## Anyone Else Think About Three-Valued Logic?

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Plato's Rock
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:01 am

### Anyone Else Think About Three-Valued Logic?

Or any other many-valued logic?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-valued_logic & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaina_seven-valued_logic

I found myself heading in that direction for awhile, but I'm not sure what use there is to it. And is it possible from a logical stance to turn a two valued logic into a three valued logic, and upwards into higher "logics"? If so what would be the process and/or mechanism?

Like say, a person thinks like a computer, in binary only. Is it possible for said binary thinker to ratchet up their mind with "higher value" forms of logic?

I have a few thoughts, but I'll hold off for now.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Anyone Else Think About Three-Valued Logic?

Two Value Logic : True / False
Three Value Logic : True / False / Uncertain

Two Value Logic : Deductive / Inductive
Three Value Logic : Deductive / Inductive / Abductive
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6310
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Anyone Else Think About Three-Valued Logic?

Plato's Rock wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:50 am Or any other many-valued logic?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-valued_logic & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaina_seven-valued_logic

I found myself heading in that direction for awhile, but I'm not sure what use there is to it.
It solves the issue of polarities resulting from dualisms and avoids the paradox or contradiction through an act of synthesis while simultaneously justifying their grounds.

In some respects it is unavoidable as all "one dimensional" statement can be observed as neutral axioms that both maintain and manifest inherent positive and negative values.

And is it possible from a logical stance to turn a two valued logic into a three valued logic, and upwards into higher "logics"? If so what would be the process and/or mechanism?

A process of synthesis where + and - are combined to form a neutral logistics space in which both + and - and further + and - are rooted.

Like say, a person thinks like a computer, in binary only. Is it possible for said binary thinker to ratchet up their mind with "higher value" forms of logic?

I have a few thoughts, but I'll hold off for now.
You can look over some of my posts, it is basically what I use...it is the truest logic as of yet. A theoretical 9 dimensional logic would be the next and best step however you would need a computer for it, or really good instincts.
Plato's Rock
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:01 am

### Re: Anyone Else Think About Three-Valued Logic?

Why would a 9 dimensional logic be the next best step? If that be the case I may have inadvertently stumbled into that too, at least if these thoughts hold ground.

In some of my spare time I do tabletop roleplaying game design, and I've been implementing a "3-axis" morality system. Alignment: Good, Evil, Neutral. Effort: Intentional, Incidental, Unintentional. Degree: Maintained, Intermittent, and Abandoned.

Ex(s); Classical conception of God; Good, Intentional, Maintained. God is good because he is actively striving for good things (intentional), and maintains his value system.

Modern conception of God; Good, Incidental, Maintained. God is good because he/she is defined (defines), and happens to be good (Incidental), and he/she maintains said position.

Satan/The Devil Classical vs. Modern: Classic; Evil, Intentional, Abandoned. Modern; Evil, Intentional, Maintained.

There's also a "slippery slope" factor in this design where it plays with moral relativism; Say you were the Devil, thus from a "normal" perspective you'd be E.I.A, or E.I.M, but say you don't see yourself as evil. You're more of a "good guy with good intentions"...they just don't go "right"". That could reset the "normalized view" to where you are sitting at "Good, Incidental, Intermittent." or any of the other 27 base positions in the normalized system.

Essentially, if I see myself as good, and you see me as evil. There'd have to be some sort of "intermediating party" to decide, or agree to disagree (neutrality). I'm still working with, and toying with this system though.

...if they hold ground, I guess I've been using many-valued logic without realizing it. I'm personally not sure if my system would qualify as formal 9-dimensional logic though. Maybe a variant of 3-valued logic, though?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6310
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Anyone Else Think About Three-Valued Logic?

Plato's Rock wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:15 pm Why would a 9 dimensional logic be the next best step? If that be the case I may have inadvertently stumbled into that too, at least if these thoughts hold ground.

It could be argued as a result of the logistics system mirroring itself, much in the same manner addition mirrored results in multiplication.

Considering all logic ends in paradox, to some degree or another, through a circularity it helps broaden the nature of definition and observe certain variables as constants and in a seperate respect thier movements as a negation of "consistency":

a) Mirror Effect (stable, constants, positive value) / Reflective Logistics

1) Identifying cause and effect as structural extension of "Whole". The nature of cause and effect is strictly observation of structure through a mirror effect.
2) Identifying approximate nature of Structures as Randomness or "Absence of Whole". The nature of randomness is strictly observation of deficiency in structure observed through inherent "approximation".

b) Particulate (movement, un-stable, negative value) / Relative Logistics

1) Identifying actual relations of logistics as moving particulate. The nature of actual relations through movement giving definition as logistics particulate.
2) Identifying potential relations of logistics as potentially moving particulate. The nature of potential relations through unactualized movement giving definition as potential logistic particulate.

c) Axioms (neutrality, neither positive or negative or both positive and negative) / Synthetic Logistics
1) Identifying all logistics as dimensional limits which form axioms. The nature of the axioms as forming a limit which maintains structure and simultaneously manifests it through individuation. (This can be viewed as a positive neutrality)
2) Identifying all logistics as possible dimensional limits which form axioms. The nature of the axioms as having possible dimensional limits. (This can be viewed as negative neutrality)

In some of my spare time I do tabletop roleplaying game design, and I've been implementing a "3-axis" morality system. Alignment: Good, Evil, Neutral. Effort: Intentional, Incidental, Unintentional. Degree: Maintained, Intermittent, and Abandoned.

Ex(s); Classical conception of God; Good, Intentional, Maintained. God is good because he is actively striving for good things (intentional), and maintains his value system.

Modern conception of God; Good, Incidental, Maintained. God is good because he/she is defined (defines), and happens to be good (Incidental), and he/she maintains said position.

Satan/The Devil Classical vs. Modern: Classic; Evil, Intentional, Abandoned. Modern; Evil, Intentional, Maintained.

There's also a "slippery slope" factor in this design where it plays with moral relativism; Say you were the Devil, thus from a "normal" perspective you'd be E.I.A, or E.I.M, but say you don't see yourself as evil. You're more of a "good guy with good intentions"...they just don't go "right"". That could reset the "normalized view" to where you are sitting at "Good, Incidental, Intermittent." or any of the other 27 base positions in the normalized system.

Moral Relativism, which can be observed as moral flux, is strictly a negation of a constant morality and in these respects cannot be viewed as a thing in and of itself but rather "absence". In these respect is can be viewed as a dual to "+" when viewed as "-". There are certain spatial constants that form all reality, including morality itself.

Essentially, if I see myself as good, and you see me as evil. There'd have to be some sort of "intermediating party" to decide, or agree to disagree (neutrality). I'm still working with, and toying with this system though.

...if they hold ground, I guess I've been using many-valued logic without realizing it. I'm personally not sure if my system would qualify as formal 9-dimensional logic though. Maybe a variant of 3-valued logic, though?
Impenitent
Posts: 3133
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

### Re: Anyone Else Think About Three-Valued Logic?

surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:39 am
Two Value Logic : True / False
Three Value Logic : True / False / Uncertain

Two Value Logic : Deductive / Inductive
Three Value Logic : Deductive / Inductive / Abductive
The space aliens must use three value logic...

-Imp
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

### Re: Anyone Else Think About Three-Valued Logic?

There is a four-valued logic as pioneered by Hindus:
This
That
Both
Neither
EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

### Re: Anyone Else Think About Three-Valued Logic?

Stoa use three often, but I'm not always able to justify it, despite adopting other areas of the philosophy heavily.

Rewards and Punishments don't always allow for it, the mind's feedback loops often allow for more, but there is a basic dualistic symmetry. Doesn't mean a dualistic system itself can't have buffer issues, increasing it to a trianary+ system.

I also doubt it has to go on a progression of 3-9-(27 or 81?) Our nerves aren't built like that, as far as I know (synaptic connections don't land on that number on average, right?, right? I'm not arguing, I'm asking). A machine might well pull it off.

I gotta track down a not so long deceased English theologian, he came up with a logic similar to what is discussed, was able to do tricks.... I'm having a brain fart in recalling the name due to this nasty complicated paper I'm reading, killed my brain. Had something to do with mapping.

Edit:
(I was wrong, Charles Hawthorne was a American, wasn't a great philosopher, but I made use of this aspect of his thinking for a while, I'll continue to look for links on his Di-Polar thinking, used to be a site listing examples).

Edit 2:
It is gone, but this gives you a elementary grasp:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipolar_theism

You juxtaposition two opposing qualities, assuming God is Good, he would embody them, even if they had some bad in them. This often gets close to what the Stoa said about indifference. It was useful to me for a while when I was working with Anaximander, and doing work on basic fallacies, trying to map them out logically, but found the whole system by it self not too exciting, and I kept modifying it. I abandoned everything I was doing with it a while ago, but you might find reminents of it on ilovephilosophy.com or unrv from a few years back. I ended up switching to a 3D modular building block system, that mimicked thinking, each side having a aspect of thinking. Lead to a jungle gym after a while connecting ideas together, like I was building giant molecules of thought within a world of meaning you could see the big picture of from any one angle. No fun drawling that, imagining it once it gets large, even if it is great working with on very small problems of language.

Not often a pretty way to contain logic if you want to be systematic, never found a aesthetically pleasing and simple system when it gets into the big questions.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6310
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Anyone Else Think About Three-Valued Logic?

Viveka wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:22 am There is a four-valued logic as pioneered by Hindus:
This
That
Both
Neither
Their logical system can be observed as one of the foundational logics observing the nature of the axiom.

The axiom, can be observed as similar to the philosopher Nagarjuna’s Catuṣkoṭi, a "four-cornered" analytical system of logic based around 4 functions of the proposition P (Catuṣkoṭi):

1.P; that is, being.

a) Which can be argued as approximately equivalent to logistic cause and effect as existence

2. not P; that is, not being.

a) Which can be argued as approximately equivalent to logistic randomness or deficiency in structure.

3. P and not P; that is, being and not being.

a) Which can be argued as approximately equivalent to probabilistic logistics as fractions/partials equivalent to a duality of being or non-being/gradation.

4. not (P or not P); that is, neither being nor not being.

a) Which can be argued as approximately equivalent to potential logistics as neither being nor not being.
Plato's Rock
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:01 am

### Re: Anyone Else Think About Three-Valued Logic?

Hmm, not sure how to jump back into this conversation at the moment, but it seems to me like this may be an under-researched field. The reason I started looking into this type of logic goes back a couple of years to where "I felt like I was thinking in binary" (Either/or fallacies, and Black/White Thinking). And started "reinventing/rediscovering" Balanced Ternary as a natural progression of thoughts ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_ternary ), and supposedly as a "Radix", Ternary has a better economy,( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix_economy ). Meaning it may be better than Binary logic.

I'm kinda pushing in this direction with my recent thoughts because I've been wondering about genetics. There seems to be a radix four in genetics, (The four basic amino acids in DNA, or RNA...ignoring atomic structure for a moment). And I was wondering if there could be a comparison/analogy made that describes four-valued logic as a form of "genetics". Aka it seems to be possible to "program" (read as have) an entity that is operating on said radix (aka us as humans).

And I've also had a shuddering thought of what would a "26-valued, or radix logic" look like, and this thought was based off of "how does language work"? We have 26+ characters in our alphabet, and just musing about the "domain". Aka what can, and can't be said based upon the properties as understood.

...some of these thoughts make me doubt the "Success of AI", but I don't know entirely.

Oh, and as a fun tidbit, if one operates on "binary logic" as in this case; Ask a series of T/F questions, and it seems to build up to a Geometric series as one builds "truth squares". Making me wonder if anything that is computable in a given logic (like binary) is always a finite computation.

T/F

T/T T/F
T/F F/F

T/T/T T/F/T T/F/T F/F/T
T/T/F T/F/F T/F/F F/F/F

1/2 T, 1/4 T, 1/8 T......assuming one is only counting the "Full Truths" (all "T" for all instances). Aka dealing with only the "Absolutes/Extremes".

And regarding the brief comment about synaptic connections. I don't see why it'd matter, it's not like there's a "hard off/on", there may be "half-pulses", or intermediate phases in a synapse firing. I think part of the hardness to grasping these concepts is because they haven't been investigated as much as binary logic. You know something like ~2000 years of "True or False", and no if's an's or buts... because of the grounding axioms used, and taught from generation to generation. There has been many ideas/domains of knowledge that has died with the generation that "discovered it". The latest I've heard of was the technique to have reduced friction on ships from the type of wields. No one wrote it down, or taught it onwards from WWII. It only came about because of the mass production of ships back then too. The same goes for low-speed aircraft (ground support), it's just been "forgotten about"...or "downgraded".
EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

### Re: Anyone Else Think About Three-Valued Logic?

I don't understand Radix Economg, but Balanced Terinary looks very close to what I described in my experiment with 3-D Di-Polar chains, how they acted like molecules.

You can use any shape, but imagine a cube. It has six sides.

You give side S the Cube's Identity, such as in Hawthrone's case, God.... just the concept. You are left with 5 sides, four opposing into two polarities. You can add a value like Love to a side joining God, and put the opposing value opposite. Then, repeat another two terms. You end up with a cross, one you can build up again from any direction.

Issue is, space asserts the inability to sort out the direction these cubes can build out into, and I was expecting a shape (and 3-D regular shape like pyramids or cubes or higher) when they class to contradict logically.... and they usually don't. It is a random mix.

You also have to worry about a problem inherent in logic, but next to never observed because we rarely use large systems..... numbers play by their own damn rules. We designed our number theory to have a pattern, and it has unexpected random chaotic characteristic Wolfram explored in his "A New Kind Of Science"

https://www.wolframscience.com

It is purely coincidental I went with a 3-D approach using cubes, I could of written it out, but the rules for patterned Chaos would of played out eventually in any logical system I produced from it. He explored these patterns, a lot match up with certain patterns we observe in nature, like waves moving in the ocean, or how renessiance siege works were designed to safely advance infantry through trenches under artillery barrages, and how to slope the land to counter that.

It would exist written flat as relations, or expressed in 3-D.

A bigger issue would be if you used a data set so large that the values accidentally did something completely unexpected, like take on a characteristic of self replication. One case exists for this, that I know of, but was done intentionally:

That uses the basic idea of Cellular Automata, and what we are discussing in this thread is very closely related.... might not look like a basic kind of logic you learn with binary rules, remember, it took 33 million operations for it to self replicate.... but it can in theory happen, and perhaps on a much smaller scale. A potential for some sort of ghost hidden in the chaos of our date sets we work with, asserting itself in bizarre manners over time.

They run off very, very, very simple logic. If I can convert a Di-Polar set up into 3-D squares, and they can construct complex ideas seeking syllogusm and contradiction (I'm not too pleased with the results, can be done much better I think, mapping it out, but not so well how I was doing it, can work sometimes), but can also do the work flat, in a more traditional format, it means the rules of cellular autonoma and the chaos, and even the mimicking of life and intelligence is capable of appearing in our logic as well, unintentionally.

I can't begin to say how much this annoys me. St Augustine would laugh saying of course, but I don't hold to the idea that mathematics, laws of nature, and other such systems are the thoughts of god.

I suspect the higher you increase it, once pass 4+, the more likely you are to trip up some bizarre autonomous actions on the part of logic itself, where the data seems to have a perverse mind of it's own.

Highest I myself can use is the system given by Dignaga, in his Hetucakra.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetucakra

https://www.amazon.com/Buddhist-Formal- ... ds=dignaga

It seems to be a evolution upon Aristotle's Square of Opposites (could very well have a independent evolution), examining the reality of what is apparent, using 9, with three variables per the nine to assert if some assertion can be true.

I've tried combining Dignaga and Aristotle a few times already, into a cube, but keep getting messed up.... some angles work, but others.... well, unexpected oddities assert themselves that forces me to rethink it. Been a long lasting headache for me, thought I nearly solved it at times at combining the two systems together. Rule Number 9 is particularly tasking given how Aristotle approaches his square, which is more or less how Viveka expresses Nargajuna. I don't like the implication, as I see it pop up in philosophy all over the place, but can't wedge all that extra stuff into a cube. Might have to try a different shape all together. I get tantalizingly close only to see it fall apart, with the parts making sense but the whole not really looking beautiful and simple.
Plato's Rock
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:01 am

### Re: Anyone Else Think About Three-Valued Logic?

Radix economy is something I'm still trying to understand myself. Some of your comments, namely Aristotle's Square of Contradiction, reminded me of a mnemonic we learned in Physical chemistry for Thermodynamics; The Thermodynamic Square https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_square & http://home.iitk.ac.in/~suller/lectures ... age016.gif

In this square there's certain operations that work (the arrows on the 2nd diagram) that allow you to derive the equations that are feasible, and make real world sense. Maybe your logic cubes needs similar demarcation?

Regarding the mimicking of life/intelligence, isn't that the point with a lot of the current progress in AI development? And the comments about going above 4+ valued logic; Well, we generally have 23 pairs of chromosomes, so there may be something to it(?). We also have over 3 billion base pairs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome ), so maybe that comment about 33 million operations may be similar too?

I don't know, it just seems odd to me that there could be such similarities and/or patterns forming like this (I don't know if they're real or not).
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6310
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Anyone Else Think About Three-Valued Logic?

Plato's Rock wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:17 pm Radix economy is something I'm still trying to understand myself. Some of your comments, namely Aristotle's Square of Contradiction, reminded me of a mnemonic we learned in Physical chemistry for Thermodynamics; The Thermodynamic Square https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_square & http://home.iitk.ac.in/~suller/lectures ... age016.gif

Considering all reality is grounded in space, there logically must be certain spatial laws which extend across fields and these laws must exist as medians in their own right.

In this square there's certain operations that work (the arrows on the 2nd diagram) that allow you to derive the equations that are feasible, and make real world sense. Maybe your logic cubes needs similar demarcation?

Regarding the mimicking of life/intelligence, isn't that the point with a lot of the current progress in AI development? And the comments about going above 4+ valued logic; Well, we generally have 23 pairs of chromosomes, so there may be something to it(?). We also have over 3 billion base pairs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome ), so maybe that comment about 33 million operations may be similar too?

I don't know, it just seems odd to me that there could be such similarities and/or patterns forming like this (I don't know if they're real or not).

Who/What/When/Where/Why/How as Axioms of Space that "cube" our reality into something understandable:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22697&p=329719#p329719

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6310
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Anyone Else Think About Three-Valued Logic?

Plato's Rock wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:17 pm Radix economy is something I'm still trying to understand myself. Some of your comments, namely Aristotle's Square of Contradiction, reminded me of a mnemonic we learned in Physical chemistry for Thermodynamics; The Thermodynamic Square https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_square & http://home.iitk.ac.in/~suller/lectures ... age016.gif

In this square there's certain operations that work (the arrows on the 2nd diagram) that allow you to derive the equations that are feasible, and make real world sense. Maybe your logic cubes needs similar demarcation?

Regarding the mimicking of life/intelligence, isn't that the point with a lot of the current progress in AI development? And the comments about going above 4+ valued logic; Well, we generally have 23 pairs of chromosomes, so there may be something to it(?). We also have over 3 billion base pairs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome ), so maybe that comment about 33 million operations may be similar too?

Furthermore, genetic scientists have studied the conversation between DNA and RNA, and found that is it ‘discussed’ in the language of eights. (Transmission happens in groups of 64 codons, or 8X8) Also, when we are stressed out, we change our bodies on the cellular level. The base letters which form our DNA (ACGT) will actually give a command to the immune system to crash when our stress levels reach toxic levels. This goes for thoughts based in fear and greed as well as physical toxins we take in via our food, air and water. In order to realign the DNA to God-mind we can listen music of 528 hz which supposedly heals DNA.

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2012/10/10/p ... ematician/

I don't know, it just seems odd to me that there could be such similarities and/or patterns forming like this (I don't know if they're real or not).
Plato's Rock
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:01 am

### Re: Anyone Else Think About Three-Valued Logic?

Ah, epigenetics. I touched briefly upon the subject in college, but it was only covered up to the point where methalaytion of the DNA/RNA strands was starting to happen. In essence, the profs. conveyed that epigenetics allowed for a sense (only a sense) of larmarkian evolution. That stressors can change generations if the stress is extreme enough, and persistent enough. Like say your grandparents went through a famine, as grandchildren you'd be slightly affected by said stressor with either a slight disposition to "horde energy" (build up fat count), or survive off of less rations. (The details weren't quite clear when I covered it, and they probably still aren't).

I have no idea what you mean by "god-mind". Is that some sort of solipsistic state where one thinks they're god?