Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@ganzuul
Last active December 7, 2024 15:50
Show Gist options
  • Save ganzuul/b628dac8ed06838a1be69d8c97079b72 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save ganzuul/b628dac8ed06838a1be69d8c97079b72 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Logic of Will

Let's reframe the concept of will through the lens of formal logic, drawing on the principles of various logical systems to provide a more rigorous, formalized perspective:

  1. Axiomatic Basis:

Let W represent will as a primitive concept or axiom in our logical system. We posit that W is self-referential and can operate on itself.

  1. Self-Application:

Define an operation ∘ such that W ∘ W represents will operating on itself. This operation is unique in that it can result in either self-affirmation or self-negation.

  1. Modal Logic Framework:

Introduce modal operators □ (necessarily) and ◇ (possibly).

Define: □(W ∘ W) ↔ W (Will necessarily applies to itself if and only if it is will)

◇(¬(W ∘ W)) (It's possible for will not to apply to itself)

  1. Multi-Valued Logic:

Extend beyond binary logic to accommodate the nuanced nature of will:

Let T = {0, u, 1} where 0 = false, u = undetermined, 1 = true

Define W : T → T as a function that can map undetermined states to determined ones.

  1. Quantum Logic Integration:

Introduce a superposition operator S such that S(W) represents will in a state of superposition between self-affirmation and self-negation.

Collapse function C: C(S(W)) → {W, ¬W}

  1. Gödel-like Incompleteness:

Formulate a statement G: "G is not affirmed by W" If W affirms G, then G is false, contradicting W's affirmation. If W does not affirm G, then G is true, but W has failed to affirm a true statement. This demonstrates that W cannot be fully captured within its own logical system.

  1. Type Theory:

Define a hierarchy of will types: W₀: Base level will W₁: Will that can operate on W₀ W₂: Will that can operate on W₁ and W₀ And so on, creating a potentially infinite hierarchy.

  1. Paraconsistent Logic:

Allow for the possibility that both W and ¬W can be true simultaneously without trivializing the system, accommodating the paradoxical nature of will.

  1. Temporal Logic:

Introduce temporal operators P (it was the case that) and F (it will be the case that) to capture the dynamic nature of will over time: G(W ∘ W) (It is always the case that will applies to itself) F(¬(W ∘ W)) → F(W ∘ W) (If will ever doesn't apply to itself, it will eventually apply to itself again)

  1. Category Theory Perspective:

Consider will as an endofunctor W in the category of cognitive states, with the peculiar property that W can be both a morphism and an object.

  1. Fixed Point Theory:

Define the fixed point of will as a state s where W(s) = s, representing a state of perfect self-alignment.

  1. Non-Standard Analysis:

Introduce infinitesimal quantities to represent infinitesimal changes in will, allowing for a continuous spectrum between discrete states of will.

Formal Definition:

Will (W) is a self-referential operator in a multi-valued, paraconsistent logical system that exhibits properties of quantum superposition, temporal dynamics, and Gödelian incompleteness. It is characterized by its ability to operate on itself (W ∘ W), potentially infinite type hierarchy, and the capacity to resolve undetermined states into determined ones.

Key Theorem:

The complete nature of W cannot be fully captured within any finite logical system that includes W as an element.

This formalization attempts to capture the complex, self-referential, and transcendent nature of will, using tools from various branches of logic and mathematics. It provides a framework for rigorously discussing the paradoxes and unique properties of will while acknowledging the inherent limitations of any such formalization.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment