On Formal Logic Systems

The ambiguity of our own freedom is humanity's greatest challenge; it's why we build complex systems.

Formal logic is an axiomatic system where inputs run through a series of precise transformations according to the ruleset of the framework. We use formal logic systems when we can no longer leverage the resources of a group casually, for a variety of reasons such as geographical location, confidentiality, democratic processes and so on. They are highly functional catch-all rulesets that ease communication between uncommon peoples when disputation and ambiguity are common. We also use formal logic to grapple with reality in a reliable way, where past notation translates into semi-predictable outcomes, and those outcomes are noted for further experimentation; effectively buttoning down the variables one step at a time. This is how the mind gains powerful traction over the environment.

The seed of agreement is a contract stronger than the will of two or more parties, except in the case that a proponent effectively plants an idea that reduces the cost-benefit calculation. As more individuals are added to a system or community that acts according to an agreement, further clauses are created that amend the cost-benefit calculation. The calculation adapts complexly to how the group and individual needs change with scaling. As a result, many clauses are loose rubrics for living that have a history of general effectiveness across a cross-section of population, and this can contribute to the illusion that the system itself is logical. Ghost in the machine situations arise where the rules become the rule-keepers, since one may defer their authority to them and become the “limbs” of those rules. Science is particularly prone to the 'laws govern' rather than the 'we see rules' idea, for entirely different reasons. It seems that the observable predictability of certain states partially constitutes the myth that the stars are moved by their descriptors.

Objectively, value-based information is semantic dry and only takes on meaning when read, dissected and implemented by a subjective agent. Nevertheless, this is how a formal logic system grows: A strong initial idea creates perceived value; the agents of said idea lay down enough information infrastructure to outstrip individual competence (at a pinch). Thus the individual is likely to conform his/her thinking to the trellis of the pre-existing system. Because the individuals are anchored to the same logic, the effectiveness of acting on the same wavelength as a group further reinforces the idea that the system itself is “correct”; entrenching the principle, especially when the environment becomes sculpted to reflect the expression of the values in question.



As a system grows, it becomes stretched thinner as more scenarios are eaten and formalised by “how we handle things” until the system is so suffocatingly pervasive that it is like a balloon stretched to burst, and the resistance of its skin so taught that the pinprick of a single outlier can, with the aid of publicity and negative sentiment, unravel the entire charade.

All systems exist in relation to what they are not, and likewise, chaos is defined as that which is un-sytemisable. As such the balance of the “two” is harmonic. Frequently, the un-sytemisable provokes systemic change by revealing the absurdities present in grid-like thinking. This article is very straight and narrow; when presented as an argument for something it achieves nothing. Only by extracting myself from any one system of thought does thought become insightful, but this sacrifices usefulness in any particular scenario. This is because systems are not inherent in any property, least of all usefulness; they are patterns that stabilise the survival of forms that try to survive, no different to the way oil will stick to a fishing net before being washed clean.

Systems exist because of their power to stick in relation to entities that have needs the system provides, but such patterns naturally cycle. Today we are seeing the emergence of the paradox of inclusive systems, that allow so many modes of individual autonomy they risk obsolescence at any moment. These are only possible because survival needs are met as a baseline. Individuals are less threatened by the death of tradition or custom. Without a security tether, our perception of reality becomes increasingly diluted by perspectives that validate/invalidate each other, until one is completely lost. Unwittingly, to be ground down in this desert of meaning is the teething phase in the unspoken blooming of wisdom; the love life has for itself.