What is Premise Based Implicative Truth Synthesis?

Success can be defined as a social game of one’s personal drive and interpersonal influence.
  

In addition to the inclusion of a social aspect in our initiatives, success is also made of one essential ingredient - creativity. Creativity can be defined as a capability, power to connect seemingly unrelated fields, systems, and ideas, into a new whole with a novel meaning and functionality. 
   

It might be interesting to explore, for instance, is there a way to associate our behaviours, what we value, what matters to us, with such diverse fields as mathematics, engineering, biochemistry? And, if we can discover that connection, is there a method to find and spark our own creative and intellectual powers to achieve our goals based on what we have learned from those relationships?
  

Premise Based Implicative Truth Synthesis answers these questions.

While the method’s concept may appear complex at first, I will demonstrate how you can effectively grasp its meaning by gradually introducing its leading ideas.
  

Let’s begin! 
   

For instance, how can you connect the world of mathematics and the world of physics?  
   

Choosing starting numbers and the initial sequence of operations on them, represents the only entry to the mathematical world, from any field, not only from physics. Once this is accomplished you can continue towards obtaining problem specific results in mathematics.
   

The physical relations between observed physical objects, for example their motion and speed, are quantifiable. It means that these relations can generate numbers, supply numbers as entry points, to mathematics. This action of postulating numbers is the actual connection point between physics and mathematics. Only through the postulate from the one system to another, two different systems can be functionally linked. Hence, in physics, generally non-mathematical events (but quantifiable), like motion, rotation, acceleration, postulate numbers as a-priori inputs (no question asked how they have been obtained) to the mathematical world. Then, inner actions within mathematics, logic being a major player, accept this spectrum of initial values, do the “processing” on them to obtain the relevant mathematical results, and return those result back to the world of physics. 
   

Is it possible to detect if any two systems, that might be, on the first sight, very different, can be "connected" in the sense described? The answer follows.

To apply the Implicative Truth Synthesis approach you expect that the systems function on, and are based on, the logical principles. The creativity lies in the important fact that there must be a set of initial conditions, axioms, or premises that describe the system or serve as the starting points defining allowable states within that system. We observe that another system can generate these starting points. Or, we can do it. Let’s call the first system, system A. System A has a postulating power in relation to the system B if it can, as a result of its own processing, specify entry points, premises to another system, system B. Then, system B can take further actions based on these premises (given starting points.) This is how we construct a fully functional dependence of two systems. Therefore, creative thinking process will have the following steps: we find the axioms of one system, system A, then determine postulating capabilities of that system, i.e. it's capacity to bootstrap processes in another system, B, by choosing starting points in the system B. Laws and rules governing the system A can be quite different from the laws and rules inside the system B. What links them is the fact that the first system (A) can define a starting point, a premise for the second system (B) to take action, which then processes it.

Whenever we create something new, we start with a premise. A premise is an initial assumption, an initial starting point we consider to be true. However, in a creative thinking, sometimes you have to assume that something is true without being sure if it is a correct assumption. You have to do this so you can further experiment by deriving logical results from that assumption, which themselves may be true or they may lead to a contradiction. If you come to a contradiction, then initial assumption is false, but you probe again with new assumptions until you get meaningful results.
  

It is imperative to recognize the initial premise inception as an important step, because every reasoning process starts with what we assume to be true. Sometimes, that assumption comes from our previous reasoning, our guess, intuition, or scientific inquiry. All of these sources can have substantial degree of influence in the reasoning process, depending on the circumstances.

Take, for instance, emotions’ role in our reasoning. Emotions can influence our decision making, but not before they influence our selection of premises – what we will assume and accept to be true, based on those emotions. Emotions influence our assumptions what is true and through that step they influence our process of decision making. 
   

To explain further what the Premise Based Implicative Truth Synthesis is here are two examples. 
   

Let’s say you want to be a racing driver. How would you watch a race with this in mind? 
   

You can start with these observations: the race is in progress; your favourite driver is driving quite well. Although you probably cannot see, your driver certainly presses the gas pedal at different rates along the track, she shifts gears in the most effective sequence she can, and she quickly steers as a response to the tracks’ conditions, her own speed, and the other drivers’ positions and speed. Everything looks harmonious, connected, because all things fit together into an event called car racing.

This is how your experience looks like without Implicative Truth Synthesis point of view. This experience alone is not sufficient to become a racing driver, because you are a mere consumer, not a participant.

Now, what will happen if you look at the race through the Implicative Truth Synthesis mind lenses?
   

I use one term from mathematics - axioms, just to be precise in the definitions. Although it sounds exotic, this concept is quite manageable to understand: axioms of a system are the statements that describe how to obtain any state of the system.
  

Defining any system via its axioms allows you to focus on the possible states that system can take. In the example of the racing car, the engine can be one axiomatic system. The engine’s axioms define the starting points of how you can define and reach any state within the system – within the engine. Hence, the axioms of the car engine can be:

• engine can start
• engine can run with different gas intake
• engine can run at different speeds depending on the shifting gear
• engine can produce different torque at the different speeds and the load torques

These are the car engine’s axioms!

States of the engine, derived from these axioms, can be:

• the engine starts
• the gas pedal moves along certain positions causing different amounts of fuel to be injected into cylinders every second
• the gear changes several times per minute thus changing engine’s output torque
• he temperature of the engine changes over time.

At each point in time the engine is in one of these allowable states. When I say allowable it means, for example, that with certain amount of gas and with certain gear shift, engine will produce only a certain amount of torque, allowable by physics laws. However, physics laws can dictate only how the engine will respond - they can not control the driver’s creative input like how much he or she will press the gas pedal or which gear shift he or she will select.

As you can see, car engine can have many allowable states which its axioms can “create”. We will focus more on these states rather than on the axioms because axioms are fixed, they don’t change, while the states can change over time - they can be continuously transition from one to another.
  

So, allowable states of a car engine are any physically possible combination of the following: the amount of fuel (gas), the gear, and the produced torque. This obviously can change during the race or when the engine is on the test table in a factory. Now, note how the engine designers and test engineers don’t know which of those combinations will happen during a race, the combination reflecting the racing strategy of the driver! Engineers’ work in another axiomatic system decoupled from the racing strategy. They only want to deliver to a driver a lot of possible, allowable states of the engine so she can skilfully race, and possibly win. This decoupling along the axiomatic boundaries allows engineers to focus only on the engine design and not on the driver’s skill or her mental state during the race.
  

After a company purchases a car engine and mount it in its racing car, it’s time to name a driver. Notice how the company can choose any driver. The engine really doesn’t care who is driving. It will only do what is promised by its design: to produce a certain torque for a certain sequence of gas pedal locations and gears selection. Who is creating the sequence really does not matter to the engine. But, for the company it does matter who will drive the car! The company wants to choose the most skilled and experienced driver. And here is where the Implicative Truth Synthesis commits in. When the driver takes the seat and when the engine is on, driver will select some of the allowable states of the engine. The driver’s thought, signifying intent to drive in a certain way, implies that he will press gas pedal to some degree and shift gears to certain level. This implication synthesised a new truth: driver is pressing the gas pedal and the car engine is responding in a desired way.
  

Imagine that company needs to select one of three drivers, all member of its team, after they race against each other. They will drive the cars with the same engines. You can immediately see how the design of the engine is an independent axiomatic system from the strategy how to utilize it. Drivers are linked to the engine via Implicative Truth Synthesis – given the driver’s strategy it implies that the driver will press gas pedal in one way and change gears in another thus causing the engine to perform in certain way. These synthesized truths are significant – they will separate “good” from “bad” drivers and the best will win. It will not be up to engine who will win, it is the same for all drivers – it will be up to the driver. This is how the team can possibly win the race – to choose the best driver among them.
  

The driver, with all his or her skills and experience, represents one axiomatic system. Driver can be in any mental state ready to drive, to press gas pedal, to steer, to change gears; her decision making during race, her legs and hands positions, are all allowable states of the axiomatic system called “the driver”. These states are derived from the driver’s axiomatic system which contains axioms:

• the driver can analyse the road conditions
• the driver can press the gas pedal
• the driver can change the gears
• the driver can analyse his own speed and the speed of others
• the driver can make the decisions how much to press the gas pedal
• the driver can make the decision how to shift gears
• the driver can make the decision how to steer
• the driver can steer

The driver’s axioms define what the driver can do. The allowable states of the system called “driver”, tell us what she actually does.
  

Note the parallel existence, yet independence, of the described axiomatic systems – of the driver and of the engine. They don’t need to be linked in any way and, moreover, they have their properties independent of each other. The driver can be sitting in a pub having an orange juice, and still the axiomatic system holds for him – he can steer (but he doesn’t, he is drinking the juice), he can process the conditions on the track (but he doesn’t at the moment), he has ability to press gas pedal, etc. While sitting in the pub he is still an experienced racing driver although he doesn’t race at the moment because he is having his juice.
   

Similar can be said for the engine. For instance, the racing car can be in the garage, so the engine is not turned on, yet all the axioms hold for that engine: engine can start; engine can run with different gas intake; engine can run at different speeds depending on the shifting gear, etc.

The creative, innovative process starts when we connect these two systems via Premise Based Implicative Truth Synthesis - and this happens during the race, when the driver is in the car and the engine is running. We pick premise (an allowable state) from the system A (driver!) which will imply selection of an allowable state from the system B (engine!). The driver has a postulating power in relation to the engine – he can postulate a state of the engine based on his reasoning. When he makes a decision, he will press the gas pedal to a certain degree thus defining the state for the engine and engine will respond to that amount of gas in the way it is designed for. The new truth has been synthesised – the engine starts to run as per driver’s input from gas pedal and gear shifts.

Notice how we bridged (linked) two systems – the driver and the engine! I call this bridging process crossing axiomatic boundaries using postulating power from the system A in relation to the system B.

Without this bridge across the axiomatic boundaries there is no invention, there is no link – driver can still drink his juice and the engine still can be in the garage. 
   

From the vast amount of combinations during the race, consisting of driver’s reasoning about the track conditions and the other drivers, and the timing and sequence of events such as pressing gas pedal, shifting gears, and steering, only certain combinations will be the winning ones! Of course, driver cannot test all the combinations to see which will work – but she is aware of this fact! Based on her experience sometimes she chooses bad combinations (lose the race) or sometimes she keeps choosing right combinations all along – and she wins the race! 
   

By decoupling conceptual systems along their axiomatic boundaries you can get a clear picture what to focus on. As a driver, who learns how an engine can react to certain inputs, you will focus on training – to drive many times along different tracks, thus gradually becoming familiar with the wining timing of pressing gas pedal, shifting gears, and steering. This experience will help during a real race. On the other hand, as a design engineer, you will less focus on different strategies during race, but more on the engine design – using engineering principles and laws of physics you build the engine that will give required racing performance.
  

In order to have an outstanding invention (winning a car race is a kind of invention) you have to choose the appropriate systems and characterize them via axioms and allowable states. You have to choose the winning systems A and B which you will link via implication. What will happen if you don’t choose the right systems? If you put an inexperienced driver (system A) in the car (system B) you most likely will not win the race. Or, if you put an experienced driver (system A) in the car with an inadequate engine (system B) you again, most likely, will not win the race. Choosing winning systems and linking them via Implicative Truth Synthesis is the core of my method for success, and this approach can be applied to virtually any set of systems.

As you continue to read you will learn how this method of decoupling systems along their axiomatic boundaries and Premise Based Implicative Truth Synthesis can be applied not only to car racing but to such fields as mathematics and physics, finance, software programming, arts, music, and, essentially, many areas of your life.
  

As the next example, let’s consider the process of artistic painting. Artistic painting’s axioms relates to the ability to select brush strokes and colors. On the other hand, the process of painting’s allowable states can be all possible brush strokes and all possible colors (and their combinations.) Systems axioms allow these states. Axioms describe the ways how to obtain different states of our system. The power of the axioms is that they are sufficient to fully describe any system, in this example the painting process. Allowable states, derived from the axioms, in this case from the painting process, tell you what you actually see when you observe a painter at work. For instance, you can discover that she has a palette of colors, that she mixes the colors, and then, using brush strokes, she composes a new artistic statement each time she touches the canvas with her brush (with the composition of lines, surfaces, shapes, and colors, the painter tries to convey her message to us.) 
   

Now, let’s talk about different level and different sets of axioms.

Once we look at the painting, a new truth has been created or synthesised. The truth of how we experience the painting, our evoked feelings when we look at it, our human, aesthetic experience of it. That truth did not exist before, even a moment before we looked at the painting.
  

Moreover, we, as humans, are “designed” to do many different things and follow many trains of thoughts, and one of them is experiencing and enjoying art, in this case a painting. From that perspective, we can define a new axiomatic system, a system that describes us, our emotions, feelings, intellect, passions, our capability to look at, and experience the world, around us.
  

When the painter let us look at her painting, she created a logical jump, an implication: if she made a painting then it implies we could enjoy it. This example of implication which synthesized the new truth from two previously existed truths (namely “painter is using brush strokes to form shapes” and the truth “we can enjoy the painting”) illustrates the core of the method of Premise Based Implicative Truth Synthesis. Bear in mind, something is needed to trigger our aesthetics ability to enjoy art. Nothing is happening if we walk on the street passing by an art gallery. Our artistic axiomatic system is idle, no premises or initial triggers take place. But, once we enter the gallery and stand in front of a painting, a new truth associated with our experience is created; artistic axiomatic system is awakened within us and starts triggering those premises how to enjoy art. We, as humans, just crossed the axiomatic boundary that envelopes two axiomatic systems, which are “the painter used brush strokes to create a painting” and “we have capability to enjoy the painting.”
  

Of course, a painter himself represents an axiomatic system. Those axioms are that she can paint, she can also experience world around her, and using her talent she can form and convey a message on canvas using her painting skills.
   

Hence, here, we have three axiomatic systems in place. First is the painter. Using painting axioms he or she paints, creating new artistic truths on canvas. The process of painting is the second axiomatic system. The first axiomatic system, the painter’s, has a postulating power – it can select and postulate initial states of the second system - brush strokes, color mixing, and painting on canvas. Then, moving from painting to us, to our, the third axiomatic system, as audience, painting transfers its message by invoking specific emotions and feelings (from a huge number of all possible emotions, feelings we have), that we have experienced while looking at the painting. Painting is now a premise for us, a given, a-priori, initial starting point for our axiomatic system “we can enjoy art”. When the painting is present and we are in front of it, it implies that we can start enjoying it. From two truths, namely, “it is true that the painting is given to us”, and another truth “we can enjoy an artistic painting”, we construct an implication, a new truth, the real event: there is an artistic painting with implication that we are enjoying it. New truth is synthesized while we experience the painting. The presence of painting implied our enjoyment and experience of it. That’s the Premise Based Implicative Truth Synthesis.
  

Note the significance of the truth synthesis during implication. Without it we would have two separate, disconnected axiomatic systems: a painting which, let’s say, hangs on the gallery’s wall and nothing happens, and the second axiomatic system, which is our “capability to enjoy an artistic painting,” which, again, is completely idle in the absence of an instance of a painting to look at. Only when we stop and stand in front of a painting something happens. Two axiomatic systems get in contact. Painting’s message flows into our brains, our capability to enjoy art kicks in and we have full artistic experience. This truth, via implication, “there is a painting hence we are enjoying it” is synthesised by our behaviour and explains the name Implicative Truth Synthesis.

Using axioms you can construct any allowable state of the system. But, for success, you have to choose the winning ones. An example of an allowable system state in the process of painting is: the painter can randomly mix colors, can do random brush strokes on canvas, and draw various random shapes. But, it may not be called an art. You can use a primitive robot to put random colors on the canvas, but that painting would not make any sense. We need something more. When a painter put a thought into what he or she will paint, and how, then her brush strokes and colors on canvas will make a lot of sense. It will add the artistic value. So, here, we use implication to connect two axiomatic systems – one is “the painter”, the other is “all brush strokes and all color mixes”. The painter’s axiomatic system has postulating power to initiate certain starting states within the second axiomatic system of, “brush strokes.” So, when a painter has an idea in his mind then it implies he will make a specific brush strokes and mix only certain colors. We crossed the axiomatic boundaries here with this implication. We influenced selection of starting points in one axiomatic system (“series of specific brush strokes and color mixes”) by the result from another axiomatic system (“an internal idea of the painter which he wants to transfer on canvas”.) As you will see later, every creative process will consist of these steps: dividing the bigger system into smaller axiomatic systems, delineate those using axiomatic boundaries, then find the implications that cross axiomatic boundaries and synthesize new truths. The products of our creative process are exactly these new truths.
  

Let’s talk about some axiomatic systems linked to art. A painter, as a businessman or a business woman, who wants to sell her art, is aware (consciously or unconsciously) of this axiomatic systems interplay. As an artist, she must be capable to invoke powerful emotions to each art gallery visitor who stops in front of her painting. Moreover, in order to commercially succeed as an artist, he or she has to universally appeal to every human, or at least, to those who can appreciate art. And, while she may spend days or months working on the painting, the condensed artistic message must be often conveyed to an art gallery visitor in a matter of minutes. On the other hand, we, as humans, have our values, among which is that art matters to us. We are ready to pay millions of currency to own a work of art (for instance a painting). And, here we generate another axiomatic system that describes our monetary social mechanisms. The banking system also plays a role, as well as personal wealth, even telephone electronic technology bidder uses while bidding (at an art auction). Each of these systems, the bidder, the wealthy individual, the subjective monetary value of the painting, the monetary system, the telephone communication system can be delineated and described via their axioms, while Implicative Truth Synthesis connects these “systems” via premises and implications (look at all connected activities that happen during an auction.) If an artist wants to sell her work she has to be, and is, aware precisely of all these systems and their connections, but perhaps under different labels.

From axioms you can build any or all parts of a system starting with premises. Often, within the system, you can consider your premises to be axioms for that particular part of the system only because, by definition, axioms are starting points; statements accepted as true which do not need to be proven within the system built from them. It does not mean that axioms cannot be proven in another system and linked via Implicative Truth Synthesis to the system those axioms can build. For instance, a number is, so to speak, non-provable in mathematics, it’s given, it exists a-priory, yet the whole mathematics is built on it. But, in psychology or neuroscience the concept of a number can be proven and researched separately. 
   

Your road to success consists of choosing a winning system with its interrelationships and your awareness that it is an axiomatic system, that you have postulating power to initiate starting states, conditions within the system, without proofs. This system will produce results, range of truth values that could imply another truth, a postulate, in the next, linked system, synthesising the new truth from this implication. With this, the Implicative Truth Synthesis method liberates you from the boundaries of one system or one domain of knowledge. 
   

The system will be called the winning system if, at the end of the chains of Implicative Truth Synthesis steps, it has tangible social value, if it gives something what matters to us, something what we value.

Defining system via its axioms gives us the advantage to analyze any system in the correct way – using logic (which is the science of analyzing and manipulating truth values, the same way mathematics is about numbers, and music is about tones.) If we want to create a new truth, new invention, new original entity, we connect the two axiomatic systems via Implicative Truth Synthesis.
  

After you become familiar with more examples of Implicative Truth Synthesis, you can visit this chapter, any number of times, and use it as a reference.

Check out my book on Amazon, "Power Reasoning for Success!