Excerpt from Googol room essays: one 2003 by Rolf Mifflin

Return to Googol Room

The grail machine: Two
ZF+: A set theory for describing the mind

by Rolf Mifflin


Abstract: The complete description of the mind, as well as of the universe that allows the
mind, requires a formal language beyond any in common use today ('03). Here I present a
modified version of Zermelo-Fraenkel set formalism sufficient to make statements completely
equivalent to our thoughts and, so, symbolically present the systems of artificial minds I argue are
constructible to modern science. This modified set theory is called ZF+.


Table of contents:
1: Set theory and the mind
2: Aristotelian assumptions
3: Temporal assumptions
Fig. 1: Illustration of the logical Future and Past
4: New logic symbols
5: Axioms of ZF+ and redefinition of the reals
6: Comments
A: Axioms of ZF and ZF+
B: Axioms of ZF and ZFC abandoned by ZF+



1: Set theory and the mind

Having introduced an extension to formal logic called the temporal propositions
in The grail machine: One, I will here extend these propositions into the structure of
modern set theory. This discussion will be useful both to the general reader and the
student of logic. The subject matter is technical but the presentation will be in plain
English. Those few technical moments or details can be easily glossed as unimportant to
the non-mathematical reader, and the treatment of ordinary ZF will be entirely peripheral
to essential arguments of extended logic.
The discrete structure of thoughts lends itself most readily to set theory. For
discussions of the physical universe, group theory is the more natural language of
discourse. Group theorys adaptation to temporal propositions will be a more subtle
matter than that presented here.
Set theory, as it was assembled in the 20th century, is incomplete for discussions
of the mind. To make statements emulating thought, set theory must be expanded in
some fashion. The route I choose for that expansion is the adoption of the temporal
propositions, although there may be others.
First, I will present this specific adoption as a modification to the basic symbols
of logic. Then I will expand these changes into Zermelo-Fraenkel formalism, adapting
the axioms of ZF to better reflect the utility of these modifications. This will produce a
theory called ZF+. This new system involves very little change to ZF, only a few minor
additions and a few redefinitions to make use of those additions; the name reflects this
subordinancy.
For the time being, I simply use the name of the previous theory modified with a
+ sign. Whether other thinkers should be included in the name of a theory is an important
consideration. My own thoughts were developed in an attempt to unify the writings of
Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Stuart Mill, great thinkers, on the one hand, of deduction
and, on the other, of induction. As said, this theory is still mainly the work of Zermelo
and Fraenkel. It is sometimes said that we should also remember Skolem, who along
with Fraenkel helped to adapt Zermelos work, so a more properly deferential name for
this theory might be ZFS+, reminding us of the logicians who went before.


2: Aristotelian assumptions

The basis of symbolic logic are well stated by the three Aristotelian Laws, the
three pre-assumptions on which mathematical logic is based. One makes a statement, an
assertion, and that statement occurs in one of two truth-states. It is either True or False.
The laws fix these states:

(i) Law of Identity - A True proposition is True.
(ii) Law of Contradiction - A proposition can not be both True and False.
(iii) Law of the Excluded Middle - A proposition must be True or False.

This divides the universe of possible discourse into statements that assert the truth
of a proposition, , and statements that negate the truth of a proposition, ~. This forms
the basis of atomic logical theory.


3: Temporal assumptions

In order to expand logic into the temporal realm, these laws are modified by
adding a third truth-state that mixes the other two. These three truth-states are organized
by two modes of interpretation:

(iv) A proposition is always interpreted in one, and only one, of two
modes: the Unresolved mode or the Resolved mode.

(v) In the Unresolved, or Future, mode, all propositions exists in one,
and only one, of three allowed truth-states: True, False, or
Unresolved.

a. a. In the Unresolved truth-state, a proposition is seen as
existing in two parallel logic structures: one structure where it is
True and one structure where it is False. An Unresolved
proposition simultaneously violates both the Law of
Contradiction and the Law of the Excluded Middle.
b. b. True and False are contraries.
c. c. Unresolved is contrary to itself.

(vi) In the Resolved, or Past, mode, all propositions exists in one, and
only one, of two allowed truth-states: True or False. All three
Aristotelian laws are obeyed by all propositions in the Resolved
mode.

a. Propositions True in the Unresolved mode are True in the
Resolved.
b. Propositions False in the Unresolved mode are False in the
Resolved.
c. c. Propositions that are Unresolved become either True or
False in the Resolved mode. The proposition is in one, and only
one, of these two states. One can not choose which truth-state
the proposition adopts. The two truth-states are not equally
likely, they are both possible. Assertions in logic are about
existence, not probability. Propositions are not said to adopt the
same truth-state every time that same Proposition is Unresolved.
As the actual truth-state of a Resolution event can not be
specifically identified, to say that it is different under different
Resolutions is meaningless.
d. True and False are still contrary, as in ordinary logic.




On the basis of this structure, a complete symbolics of the mind can be built.
Four kinds of assertion are now possible:

((vii) Asserts that is True.
(viii) ~ Asserts that is False. (~ negates .)
(ix) Asserts that is Unresolved. ( Unasserts .)
(x) Asserts that is Resolved. ( Resolves .)


4: New logic symbols

From Unassertion, ZF+ generalizes to other Unresolved operators. For example,
the operator e:
( (x) i) u e v Asserts as an Unresolved truth-state does,
both that uev and that uev in a two-part parallel structure.

Likewise, other operators with a preceding divide the truth-value into two
structures, one a Truth assertion and the other a Truth negation. Resolution transforms
these operators into either simply themselves or their negation; choosing one outcome
over the other is not allowed, both are possible and both are singular after Resolution.
Resolution puts the operator into one state; which particular state is unpredictable and
undecidable. These and their analogues may at times carry indexes to link different
instances of Unresolution together. For example:

(xii) aev . bev Asserts four different parallel logic structures.
(xiii) a
1
ev . b
1
ev Asserts only two parallel structures.
(xiv) (aev . bev) Resolves both s, asserting one structure.
(xv)
1
(a
1
ev . bev) Resolves the
1
, but not the , asserting two.


5: Axioms of ZF+ and the redefinition of the reals

ZF+ incorporates eight of the Axioms of ZF. I will reiterate these eight in
Appendix A, so as not to clutter this discussion. The theory abandons one axiom on
formal grounds, the Power Set Axiom (PSA). It also abandons the Axiom of Choice
(AOC) as a practical matter. The existence of Unresolved truth-states, the basic logic
operators, the extended logic operators implied by Unresolved truth-states, and the eight
axioms of Appendix A are the components of ZF+.
PSA is abandoned in order to mirror the physical world through which ZF+-based
systems will be constructed. There is no expressible content that can be accessed by
power sets that can not be presented through ordinary discrete symbols. The PSA itself is
a demonstration that finite symbols can be used to represent grades of non-finite objects.
Versions of ZF+ will discuss power sets in the exactly the same way that the mind
discusses them, by defining for these appropriate discrete symbols that reflect their
relationships, mapping the repetitive cycling of the power sets onto an indexed reference
to simple ZF+ sets.
But this raises the question how, without the Power Set Axiom, does the theory
gain access to the real numbers?
ZF+ still accepts the Axiom of Infinity:

(xvi) - (= . u (ue u {u}e )) ))

From this follows the ZF+ definition of the real numbers:

(xvii) -r u (ue u
u
e r)

The set of all real numbers is now a purely Unresolved set and the individual real
numbers are instances of that set's Resolution. Individual real numbers cannot be chosen
out of this definition, commensurate with the Resolution of any Unresolved truth-state.
Real numbers can still be constructed by ordinary means. The definition of t still stands,
for instance. But there are still a number of inaccessible real numbers equal to the
cardinality of the reals. Sets larger than the real numbers can not be constructed in ZF+
without the adoption of extended definitions.
To choose specific elements from a family of countable sets is trivial, so the AOC
is not necessary for Resolved sets. But ZF+ does allow the reals as an Unresolved set, so
it might allow a method for choosing an elements from that set. When choosing an
element from an Unresolved set, that chosen element comes with the same inherent
Unresolution as that possessed by the original set. Even with the Axiom of Choice it is
never possible to choose the outcomes of the Resolution of Unresolved truth-states or
Unresolved logic operators. It is possible to assert that any specific individual real
number is a possible outcome of the Resolution of the reals and arguing from there. The
AOC is, so, a reasonable addition. To model physical devices, though, we will begin
with a completely constructible theory and move to add axioms for proving theorems
when the theory needs these kinds of capabilities. Again, the fact that AOC can be
expressed in discrete symbols makes it positable by ZF+.

6: Comments

The purpose behind ZF+ is to create a language that can echo any statement of
which the human mind is capable. ZF and ZFC are notably incomplete, but ZF+ avoids
incompleteness by incorporating structures of exactly that unknowability observed in
nature.
It is perhaps reasonable to say that ZF+ is not mathematics. It certainly violates
the philosophical principles from which 20th century thinkers built modern mathematics.
One of my contentions is that mathematics and metaphysics are the same discipline. The
first scrubs itself of all physical connections, while the second focuses entirely on these
connections, and this makes their difference. Whereas metaphysics, the study of those
inescapable realities in which the physical world is embedded, will speak of matter or
space or time, mathematics will speak of numbers and infinities and ordering. If any of
metaphysics lacks an analogue in mathematics, we can say therefore say that
mathematics is lacking. State-reduction events in Quantum Mechanics have no analogue
in mathematics, but they have a clear image in ZF+. This theory does what no other
formal system can. It incorporates time into its structure without dismissing that
metaphysical category and its three components, the past, present, and future, as merely
subjective phenomena. It is one of the first attempts to grapple formally with time and
the way it creates the mind.
Call this set-theory-analogue-language an instance of metaphysics, mathematics,
or physical-mathematics, its power always lies in its practical application. It is my
purpose in the following series of essays to present the construction of the mind in
symbols and machinery and, as best I can, biology. ZF+ will appear only in brief
sidebars until various philosophical concepts have been identified with their proper
physical phenomena. Then the theory will become the way through which to organize
these concepts into larger systems.
From this dissection it will become apparent that ZF+ expands formal thought to
the limits of human thought, that it can incorporate everything we know or can come to
know as human beings.
The first concept for dissection into terms usable by ZF+ will be the ideal of free
will. The fact that the outcome of an Unresolved truth-state can not be chosen would
seem to prohibit its use for building a system with what we commonly call free will, but
this is not the impediment that it might seem. Unresolved truth-states provide the
Freedom for the such a system, while the extended logical structure around these truth-
states provides the Will. A careful and logical division of the common concept will
provide the proper logical statement. As with many discoveries in logic, the proper
solution to what free will is depends on the proper realization of how it is constructed
from simpler components.

Appendix A: The eight axioms shared by ZF and ZF+.

(i) (i) Extension Axiom
x, y (x=y z (zex zey)).
(ii) (ii) Empty Set Axiom
- x (xe).
(iii) (iii) Foundation Axiom
x (x= -yex zex (zey)).
(iv) (iv) Pairing Axiom
x, y -z u (uez u=x v u=y).
(v) (v) Union Axiom
x -y z (zey -u (uex . zeu)).
(vi) (vi) Separation Axiom Schema
z -y x (xey xez . (x)).
(vii) (vii) Replacement Axiom Schema
a (xea -!y(x, y) -z xea -yez(x, y)).
(viii) (viii) Axiom of Infinity
- (= . u (ue u {u}e )).

Appendix B: The two axioms of ZF abandoned by ZF+.

(i) Power Set Axiom
x -y z (zey z _ x).
(ii) Axiom of Choice
x
n
nonempty pair-wise disjoint sets
-z n |z x
n
|=1