[ 28/December/22 Walter Kant asked:
The first perception of the world (universe) with two eyes, even without experience, implies space (static) and time (dynamic, when something is moving).
Space and time exist ontologically a priori!
Do you agree? Yes, No, ?]
The set of possible postulates for possible inference appears to be infinite (though many subsets seem to have degrees of equivalence).
Thus it appears possible to spend infinite time on any set of postulates (any class of logic).
It appears that we exist as a result of the initially simple, but exponential more complex, process of evolution by natural selection operating over some 4 billion years of life on this planet, and in a cultural milieu that is some hundreds of thousands of years old running in a strategically equivalent evolutionary process, and we each thus come with multiple levels of ‘a posteriori’ knowledge embedded within us as a result of these “realities” sorting various approximations to the survivable in various “contexts”.
It appears that some 80% of the activity of our neural network’s activity is generated internally, and is thus primarily some functional mix of the a posteriori knowledge selected over the deep times of genetic and cultural evolution, mixed with some degree of randomness (and as we know from database theory, for a fully loaded processor, the most efficient search possible is the fully random search – which then poses the question as to how a system so heavily constrained can approximate randomness, … ).
It appears that the constraints of evolution to respond to survival contexts in a time that is survivable, have heavily biased our neural networks to select and use the simplest of possible logics, and the simplest sets of dimensions that usually deliver survivable outcomes in the time available – hence the strong preference at multiple levels for binary logics and 4 dimensional spacetime.
It seems that very few individuals have both the time and interest to do any significant exploration in the infinities beyond those evolutionary “ground states”.
The understandable bias to prefer the simple, and the understandable demands for social agreement, lead to the emergence of reasonably stable and relatively simple sets of “understandings” that only approximate the reality of our existence in very simple sets of contexts (at every level of “structural complexity”). Our reality seems to be far more complex than most sets of social constructs or sets of social agreements, allow for.
It seems beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, that any set of competitive strategies that are not firmly based in cooperation are necessarily destructive of the systemic complexity that allowed for their emergence. Cooperation seems to be systemically and strategically fundamental to the emergence and survival of every level of complexity – necessarily, logically (in all classes of logic I have explored), eternally!
This seems to be a useful approximation to the simplest sketch of what it is to be human, and what the foundations of logic look like, that has any reasonable probability of long term survival.