water falls according to the laws of gravity, and the locomotion
of animals also takes place according to the rules. The fish in the water, the
birds in the air move according to the rules. All nature actually is nothing
but a nexus of appearances to rules; and there is nothing at all without rules.
When we believe we have come across an absence of rules, we can only say that
the rules are unknown to us . . . . . If now, we set aside all cognition that
we must borrow from objects and reflect solely upon the use of the
understanding itself, we discover those of its rules which are necessary
throughout, in every respect and regardless of any special objects, because
without them we would not think at all. Insights into these rules can therefore
be gained apriori and independently of any experience, because they contain,
without discrimination between objects,merely the conditions of the use of the
understanding itself, be it pure of empirical. And it also follows from this
that the universal and necessary rules of thought are in general can concern
solely its form, and not it anyway its matter.. . . . </span></i><b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'>In logic we
do not seek how presentations arise<a href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title=""><sup><b><sup><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'>[13]</span></sup></b></sup></a>
but solely how they agree with the logical form</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'>.</span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;
font-family:"Courier New"'> </span></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> This embodies the <b>subject-insensitive
logical-connectivity</b> <b>between a reason of thought and a matter in
thought. </b>When considering a <b>science of sense</b> or broadly the horizon
of sensibility further restrictions from actuality is confronted, and suitably
tackled with the following measures as Kant envisions: <i>The science of the
necessary laws of the understanding and reason in general or - which is the
same - of the mere form of thinking</i>, we call -<b> the Nature(</b><u>in</u><b>)
of Logic</b>. This, along with the necessity of this becoming a doctrine we
require: </p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
"Courier New"'>As a science concerning all thinking in general regardless of
objects as the matter of thinking, Logic of to be considered as </span><a
href="https://cdchester.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Lectures-on-Logic-The-Cambridge-Edition-of-the-Works-of-Immanuel-Kant-in-Translation-Immanuel-Kant.pdf"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1155CC'>[2]</span></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'> : </span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'>●<span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span><i><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'>Basis of
all other sciences</span></i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;
font-family:"Courier New"'>, and the <i>propaedeutic</i> of all use of the
understanding,</span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'>●<span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'>The <i>organon
of the sciences,</i></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%'>●<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'>As
a science of the necessary laws of thinking, without which no use of the
understanding and of reason takes place at all, which consequently are the
conditions under <i>which alone the understanding can and shall agree with
itself</i>. These are necessary laws and conditions of its right use…..<b> It
must contain nothing but laws apriori that are necessary and concern the
understanding in genera</b>l,</span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%'>●<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span><i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
"Courier New"'>As a science of reason not as to mere form but as to matter</span></i><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'>, since its
rules are not taken from experiences and since at the same time, it has reason
as its subject matter. <b>Logic is therefore a self-cognition of the
understanding and of reason</b>, <i>not however, as to their faculty in respect
of objects but solely as to form</i>. In logic I shall <b>not</b> ask: what
does the understanding cognize and how much can it cognize or how far does the
cognition go? <b>But only how will the understanding cognize itself</b>,</span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'>●<span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'>As a
doctrine or a demonstrated theory. </span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal>With this fundamental requisite for the necessity of Logic
we can move onto Nature and its ontology <a href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14"
title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>[14]</span></sup></sup></a>, and later on make the
inevitable knot between them transparent. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b><span style='font-size:14.0pt;
line-height:115%'>4. Logic of Nature(</span></b><u><span style='font-size:14.0pt;
line-height:115%'>ex</span></u><b><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:
115%'>) :</span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b><span style='font-size:14.0pt;
line-height:115%'> </span></b>Since an <i>extrinsic
material existence</i> is universal on solely the empirical basis, there is no
possibility to consider the <i>Represented Reality </i>as the primary mode of
existence, which rather, must be considered as the aftermath (epiphenomenon) of
observation made by <i>cognitive-agents</i> [1] <a href="#_ftn15"
name="_ftnref15" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[15]</span></sup></sup></a>. Therefore the
system that seeks for the particular sufficient reason behind a truth, that is
naturally possible, is the supposed aim of <b>Logic of Nature(</b><u>ex</u><b>)</b>;
where a logical representation of the extrinsic nature is what we seek.
Philosophers from past had anticipated metaphysics to capture this section of
episteme due to their limitation of mathematics and experimentation at that
period of enlightening philosophy; but now when we understand the discrepancies
in our <b>Theories of the Universe </b>quite thoroughly at this period of
development, we conclude that nothing metaphysical exists in Nature, and <b>all
that is naturally possible is physical</b>, and <b><i>Physics</i></b><i> is
always responsible to guarantee a sufficient reason behind so</i>. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'>
Physicist Carlo Rovelli<a href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title=""><sup><sup><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[16]</span></sup></sup></a>
[4] concerns that the Nature can very well be <b>devoid of <i>thing</i></b><a
href="#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[17]</span></sup></sup></a>
but must be totalized by <i>relations</i> which are fundamentally constitutive
to existence in the most generality. Therefore, <b>a thought is a Relation
between Cognitive events</b> and <b>reality is the Relation between Real events</b>.
[I don’t require to how cognition is related to nature, i.e. I do not need to
know how the structure of cognition as apriori, and will reach at a possibility
of the structure based on the functions of cognition we study in this article.
]<a href="#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[18]</span></sup></sup></a>
Also, a thing means an instance whereas relations are sequential, giving the
better scope for probing causality, which is fundamentally sequential. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'> The
logic of Nature concerns the representation of complexity which governs Nature
(as the totality). Nature is, in this sense, simply a complex phenomenon and <u>that
certain complexity</u> is the ontology underlying. Consider two sets <b>R</b>
and <b>T</b>, where <b>R</b> is the set of <i>all <b>real</b> <b>relations</b>
among things</i> and <b>R</b> is the set of<i> all <b>thinkable</b> <b>relations</b>
among things</i> as in a thinkable world which says then <b>R</b> is the Real
World. Considering the material universe as the Actual Nature or the whole Real
World, then clearly natural events will outnumber the thinkable events; but in
many ways distant parts of the universe aren’t causally affected so therefore
we have a scale of causality that generates an element of the thinkable world,
or that it dynamically potential to affect a thought. But what is our reality,
now? It isn’t static, and it never was. It has now morphed into an Effective
Real World <b>E(R)</b> within which the thinkable possibilities hugely
outnumber the (effectively) real possibilities, which leads us to formulating
an ordering between thinkables and effective-reals, as </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'> </span></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;
font-family:"Courier New"'> </span></i><i><span
style='font-family:"Courier New"'>thinkable relations > effective real
relations</span></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><u>Some remarks:</u> about how
the representation of nature as a giant complexity would lead to a <b>logic of
nature,</b> are as follows : </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in'>●<span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span>Physics as
it has been, reducible and deterministic didn’t allow for the scope of
emergence and critical phenomenon, where contemporary development of
Renormalisation Theory emphasises that the <b>Complex Phenomenon are imminently
irreducible into simple ones</b>, which gives the appearance of <i>Scale
Dependence</i>. Remarkably, Spinoza anticipated this picture as he wrote in his
<i>Ethics</i> [3] </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'>There is a scale of complexity in
the mental domain of desires and the perceptions matching the scale of
complexity among physical objects. - <i>Intro.,
Ethics</i></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'> </span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in'>●<span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span>Complexity
leaves much less room for absolute computability and greater room for
undecidability, and this is a measure of complexity in such systems <a
href="#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[19]</span></sup></sup></a>. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in'>●<span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span>The
primary distinction between nature and logic is that <b>nature is contingent
but logic isn’t</b> - therefore <i>logic of nature must account for the
contingencies in nature</i>, whereas, <i>nature of logic must take into account
a situation strictly devoid of contingencies</i>.</p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in'>●<span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span>Logic
being a deductive system in any way, with only rules for deduction only
differing for systems, cannot be contingent, since then <b>impossibility will
be just another possibility</b>, implying <i>there’s no point in deduction as
there will always be undetectable chances of a deduction being nonsense</i>;
regarding which Kant exposits : </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
"Courier New"'>All rules according to which the understanding proceeds are
either necessary or contingent. The former are those without which no use of
the understanding would be possible at all; the latter are those without which
a certain use of the understanding would not take place. </span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
"Courier New"'> </span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:4.5in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'> - Logic, Kant,
1819</span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in'>●<span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span>Nature
cannot be <b>freely regular </b>or <b>freely contingent </b>either, since the
former would imply classical determinism, which we know not to be true, and the
later would leave us with <i>absolute law-lessness</i> which isn’t what we
experience and as what Kant established, somewhere in the dynamics there’s a
cut-off and scaling relation, bounded by the totality of the Effective Real
Relations <b>E(R)</b> [that which governs the unique causality behind a
particular event]</p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'>We can further anticipate
analytically and transcendentally on many Countability, Continuity and
Compositionality of the sets <b>R </b>and <b>T </b> which are respectively sets
of all real relations and thinkable relations. That must require another
investigation altogether, but with the analysis at hand, we have successfully
been able to map the question of <b>Logic of Nature </b><b><span
style='font-size:16.0pt;line-height:115%'><img border=0 width=30 height=20
src="Nature%20of%20Logic%20=__=%20Logic%20of%20Nature_files/image002.png"></span></b><b><span
style='font-size:16.0pt;line-height:115%'> </span>Nature of Logic </b>into the
distinction of <i>Turing Systems</i> and Representation of nature as a giant
complex phenomenon by looking at it dynamically. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b><span style='font-size:13.0pt;
line-height:115%'>4.1 Turing Systems : </span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b>
</b>Turing machines are turing-complete systems, but the Turing System as I
mention here is a quite different object. It is a system for probing the
fundamental nature of Deductive and Inductive Systems. [Logic is being induced
in the system and that’s where Syllogism, which is actually a simple deductive
system finds its differences from logical induction]. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'>
Thus logic as we’ve built it isn’t an instance or a thing, it is a
system, but nature is altogether the whole thing, and complexity allows
contingency at each level of spontaneity which makes nature un-smooth as
fractals. Our empirical evidence hugely validates that, in fact with heavy
ubiquity. On the other hand, the analytical construction of Turing Systems can
be quite dilemmatic but we can speculate a possibility. Given a formal system,
the truths that are intuitional but unprovable from within the system are the
ones that are Unprovable truths, and Turing Systems <b>T:(P, S, N) -> {0,1}</b>
<a href="#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[20]</span></sup></sup></a>
therefore probes the Nature of Logic at its fundamentals. Further studies on
this matter might lead us to <i>Geist Ist Immanent Unentscheidbar, </i>as
Turing himself considered Oracle Machines, in parallel with mind.</p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'> At
one end we have <b>a thing</b> and then<b> the sense of the thin</b>g. In fact
there are <b>many things that exist only through the sense of it</b>, <i>with
no form at the physical level</i> [2, God and all such humane constructions
exist only in its sense and not by consuming any physical volume at all]. That
is the reason language allows you to make poetry and stay formal both, although
at distinct ends of a <b>Superspectrum</b>. Episteme is this superspectrum -
the totality (spectrum) we can generate in making senses (Both a derogatory and
sophisticated use of language have sense but has distinct styles, which aren’t
universal and won’t be bothered by us - meaning that content of an expression
in language, if represents a real phenomenon, must not depend on how it’s been
said or the representation). </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b><span style='font-size:13.0pt;
line-height:115%'>5. Reason is the only thing in itself</span></b><b><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%'> :</span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%'> </span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'>
Kant’s distinction of <i>noumenon</i> and <i>phenomenon</i> is at the heart of
Universal Ontology, which says - regarding any intelligible acquisition of
sense, there can only be representation of the <i>thing in itself</i> in terms
of a phenomenon or <i>the thing for itself</i>, thereby the <i>noumenon</i> is
strictly out of the episteme and all we have are its functions as in how it
interacts with everything else. Considering how Rovelli [2] puts forward his - <span
style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'>Relations
are all there is, </span>we have the clarity that <i><u>thing</u></i><u> has
nothing to do with <i>reality,</i></u> indicating that the parallelism between <b><i>thing
& noumenon</i></b> would give us equivalently consistent ontology as what
Kant and Rovelli prescribed. But still, as I consider the <i>logic of nature(<u>ex</u>)</i>
the general presupposition underneath is that, the reason in nature is immanent
and strictly indifferent to the choice of representation of the observer[1],
which is another extension of <b>Universality of Natural Laws</b>, given a
definite scale of interaction [for emergentism and scale-dependence of physical
laws, look at [1] as it contains detailed exposition on this matter]. Further
on, <i>Spinoza</i>, in his <i>Ethics</i> proposes: </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'>●<span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'>It is of
the nature of reason, to regard things as necessary, not as contingent</span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify'><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'> </span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'>Which sufficiently demonstrated
the scope of reasonability as well as the horizon of our cognition, since
beyond that, there must always persist an undetectable possibility that a
deduction is absolute nonsense, and thus no consequence of the reasonable
(logical) system can be considerably upheld to be a truth. Therefore what
remains in front of us, is <b>the scope of immant reason</b> which is intrinsic
to every relation in certainty, giving us : <b>reason is the only thing in
itself (</b>to the sense<b>)</b> whereas, everything else is an appearance due
to relational causation.</p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%'> </span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b><span style='font-size:13.0pt;
line-height:115%'>Conclusion [ as</span></b><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%'> </span>Inevitability in Logic ‘=’ Necessity / Spontaneity in
Nature</b><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%'> ] : </span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%'> </span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'>This development naturally leads
us to how logical inevitability and natural spontaneity can be put into a
coherent framework to construct a <b>Science of Sense</b>, and totalising the
episteme and the universe under one system, i.e. through distinguishing and
relating the <b>Logic of Nature </b><b><span style='font-size:16.0pt;
line-height:115%'><img border=0 width=30 height=20 id=image2.png
src="Nature%20of%20Logic%20=__=%20Logic%20of%20Nature_files/image003.png"></span></b><b><span
style='font-size:16.0pt;line-height:115%'> </span>Nature of Logic. </b>It begs
attention why such a symbol, of whose answer is the following - The equivalence
isn’t present, although the <i>Nature of Logic</i>, as we conceive it, must
originate from the predisposed <i>Logic of Nature</i> through emergence and
criticality. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'> Yet there
is significant room for questions regarding <b>uniqueness of sense and objects</b>
which nature alone cannot accommodate, and different flavours of logical
paradigms are necessary there for an universal consistency of the
superspectrum. Kant further mentions regarding this : </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
"Courier New"'>..before the question whether the cognition agrees with the
object, must come the question whether it agrees with itself (as to form). And
thus is the business of Logic: </span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'>●<span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'>The
principle of contradiction</span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in'><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'>●<span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'>The
principle of sufficient reason</span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
"Courier New"'>By the former is determined the logical possibility, and by the
latter, the logical actuality of Cognition. </span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'> -
Thoroughness of Cognition, Lectures on Logic, Kant [2]</span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
"Courier New"'> </span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>With broader clarification of aforementioned scheme in [1],
the article is concluded with a motivation towards a <i>Reasonable
Categorification of Natural Relations</i>, with ambitious aims towards <b>the
Science of Sense, the language of the Universe, </b>and <b>the theory of Origin
of Nature</b> which is supposed to be born in upcoming sessions. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b><span style='font-size:13.0pt;
line-height:115%'> </span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b><span style='font-size:13.0pt;
line-height:115%'> </span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b><span style='font-size:14.0pt;
line-height:115%'>References: </span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'> </p>
<ol style='margin-top:0in' start=1 type=1>
<li class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><a
href="https://cogito-journal.github.io/pritam_2.html"><span
style='color:#1155CC'>An analysis of Observation : A picture of how we
picture nature [Cogito - 2nd Issue]</span></a></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><a
href="https://cdchester.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Lectures-on-Logic-The-Cambridge-Edition-of-the-Works-of-Immanuel-Kant-in-Translation-Immanuel-Kant.pdf"><span
style='color:#1155CC'>Lectures on Logic - Immanuel Kant, 1819</span></a> </li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><a
href="https://download.tuxfamily.org/openmathdep/epistemology/Ethics-Spinoza.pdf"><span
style='color:#1155CC'>Ethics - Benedict de Spinoza, 1670</span></a></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><a
href="https://onbeing.org/programs/carlo-rovelli-all-reality-is-interaction/"><span
style='color:#1155CC'>All Reality Is Interaction - Carlo Rovelli </span></a></li>
</ol>
</div>
<div><br clear=all>
<hr align=left size=1 width="33%">
<div id=ftn1>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[1]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> It’s clearly nonsense to obtain 10^23 coupled
equations to describe a system and <u>relevant</u> reduction is a necessity
thereafter</span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn2>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[2]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> Look at 2.1 [Inverse Range Principle by Karnap and
Bar-Hillel] </span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn3>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[3]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> As pointed reasonably rightly by Kant in his <i>Critique
of Pure Reason</i> and by Spinoza in his <i>Ethics</i> - inferences about
Nature(<u>ex</u>) must hold true for all <i>experiences</i> as in saying <i><u>empirical
evidences</u></i><u> are uniform for multiplicity throughout subjects</u></span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn4>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[4]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> Necessity of <b>Preconception</b> and an <b>Event</b>
to<i> generate Sense</i></span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn5>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[5]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> Refer to my previous article for thorough exposition
on Principle of Sufficient Reasoning as a Natural and Logical Necessity</span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn6>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[6]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> A greater introspection has been performed by Spinoza
(Ethics) where he establishes <b>Reason (</b>about a phenomenon<b>) </b>to be
the <b>only thing in itself </b></span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn7>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[7]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> Language has the spectrum to be formally and
informally coherent (semantically)</span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn8>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[8]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> The next article will focus on dynamical attributes
regarding natural complexity and its codification in terms of Turing Systems</span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn9>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[9]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> Note that in <b>Nature(</b><u>in</u><b>) of Logic
=||= Logic of Nature(</b><u>ex</u><b>) </b>I emphasise on two distinct <i>meaning</i>s
of <b>nature(</b><u>in/ex</u><b>)</b> which is explained along the way</span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn10>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[10]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> Why <b>simple</b>? Due to the <b>Inverse Range
Principle</b> by Karnap and Bar-Hillel - establishing that - the more
information encoded in a proposition, the less likely that it is true, or in
other words, <b>the more it says, the less it means</b>.</span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn11>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[11]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> Relevance of Information in the context to reason is
necessary due to the alignment of this article - i.e. <b>to capture the essence
of LOGIC in NATURE(</b><u>ex</u><b>)</b> <b>through the NATURE(</b><u>in</u><b>)
of LOGIC</b></span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn12>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[12]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> A closer investigation might lead us to <i>Necessity
of Ethical Positions</i>, intervening at this point of choosing from a pool
(multiplicity)</span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn13>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[13]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> Since the knowledge of the origin of thought is dealt
in Physics, and has immediately nothing to do with structure of logic</span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn14>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[14]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> This will be the main motivation of this article to
aim for the <b>logically perfect picture of nature </b>through investigation of
Sense. </span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn15>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[15]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> As thoroughly exposed in the previous article </span><a
href="https://cogito-journal.github.io/pritam_2.html"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;color:#1155CC'>[1]</span></a><span style='font-size:10.0pt'> how <b>Actuality</b>
is fundamentally <b>distinct </b>from <b>Reality</b>, where the former is
natural and the latter is representational and depends on a subject's choice of
representation (which again is the aftermath of the architecture of
preconceptions). </span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn16>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[16]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> One of the proponents of loop-quantum gravity, a
successful unification schemes for two distinct spectrum of inconsistent
theories, namely quantum theory and gravity</span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn17>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[17]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> We can consider things to bear most minimum condition
for existence, and build theories on this small hypothesis, but the whole point
here is that - the discourse is consistent even without any notion of
individual things, but what are inevitably important, are <b>the relations
among things</b></span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn18>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[18]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> This will allow us <i>to propose the Criticality
Hypothesis for explaining the origin of consciousness and sensibility</i> - and
will be fundamental in <b>the origin of observer, and episteme</b></span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn19>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[19]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> Further on, the undecidability governing complex
phenomenon will be discussed</span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn20>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[20]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> Turing system is such that it takes a tuple (P,S,N)
as input where P ‘=’ a logical system, S ’=’ a sentence, N ‘=’ nature, as in,
the Turing System requires a logical paradigm, a syntax and the whole nature as
input in order to verify where that S is verifiable from within P.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>