Main Thesis

The Distant Future of Human Endeavor

What is Universal Logic?

      
     Universal Logic is an approach to all human endeavor based around the core unit of Classical Logic: the Syllogism. Universal Logic is closely linked to Universal Primitivism. Both of these ideas intend to be worldview agnostic. In other words, these ideas have nothing to do (intentionally at least) with Atheism or Religion or any other form of morality.


       Universal Logic (UL) and Universal Primitivism (UP) combine to form a guided approach to all forms of endeavor by addressing two fundamental problems of human existence:

• How does one go about making the best decision using the most current data she has on hand?
• How does academia collect and allocate it's combined knowledge in the best way possible; so that it is available, not only to the discipline which discovered it, but to all of humanity -- especially to applications unseen?

    
      One of the core tools of UL is a thing called a syllogism. The syllogism is a decision-making tool first proposed by Aristotle. Blaise Pascal also realized the enormous potential of classical logic to revolutionize the way humans do business. He reasoned that, in the future (our present), technology would become advanced enough that we could build a machine which would take competing arguments on a nearly infinite range of subjects and evaluate them via the tried and true rules of Syllogistic Logic and return a correct decision like clockwork. This has since been dubbed Pascal's Logic Engine. He never saw this idea completed, though he did gain international fame from building one of the world's first computers: the Pascaline.

     Thankfully, a machine is not required to do these logical evaluations. One could simply create a user's manual. However, modern programmers do these sorts of logical operations hundreds of times a day. Pascal's Logic Engine has already been made, we need only to popularize it's use.

    Even if you don't like computers, the mere thought of using classical logic to solve real-world debates is revolutionary (apocryphal?) enough as it is -- see "A new form of debate" at the bottom of the page. The potential for positive social change that basic logic holds is enormous. You may ask, "so how come nobody is doing it?" I have no good answer at the moment other than to say it is occasionally  used in private; usually in the midst of an Intro to Logic class. There are definitely issues to be worked out in order to make a logical debate forum popular. But mostly, I think humans are just compulsive illogical creatures who avoid discipline like the plague. Nietzsche , the king of aphorism, said it best:

"Once you were apes, yet even now man is more of an ape than any of the apes." 

An incomplete and informative comment on the history of  Universal Logic

    
     There have been many pioneering minds in modern logic throughout the last three thousand years. Most notably, Aristotle, DeCartes, and Hegel. So, regardless of what a modern author may claim, Universal Logic is too ancient to be attributed to any one person or even to one group. Any discussion on it's history is bound to be fraught with error. Yet, one recurrent theme I've noticed in my humble research is the gradual abstraction of logic. It would be closer to the truth to say that it has been swept under the rug.

     G.W.F. Hegel was one of the last classical philosophers to suggest the widespread governmental application of Universal Logic. He was resoundingly criticized and misunderstood for it. Soren Kierkegaard even made a career out of trashing Hegel's Logic; despite a serious lack of original ideas on his own part. Universal Logic never really recovered after that. Thankfully, it had already been used as the foundation of the modern Scientific Method by illustrious minds like Sir Francis Bacon. In this way, logic continued to develop discrete applications in math and science and thus exert it's influence over the world in the halls of learning. However, Hegel seemed to be primarily occupied with refining logic into a more consistent model which would serve humanity over the next era. His powerful description of the utility of logic in the public sphere often took second chair to his much more detailed observations about the inherent logic apparent in all forms of social structure. Perhaps he was not ready to apply logic on such a grand scale or perhaps he just never got around to it. After all, most critics were still struggling to understand the Science of Logic. When the Philosophy of Right came along, Hegel's audience had lost much of their patience with his terse prose. He would spend his remaining years teaching and critiquing the work of others; never clarifying his ideas on the use of logic in governance.


     Hegel suggested that all social systems are innately logical and can best be described and executed using rational models. It is the thesis of this blog that we, as a world society, ought  to apply logic to human governance and all social questions.  Logic's elegant generic structure calls us to explore the limits of it's application. Though primitive by Hegel's standards, the syllogism is still the most obvious tool with which to develop a logical system of decision-making. Though it is universally present in the proofs of Mathematicians and Scientists, it is still shockingly absent in the arguments of some of the world's greatest academic minds. This is a monumental mistake. Humans have yet to learn the limits of logic or it's offshoot, didactic primitivism, regardless of what some revisionist textbooks may insinuate.

So what is Universal Primitivism?

   
     The inspiration behind Universal Primitivism is the persistent realization, gained from undergoing various (seemingly unrelated) courses of study, that the key discoveries made by all disciplines of study are nothing but recursive iterations of certain scientific primitives. A primitive is a fundamental operation in mathematics and computer science. In physics (the one ruling science if ever there was one), a primitive can be thought of as a law or axiom: heat tends to flow from it's source out to areas that have a lower net temperature. Universal Primitivism is concerned with the unition of all academic disciplines through the mechanism of a common technical language.

     The need for Universal Primitivism comes from the tremendous amount of fragmentation within the education systems of the world. This has become such a problem that entire disciplines continue to ponder paradoxes which have long been solved; continue to fight arguments which have already been conclusively proven wrong; continue to espouse methods and worldviews that have elsewhere been proven dangerous or even negligent.

    
     If you begin to think of all of human knowledge as one giant database of discovery, then you can begin to consider applying basic database maintenance practices towards it. That is, fragmented ideas must be consolidated, incoherent terms and 'broken links' must be fixed, academic obfuscation (a mixture of the latter) must be continually addressed, backups must be made -- both vertically (within individual fields of study) and horizontally (across multiple mediums). One can accomplish these tasks partly by eliminating vestigial terminology and outdated teaching techniques, as well as educating students in all fields of study simultaneously (horizontal backup).

     Universal Primitivism can be contrasted with the primitives in Chomsky's Structuralism or Plato's abstract Forms. These theories attempt to find an ideal category within the mind for which to base further categorizations of phenomena upon. Universal Primitivism is not concerned with finding ideal categories or ideal anything else, for that matter. It is concerned with finding core actions or patterns of behavior which can be combined with other known phenomena to create or describe scientific discoveries and related artistic advancements in a way which will be understandable to every scientist and academic. UP does not posit or even consider what an ideal form of a thing can or should be described as; it only attempts to describe it relative to other known principles in order to make it's unique structure understandable across all disciplines in one common technical language.

     There is also a pragmatic side to UP. Like Universal Logic, UP does not purport to know the truth of a subject. Instead, UP is an approach to create the best description that is possible with the information available to the authoring individual or committee at that single point in time. This addresses one of the basic flaws of pre-Hegelian logic; that 'Truth' can be knowable. Language is a purely relativistic endeavor. Truth is as awkward an idea to contemplate as infinity or a black-hole. In order to create a well-composed language, one must attempt to draw correlations that are recognizable to all the parties using the language and which also abide by the laws of logic. Truth is accepted to be relative to the individual and has no purpose other than to inform a momentary decision. In that way, humans can never achieve any ideal creation, we can only do the best possible job with whatever materials we have to work with at the time. Our best social tool at the moment is logic. Perhaps logic itself (in it's frustratingly non-committal relativism) is the closest thing to an ideal humanity will ever achieve.

Hybrid Theory (not the band/album)

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Isaac Newton, 1676

   
     There is an idea that has been floating around since time immemorial; informally referred to as the Hybrid Theory. The basic idea is that all great (and small) intellectual discoveries are merely combinations or hybridization of previously established (or overlooked) ideas. This is a core assumption of UP. In order to promote new discoveries, society must endeavor to make all of the previous discoveries public knowledge. 

     UP goes one step further by proposing a system wherein all of the discoveries of every discipline are consolidated into one declarative language. The idea being, that by creating a universal approach to education, hybridization will become supercharged. 

     Video Game designers will have an intuitive knowledge of formally obscure mathematical principles which will lead to new and exciting game dynamics. Psychologists will have an innate understanding of the fundamental processes of Neurology and will stop basing therapy on outmoded Freudian concepts. Engineers will be automatically educated in the core precepts of ergonomics, so that computer keyboards stop giving us carpal-tunnel syndrome.


     This is, of course, an old idea. In fact, it was the driving force behind both the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The entire university system was conceived in order to formalize this very notion. The defining characteristic of a Renaissance woman is that she is able to use patterns and techniques from disparate disciplines and apply them to solve persistent problems elsewhere in an intuitive way. This is all fine and dandy; the only problem is that the university system failed to do this from day one. The thing that made DaVinci so successful was his self-education; wherein he was never told to separate the fields of study and thus developed his own version of UP in countless well-preserved notebooks.


     The Renaissance university dream was never actualized. It won't be until UP itself is formalized into a new technical language. This will be a monumental task that will probably not be realized within the lifetime of it's founders. Every academic department will object to the usurping and renaming of their terminology. Many will even steadfastly claim that their art form does not conform to any logical rules. Frankly, this is baloney. I have yet to encounter a phenomena that can't be adequately described with Mathematics. Professors and so-called authorities preached this same sort of formal ill-logic to Benoit Mandelbrot his whole life. His fractals changed their minds.


     The task of UP is daunting to say the least. Thankfully, by merely undertaking it, humanity will begin to reap it's rewards. Mainstream academia will dismiss it fervently until it begins to produce discoveries. This is to be expected. For now, all we need to do is prove logically it's merits as a course of study. The rest will work itself out.

Ha! You're just another malcontent!

     
     I think that these founding principles can be satisfactorily proven without needing to attack the academic world. In truth, I think humanity as a whole has consistently striven for academic excellence at the times when it was needed most. The process of creating a database of human knowledge up to this point has been dominated by passion and warfare. Since science has only recently accepted that world culture has developed via evolution, we cannot be blamed for only now realizing the chaotic state of human knowledge thus created.

     As it turns out, humanity seems to be reaching the end of an era. There currently is a growing belief that we must define a new paradigm for human thought and social structure if we are to survive the unprecedented trials which some of the greatest minds in science warn may be just over the horizon: planet-wide overpopulation, mass human-starvation, mass extinctions, irrevocable resource-depletion (water and petroleum), epidemic disease, and devastating man-made climate change (to name a few). 

We've come pretty far, but now it's time to step it up. We know there are better ways to integrate our scientific discoveries into collective knowledge. We know there is an entire branch of science (called logic) which is devoted to making better decisions. In order to 'step it up' we need to act on that knowledge. The application of UL and UP is one way to step it up.

     Although many will dismiss the ideas of Universal Logic and Universal Primitivism out of hand, what do we have to loose by contemplating it's application? After all, if logic is the foundation of all of the scientific discoveries which have created modern society (and it is), shouldn't logic be the foundation for the new human paradigm?

So what do we do now?

 
     I only propose that we like-minded individuals gather and trade ideas on the subject. I doubt we will see any meaningful application of UL or UP in our lifetimes. However, if we can prove that the fundamental principles are sound, we can begin proving it to the world in small ways. Perhaps, with a small but stalwart following, we can ensure that these ideas continue to progress until the point in the distant future when they are implemented (if we are still around). Here's some of the ideas I have had which we can develop as a proving ground for UL:

• A corporate co-op business model based entirely around UL: Imagine if every business decision were run through Pascal's Logic Engine (PLE)? 
• A new form of debate wherein every argument put forth was first run through the PLE. Syllogistically invalid arguments would automatically be thrown out along with arguments based around any premise which has been formally rejected by scientific peer-review. Debaters will no longer need to be 'good arguers' who appeal to an audience; as long as their argument is sound!
• A new form of democratic government where every decision is made using the PLE-based debate method and politicians are merely proctors.
• A stock-market game based around the PLE.
• The PLE!* This is an idea I am currently working on (while I go to school and do everything else we humans do). My current approach is to build it in Haskell and distribute it free online. Although, theoretically, it could be built out of virtually anything -- imagine a completely mechanical PLE built out of Brazilian Rosewood!

     *Of course, the PLE is not necessary for most of these ideas, especially the debate forum. A simple blackboard, knowledgeable proctor, a few debaters, and a comprehensive Syllogism handbook is all that is needed. 

     One obvious major step to be taken for the advancement of UL and UP is to amass a thesis on the need for and viability of UL/UP. This would include a detailed examination of important deficiencies in  theory and practice across a wide cross-section of academia which could be eliminated or mitigated by greater interdisciplinary co-operation. This is what UL/UP currently lacks. Thankfully, there is already a rich collection of literature on the fundamental ideas ( Ken Robinson, Howard Gardner, John Rawls, et al) from which to provide theoretical support. If executed well, a thesis of this sort would turn some heads and provide the bedrock needed to continue serious development. If written well enough, it might even sell some copy! 

A new form of Debate

     

     This is the logical first-step for UL and UP. A formal debate structure can easily be worked-out on paper by a few people with a good working knowledge of syllogisms. And no, this is not basic high-school Forensics; Forensics and all other popular western forms of debate are based around the art of persuasion by any means necessary. The debate forum envisioned here is fairly novel as far as I know, but I am sure it's been done before by many people in private. The point here being that, this is the right way to debate. As such, it must be propagated and to a continually wider audience.

My contribution to UP

 
     In many ways, I am not in a position to provide much material on this subject at the moment. I have been postponing this blog for several years due to my limited resources and total academic anonymity. I could use a few letters in front of my name. However, I haven't been able to find that much material online about the social applications of UL. Sure, there are plenty of resources on logic designed for mathematicians and Philosophy students. Yet, none of them have the courage to suggest using UL as a governance tool. You have to go back to Hegel for that.

     Logic was thoroughly dismissed as a social decision-making technique in the early twentieth-century. Only mathematicians, programmers and CS students like myself actually use logic on a daily basis. Even then, the unspoken rule is that logic is to be hidden from the common folk. Because of this glaring omission, I decided to throw my hat in for whatever it's worth. If even one person reads this blog and sees the uniquely beneficial social applications of UL, I will have made enough progress to warrant a few verbose nights at the keyboard.

    My contribution for now will be a collection of notes on UL/UP, introductory Computer Science and elementary mathematics.  I will attempt to unite the various subjects of CS around a loose working-principle of UP. It will be a work-in-progress. I hope I can learn a bit about the problems of implementing a UP approach to CS and Math education through my attempt. More importantly, I hope that the UP approach will make it easier for creative types like myself to understand elementary CS and Math.  At the very least it will be yet another source of info on introductory programming, which is so tersely documented at the moment as to completely justify this blog!

Up Next: Fundamental Precepts of UL/UP