LOGICK

AM Abstract. In this paper, a magickal system based upon the principles of mathematics and logic is outlined. In particular, we draw upon set theory, domain theory, rst-order predicate calculus and the theory of Galois connections in order to systematize a method for encoding a wide variety of magickal operations in exact terms. No assumption of a background in mathematics is assumed, though background study may be helpful.

1. Introduction At rst, it might appear that mathematics and magick are far apart. Certainly, it seems quite rare to encounter people who are practitioners of both, though this was certainly not always the case. Sir Isaac Newton was a noted alchemist, Dr. John Dee was a mathematician and cryptographer as well as perhaps one of the most notable magicians of all time. Famously, the Enochian system of Dee and Kelley very much shows itself to have mathematical roots. This paper outlines an initial attempt to codify magick mathematically. We borrow heavily both from existing mathematical systems, particularly set theory and rst order predicate calculus, and also from several magickal systems, including lore from both witchcraft and ceremonial magick. We call this system Logick, because in some sense mathematically it is a logic, but we add a trailing k to dierentiate our approach from logic in the same way that magick dierentiates itself from magic. 2. Assumptions Here, we state our assumptions. All mathematical systems rest upon their axioms, and Logick is no dierent to that. We will approach this mathematically in due course. However, in our case, we need to also dene our magickal assumptions. 2.1. What is magick? Put broadly, following Crowley we dene magick to be the art of causation of change in accordance with will. All acts are magickal acts. If one wills a cup of coee into existence, this may be adequately arranged by the magickal act of leaving the house, travelling to a good coee shop, and ordering a latte. Magickal acts may, of course, also be less mundane, but the point here is that we explicitly include the mundane. However, it is useful to be able to dierentiate the mundane from the non-mundane; the previous example of going to buy coee is referred to here as deterministic magick, where a series of events are clearly linked by corresponding, mundane, causal connections. If however, one was to cast a summoning spell, then have a friend randomly arrive shortly thereafter with
Date: May 28, 2009.
1

AM

coee, this is referred to as nondeterministic magick, because it implies a dierent kind of causal connection that requires coincidence or serendipity. We will formally dene these concepts later. 2.2. What is the mechanism underlying magick? Feri witchcraft, along with a number of other traditions, asserts the existence of three souls. Talker is the conscious mind, the you that is consciously you, the you that is reading this sentence. Fetch is the animal self, the subconscious, the child self, which is not verbal, but incredibly powerful, always working in the background. Godself loosely equates to the concept of Holy Guardian Angel (HGA) that is familiar to other branches of magick in some sense it may be thought of as being a part of oneself that is itself divine (i.e., a deity in its own right, or at least, a part of or aspect of deity). Feri lore has it that, in order to perform magick, particularly of the nonmundane kind, it is necessary for talker to communicate its intent to fetch, which in turn carries out the operation, perhaps via godself. Usually, the connection between talker and fetch is inherently symbolic. All magickal systems have in common the requirement for a system of symbols that, once learned, become a means to communicate ones magickal intent. Logick is no exception to this, though in our case, we are building upon an extremely powerful and precise symbolic system taken from mathematics and logic, rather than depending upon allegory or visualization. 2.3. Deity. Not all magickal systems require a concept of deity, though most do, and Logick follows this. In common with many other systems, Logick has an assumption of immanent deity; that is, deity is not fundamentally somewhere else, rather, it is a part of and accessible from everywhere and at all points in time. Communication with deity, through invocation, evocation or mediumship, is assumed to be feasible. Logick has no pantheon of its own, so you are therefore free to use whatever gods, goddesses, dmons, spirits or other entities in whatever way you feel appropriate. 2.4. Mathematics and Logic. We declare that all that is mathematically provable is usable as part of a magickal operation. Mathematical truths are implicitly true of all universes that support the axioms that underlie them; therefore, we both acknowledge these truths and seek to use them for our purposes as we see t. This paper does no more than scratch the surface of the enormous wealth that mathematics oers, though it does include enough to allow simple workings to be carried out. 3. Spell Casting In witchcraft, spells are frequently ornate, often beautiful, statements of intent that traditionally are ended and enacted with the phrase, so mote it be.1 In the Logick system, a spell is essentially a statement that is asserted to be true. We use the mathematical symbol as a shorthand way to state that something is true. For example, 2+2=4 declares the absolute truth of the equation 2+2 = 4. In some sense, this is analogous to incanting, two plus two equals four, so mote it be!
1

Some prefer, so must it be, which is modern English usage, though we use the former.

LOGICK

Alternatively, may be read as, it is the case that, though keeping in mind its equivalence to, so mote it be, is perhaps better. As in mathematics and logic, we may use variables to represent abstract ideas. For example, where A represents a true statement, A turns that statement into a spell, e.g., it would be equivalent to dening A in full, then saying, so mote it be. We can dene variables, or leave them undened. We can partially or completely constrain their possible values. They need not be numbers, or truth values. In Logick, a variable might represent literally anything: it might be used to represent a real number, an abstract idea, a person or even a god. By convention, we will use capital letters A, B, C, . . . to represent truth values (i.e., an expression whose value may be true or false, capital Greek letters , , , . . . to represent deities, and lower case Roman letters p, q, r, . . . for everything else. Other conventions will be introduced later, though these are the most important. 3.1. Logical Operators. Note here that we use the mathematical spelling of the word logical here, since what we are introducing is taken directly from mathematical logic. 3.1.1. Negation. The operator negates the truth of the expression to which it is applied. Trivially, false = true and true = f alse, though we may also use in expressions, e.g., A is, in eect, a spell that asserts the negation of A, e.g., depending on context, that A is incorrect or that A may not occur. 3.1.2. And. The operator states the truth of both of its arguments, e.g., AB is eectively asserting both A and B. It is allowable to string together multiple operators like so: A B C . . . , which asserts the truth of all of the arguments. 3.1.3. Or. The operator states that either or both arguments are true, e.g., AB states that either, A is true and B is false, A is false and B is true, or that both A and B are true. 3.1.4. Implication. Note that, for example, A B implies that A B. We denote this as A B A B. As in classical logic, A B is equivalent to A B. 3.2. Quantiers. It is useful to be able to say, for example, that there exists an x such that some specied criteria are true, or that for all possible y, something else holds.

AM

3.2.1. Existential Quantiers. The existential quantier may be read as, there exists. It is typically used with a variable and a truth-valued expression, e.g., x . x x = 4 may be read as, there exists an x such that x x = 4. Since we know that 2 2 = 4, the existence of the case x = 2 makes the expression true. Stating x . E should be read as, there exist one or more values of x that make the expression E true. If you want to state instead that there exists exactly one case that is true, you may use 1 in place of . 3.2.2. Universal Quantiers. The universal quantier may be read as, for all. Like , it is used with a variable and a truth-valued expression, e.g., x . E, and states that, for all possible values of x, E is true. 3.3. Sets. Sets2 are in essence an incredibly simple idea, though they oer extraordinary power. Sets may be usefully thought of as more fundamental in mathematics than numbers. Understanding Logick absolutely requires a basic understanding of set theory in order for its imagery to make sense. A set, simply put, is a collection of things. A simple way to describe a set is to write a list describing its contents, and surround it in {} brackets. Sets follow a few rules, but they can be comprised of anything, even other sets. For example, {dog, cat, rabbit} is the set that contains dog and cat and rabbit. {1, 2, 5, 7, 11} is the set containing the numbers 1, 2, 5, 7 and 11. 3.3.1. Innite Sets. Sets can be innite. The set N = {0, 1, 2, 3, . . . } represents the natural numbers3. The set Z = {. . . , 2, 1, 0, 1, 2, . . . } represents the integers. It is important to note that, even though N and Z are innite, they do not include or within themselves though and are limits of the sets, they are strictly outside the sets. 3.3.2. Membership. Given a set, e.g., {1, 2, 3, 4}, we can say that 1 is a member of the set, as are 2, 3 and 4, though 0, 5, elephant and grape are not members. The expression x S states that x is a member of the set S. Conversely, y S states that y is not a member of S. Indeed, y S is equivalent to writing (y S). An important characteristic of sets is that, given a particular element, a set either contains that element or does not. There is no concept of a set containing two or more copies of an element4 Similarly, there is no concept of ordering within sets5, so {1, 3, 2} is identical to {1, 2, 3}.
2not to be confused with the ancient Egyptian god Set 3As is common practice in mathematical logic and computer science, we dene N to include 0. 4In mathematics, a set-like construction known as a bag provides this capability, but since bags

can be dened in terms of sets, we dont concern ourselves with them here. 5Orders can, of course, be dened explicitly more on that later.

LOGICK

3.3.3. Set Comprehensions. Having to list all the members of a set is often tedious, and in the case of many kinds of very large or innite set, it is inappropriate or impossible to write their contents using the usual {. . . } notation. Set comprehensions are a simple way to dene large or complex sets mathematically they can be visualised as something like an existential quantier that as a side eect keeps a list of all of the values that happen to be true. A set comprehension is denoted as follows: {x E} which may be read as, the set of all x where E is true. A shorthand way of dening {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9} might be {x x N 1 x 9} Note that it is usually necessary to state that x (or some other variable) is drawn from a particular set, e.g., x N, so by convention this is usually written more compactly and readably as follows: {x N 1 x 9}. 3.3.4. Union. It is possible to create sets constructively from other sets. The set union operator can be thought of as joining together a pair of sets, discarding any duplicates. For example, where a = {1, 2, 3} and b = {3, 5, 9}, the operator can be used to join these sets, i.e., a b = {1, 2, 3} {3, 5, 9} = {1, 2, 3, 5, 9} We can actually dene union in terms of set comprehension: a b = {i i a i b} though set union is encountered suciently often that introducing the operator is benecial. It is common usage to string together several operators to represent the union of more than two sets, e.g., a b c ... 3.3.5. Intersection. It is frequently useful to be able to dene a set in terms of the intersection of two or more other sets. Intersection is denoted by the operator, e.g., a b denotes the set that contains the elements that are present in both a and b, and no others. Should a and b happen to be disjoint (containing no common elements), the result is an empty set, denoted {} or as . As with , it is possible to dene in terms of set comprehension, e.g., a b = {i i a i b}. 3.3.6. Subsets and Supersets. A set p may be said to be a subset of set q if and only if every element of p is also an element of q. We denote this p q, and we can dene in terms of operators that weve already dened as follows: a b = i a .i b. Note that a = b implies that a b and b a. The set b may be said to be a proper subset of set c if b c and b c.

AM

3.3.7. Power Sets. A power set, denoted S, is the set of all subsets (including the empty set, which is a subset of all possible sets) of the set S. It can be dened in terms of set comprehension as follows: {s S s} For example, {1, 2, 3} = {, {1}, {2}, {3}, {1, 2}, {2, 3}, {1, 3}, {1, 2, 3}} 3.4. Tuples. A tuple binds together two or more pieces of information. The notation (a, b, egg, 5) is a 4 element tuple that comprises the values a, b, egg and 5. Though tuples supercially seem like sets, they are not sets. Position within the tuple is critical, so order is important, so (1, 2) is not equivalent to (2, 1). 4. Deity Now that some basic set theory has been introduced, it is possible to approach the concept of deity in mathematical terms. We dene deity in terms of sets this is perhaps surprising, but as mentioned previously, sets can contain anything, and for our purposes, that includes gods, dmons, spirits, ourselves, and anything else we might encounter either physically or spiritually. We dene the set of all gods, goddesses, and other spiritual beings, including ourselves, to be . Where g is a god, it follows that g by denition. By convention, we denote specic gods either with their own symbols, or with the notation god name e.g., Melek , representing the Feri deity Melek Taus, Inanna, the Sumerian underworld goddess, etc. Where gods have well-known symbols or planetary associations, these may be used directly, e.g., = Selene . Other symbols may be introduced as necessary as part of a working for brevity. Many magickal traditions include the concept of a supreme god or goddess that is in some sense the union of all gods and goddesses. In the Feri witchcraft tradition, this deity is known as the Star Goddess. We may therefore dene the Star Goddess (denoted as ) as follows: = g
g

Note that, though at rst sight and appear to be equivalent, they are not, because is a single element of a set, though one that is in and of itself the union of all elements of , whereas is actually the set that contains and all of its subsets. 4.1. Aspects and Independence. Dening gods, and particularly the relationship between gods and aspects of gods, is traditionally tricky. Logick oers a more precise way to do this, that also serves to answer some of the controversy that frequently arises between the view that gods are distinct, independent entities and the idea that gods are all somehow aspects of a single (or relatively small number of) higher deities. We will again use the Feri pantheon as an example. In the Feri creation myth, the star goddess gives birth to the Divine Twins, Serpent and Dove , who then merge to form Melek . With apologies for the oversimplication, Melek = Serpent Dove . From the properties of and , we can infer that Serpent Melek and that

LOGICK

Dove Melek . Though Serpent and Dove are not generally regarded as aspects of Melek , they are nevertheless subsets. Of course, it is also the case that Melek . Note that in this case, though Serpent and Dove are usually regarded as distinct, it should be made clear that they are necessarily entirely disjunct, i.e., it is possible that Serpent Dove . In cases where a god is typically regarded as having aspects, this can be dened similarly, e.g., if one wished to assert that Melek , Peacock Angel and Dian y Glas are distinct aspects, one might dene an all-encompassing composite god as follows M = Melek Peacock Angel Dian y Glas . It is useful to introduce some extra notation to dierentiate the purely mathematical operator from an intended meaning that god a is an aspect of b by writing this with slightly dierent symbol, i.e., a b . In the Feri community, there is disagreement about whether the Feri gods are distinct, or whether they are aspects. Taking a mathematical approach, it is relatively straightforward to demonstrate that both concepts can be simultaneously true, because they actually depend upon the denition of equality. Given a strict, set-theoretic denition of equality (i.e., sets a and b are equal if and only if every element of a is present in b, and vice-versa), the Feri gods are indeed distinct. However, a more forgiving version of equivalence gives dierent results. For example, if we dene a looser equivalence operator, , as follows: a b = (a b ) In this scheme, Melek Dian y Glas , but Melek Dian y Glas , even though in the latter case, neither need be an aspect of the other, though both are aspects (as we dened earlier) of M . 4.2. Godself. Following the usual approach, the higher soul, godself, HGA, is regarded as deity in its own right. However, we regard each person as having a separate godself or HGA. To avoid clumsiness of notation, the god soul of person P is denoted P . 5. The Hermetic Principle of Correspondence As above, So below. This idea turns up everywhere in magick, possibly most formally in the Qabalah, but most systems have some variation of it within themselves. The Hermetic principle of correspondence has an equivalent in mathematics. The great French mathematician, Evariste Galois (1811 - 1832) introduced several important ideas during his tragically short life. Though he is best remembered for his pioneering work in group theory, he also introduced the theory of Galois connections, an extremely powerful way to formalise the concept of abstraction. This was later revised and extended by Patrick and Radhia Cousot in the late 1970s as a formal basis for the analysis of computer software. We adopt here the more modern Cousot & Cousot variant. Roughly speaking, as above, so below refers to the idea that the microcosm is patterned on the macrocosm, and to some extent also vice-versa. Mathematically, one might say that the macrocosm is an abstraction of the microcosm. Formally, if we let A represent the macrocosm and B represent the microcosm, a pair of adjoined functions (traditionally named , the abstraction function and , the concretization function) constitutes a Galois connection between A and B. It is necessary for A,

AM

B, and to obey a number of rules in order for this to work, but in practice this tends to be relatively straightforward to arrange. 5.1. The Need for Order. It is essential that A and B be well-ordered in the mathematical sense. That is, given a A and b B, there must always be a well-dened way to determine a b. The actual ordering relation can be anything you choose, so long as it obeys the usual properties of , e.g., it must hold that if a b and b c then it follows that a c. When A and B represent sets of nondeterministic choices, we trivially have order because we can simply use as our ordering relation. 5.2. Necessary Properties of and . The functions , must be adjoined, i.e., it must hold that (x) x and (x) x. It is important to note that these conditions are symmetric, and they cause the Galois connection itself to exhibit the needed as above, so below symmetry. 6. Practical Workings 6.1. Casting a Circle. Most magickal systems include some way to declare an operating space, usually for reasons of protection. British traditional witches cast circles, Feri cast spheres, ceremonial magicians perform opening, cleansing and banishing rituals. There are many ways that a circle can be cast, and Logick oers innitely many possibilities. However, a simple approach is to declare the centre of the circle as being coincident with a particular point in space ritually this might be seen as the centre of an object on an altar, or perhaps the centre of a candle ame, or perhaps even the heart of the magician themself. For our purposes, we will call this point , following the Thelemic association between Hadit and the centre of all. For simplicity, we will dene a sphere which has at its centre. To do this, we need some more denitions. Let S3 = R R R be the set of all points in space (were assuming a Euclidean 3-space, but this is good enough for our purposes). We shall assume that the coordinate system has as (0, 0, 0), so a solid sphere of radius r about may therefore be dened as
r

The shell of the sphere consists of the set of points dened as follows:
r

= {(x, y, z) S3

x2 + y 2 + z 2 r} x2 + y 2 + z 2 = r} x2 + y 2 + z 2 > r}

Space outwith the circle therefore has the obvious denition Of course, the actual universe is not just a set of points in space, so bearing in mind the above denitions of the geometry of the sphere, we loosen our usage somewhat, with the assumption that such spheres really contain all the matter within them, as well as any deities that may choose to be present, possibly including ourselves. We also may simply assume that r is large enough to contain the magickal operation and no larger, and simply omit it from the expression. So, assuming magicians Alice, Bob and Carol are wishing to cast a circle of protection, visualising a sphere , then meditating on the following spell could be sucient: = Alice Bob Carol r = {(x, y, z) S3

= {(x, y, z) S3

LOGICK

This says, essentially, that the sphere contains the godselves of Alice, Bob and Carol, and no other deities (including humans), so mote it be. A working involving one or more deities or guardians can be achieved simply by adding them to the list a Feri-like circle (including guardians but not yet other gods and goddesses) might be cast as follows: =Alice Bob Carol Shining Flame Water Maker Black Mother Star Finder Heaven Shiner Fire in the Earth Note that, strictly, this is an evocation, in that the deities are evoked within the sphere, not (necessarily) invoked within the participants themselves. All of this can be dened with appropriate use of Logick, but fair warning should be given that these assertions are extremely strong and extremely precise, so if you wish to exclude a particular possibility, you must state it explicitly. A more elaborate circle evocation of Melek that explicitly forbids possession might be dened as follows: G =Shining Flame Water Maker Black Mother Star Finder Heaven Shiner Fire in the Earth Melek P =Alice Bob Carol GP = = GP

After a working is complete, the sphere may be dismissed as follows: Conversely, very dangerous things are possible. A working explicitly requiring full god-posession of Alice (though retaining explicit protection from such for Bob and Carol) might be achieved as follows: G =Shining Flame Water Maker Black Mother Star Finder Heaven Shiner Fire in the Earth Melek P =Bob Carol GP = = G P Alice Alice = Melek .

By way of explanation, G is dened as the set of gods that are to be evoked within the sphere. P is the set of people who are to be protected from possession. instantiates the sphere, then the nal line, in three parts, states that the intersection of G and P is empty (i.e. no possession at any level, including aspecting, of the people in P may take place, and that the total contents of the sphere must exactly equal the union of G, P , and Alice . Finally, Alice = Melek rather brutally states that for the purposes of the working, Alice and Melek are one and the same. Be careful what you wish for!