First, I've mentioned that this piece is incomplete, and it just isn't right. Every day I'm working on, "perfeck'in it," but sometimes I have to remember that there is an English word called, "sufficient." I've decided on publishing the article because it is simply sufficient for the time being. Further, I am going to go Thomas Aquinas on you - some wonderful medieval scholasticism! - and index the categories by letter. Perhaps more like Spinoza or Leibnitz on a good absinthe bender! So, here we go:
A. All human knowledge of any existence must be perceived if it is to be known. This creates our first category, the percept, which is defined as any existence which has been perceived.
A.1. The are five basic empirical percepts, which are any percepts perceived by sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. This creates for our next more specific category, the empirical percept.
A.2. All other percepts are sensed, whether as thoughts, emotions, or some other sensation that is not empirical as defined. This creates our next category, called either the non-empirical percept, or simply a sensation.
B. Any percept whatsoever is said to be true if it has been proven to have identity with itself. This creates the truth category.
C. Any percept whatsoever is said to be false if it has been proven not to have identity with itself. This creates the false category.
D. Any percept whatsoever that has neither been proven to have identity with itself, nor proven not to have identity with itself is said to be open. This creates the open category.
E. Any limited collection of percepts when taken as a limited collection of percepts is called a context. This creates the context category.
E.1. The truth value of a context is determined by whether all of the percepts continue to have identity with themselves as a member of that context. This creates the category of contextual truth value.
F. Any context is an absolute context when all open and false percepts have been eliminated from that context, leaving only true percepts within that context, as its truth value as a context is determined by the presence of only percepts of the truth category and no other truth category. This creates the category of an absolute context.
G. Any context that contains even one false or open context is an open context, as its truth value as a context cannot be determined because of the presence of the false or open percept. This creates the category of an open context.
G.1. There is no need to establish a context with a false truth value, as a context of only false percepts would be an open context, as even though the percepts may all be proven false, they cannot be proven to all be false as members of a context.
H. Any process applied to a percept of any truth value whatsoever as part of a context will be called a modulus, which creates our first modulus category.
H.1. Any true or false percept whatsoever can be analyzed by deduction, and this creates the deductive modulus category.
H.2. Some and only some open percepts can be analyzed by induction, and this creates the inductive modulus category.
I. Further, there are two possible subcategories of empirical percepts, the first being a measurement, which creates the quantitative category. The second is some quality of language symbolism that cannot be measured by quantity, and this creates the qualitative category.
I.1. Further still, there are both quantitative and qualitative forms of deduction and induction, and this creates four more modulus categories which are: quantitative deductive modulus, qualitiative deductive modulus, quantitative inductive modulus and qualitative inductive modulus.
I.2. Further, as a quality may not be summed, subtracted, multiplied, or divided, qualitative modulus can only be algebraic, and does not use quanitative operations of arithmetic.
I.3. However, qualitative and quantitative algebras of both deductive and inductive modulus are fundamentally the same, although the modulus resulting from these fundamentals are not very similar. Proof in later document.
J. All sensations are qualitative, as no empirical measurement can be made to quantify the sensation. Further explanation in later document.
K. The only other way to undestand a quality, other than by qualitative deductive modulus (algebraic deduction) or by qualitative inductive modulus (alegbraic induction) is as an aesthetic, and this creates the final (for now, at least) category of the aesthetic quality.
Thanks to my profs at UTK and Wright State and Sinclair Community College (D10 Mu10's REPRAZENT!) Thanks to a few of the teachers from Miamisburg High School and a few from my primary education. Thanks to Blaise Pascal, Hildegard of Bingen, Immanuel Kant, the good Catholic priests who shepherded me along, the broad range of books that went into all of my work, and many others that will receive a list post in the future. In the meantime, I need a break.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
Blaise Pascal and the Night of Fire
Blaise Pascal is a personal hero of mine. Part one, like me he was a man of mystical orientation. Part two, he was a polymath, someone who dipped his hands into many pies. Part three, he is in fact one of the greatest mathematicians who ever lived.
Pascal was perhaps 18 when he had a massive and over-whelming experience of mystical reality. He referred to the incident in his journals as, "the night of fire." He also had a special coat tailored and he embossed in expensive thread on the inside, "the night of fire." He is a man I admire. He was a believer, but very unusual as a believer, and yet - I think that I am a man of a night of fire just as he was, and I don't apologize for it very much.
What people think life is, either pure science or pure religion, is exactly what it isn't. To me, all of this hypermath is less important than what is mysterious about life. We don't study what is mysterious about life either because it doesn't even exist, or because religion forbids such study. Mr. Pascal had the same complaints, and felt the same way about all of his work in, "hard science." As amazing as it all may be, it was that night of fire - that was life - that was reality.
Now here is an interesting little puzzle for those without a night of fire. It is a geometry proof dealing with midpoints. Get this, and again - I have no idea what the world knows and what it doesn't. I have no one to discuss these things with, and I don't know who you are. Yet this is interesting. I wish I had some way of making a diagram, but here goes.
1. Assume a line segment that ends in points A and B.
2. Assume a midpoint on line segment AB, which is point C.
3. If AC + x = BC + x, then C is always a midpoint of line segment AB.
Now get this one. Just hang in there.
Assume x to be the length of AC and y to be the length of BC and c to be your additive constant, where AB is a line segment with a midpoint at C.
Eqn: [(x + y) - c]^3 - [(x + y) - c] = x + c, and [(x + y) - c]^3 - [(x + y) - c] = y +c, in a case so defined.
So what I'm saying is that in a case where we have a midpoint, and where we add equal sums to either side of the line segments from the midpoint, then we can extrapolate a total equality in such a case to infinitely vast geometries. There is a a way to simpify this problem further, but I haven't probed at this one a great deal. But there you have it.
Understand, I do not hate the world. I do care about people a great deal. Further, a madman calls all others mad. Maybe. But you people seem so silly to me! You fly tons of steel through the air and build global networks with your hard sciences, but a "night of fire," is for a short-bus rider, and strange spiritual beliefs cause persecution from both the rational and the religious.
A guy with my talent has never met a real mathematician in person. I just, "fuhgeddaboutit." Anyway, I'm going to go off to read some novel or something or other to wind down for a piece, and then I will need some sleep.
Pascal was perhaps 18 when he had a massive and over-whelming experience of mystical reality. He referred to the incident in his journals as, "the night of fire." He also had a special coat tailored and he embossed in expensive thread on the inside, "the night of fire." He is a man I admire. He was a believer, but very unusual as a believer, and yet - I think that I am a man of a night of fire just as he was, and I don't apologize for it very much.
What people think life is, either pure science or pure religion, is exactly what it isn't. To me, all of this hypermath is less important than what is mysterious about life. We don't study what is mysterious about life either because it doesn't even exist, or because religion forbids such study. Mr. Pascal had the same complaints, and felt the same way about all of his work in, "hard science." As amazing as it all may be, it was that night of fire - that was life - that was reality.
Now here is an interesting little puzzle for those without a night of fire. It is a geometry proof dealing with midpoints. Get this, and again - I have no idea what the world knows and what it doesn't. I have no one to discuss these things with, and I don't know who you are. Yet this is interesting. I wish I had some way of making a diagram, but here goes.
1. Assume a line segment that ends in points A and B.
2. Assume a midpoint on line segment AB, which is point C.
3. If AC + x = BC + x, then C is always a midpoint of line segment AB.
Now get this one. Just hang in there.
Assume x to be the length of AC and y to be the length of BC and c to be your additive constant, where AB is a line segment with a midpoint at C.
Eqn: [(x + y) - c]^3 - [(x + y) - c] = x + c, and [(x + y) - c]^3 - [(x + y) - c] = y +c, in a case so defined.
So what I'm saying is that in a case where we have a midpoint, and where we add equal sums to either side of the line segments from the midpoint, then we can extrapolate a total equality in such a case to infinitely vast geometries. There is a a way to simpify this problem further, but I haven't probed at this one a great deal. But there you have it.
Understand, I do not hate the world. I do care about people a great deal. Further, a madman calls all others mad. Maybe. But you people seem so silly to me! You fly tons of steel through the air and build global networks with your hard sciences, but a "night of fire," is for a short-bus rider, and strange spiritual beliefs cause persecution from both the rational and the religious.
A guy with my talent has never met a real mathematician in person. I just, "fuhgeddaboutit." Anyway, I'm going to go off to read some novel or something or other to wind down for a piece, and then I will need some sleep.
Tensor Calculus and Matrix Geometry, I Suggest We Un-Tesserate
Let us start with the relativistic physics concept, because it is mostly the reason why we are interested in matrix geometries today. First, we have the same concept as in quantum mechanics. We will choose a time and a place (that is in relative motion, that bit is more problematic) from which to make a measurement from, and that choice of a place to measure from will reveal a relativity in our data based on the time and place we have chosen to measure from. That is highly abstract, but it is fairly reasonable. It is also supported by loads of data.
Our next assumption is the quadratic assumption. We have altitude, latitude, longitude and time. We treat time as our tensor. The tensor will be inverse in relation to the other three-dimensions. My first question is, if all of our dimensions are relative positions, then why couldn't any of our dimensions be measured as our tensor?
So at one time four-dimensional geometries interested me a great deal, and I cobbled at them with the resources I had. I don't have any interest in four-dimensional geometries, no matter how complex - any longer. I've moved on to another geometry that is gutter-simple in comparison, and you'll see.
Now, let me boast a little about my knowledge. I hope I have this definition correct, as I have no access to anyone to correct me if I'm wrong. I formulated a - get this - partially-tesserated, hyperbolic, matrix-integral tensor. The equation looks about like this:
Eqn:. [(x + y + z) - c]^3 - [(x + y + z) - c]
I did a derivative-inverse by hand and it was interesting, but the full integral to this is way beyond my capability of solving by hand. If you're a mathematician with a specialty in the tensor and some supercomputer time, this might be worth a go. The integral itself is defiantly complex, and the number and vast size of many of the real solutions is way out in outer space.
However, my opinion is that we can drop the quadratic tensor entirely. As a mathematician, one develops hunches and intuitions. Just as an absolute discrete-finistic-reduction of mathematics, a finite number of finite sets - is incredibly attractive, so is this next piece of work I came up with. The next part to mention is that this is not as pie-in-the-sky as such a dramatic finistic reduction, and that in fact, this was just a thought that occurred to me one morning.
I did the integration in about fifteen minutes by hand before bedtime one day. Also, it is so utterly simple in contrast to what you see above. It is a three-dimensional version of that particular tesseract above. A three-dimensional tensor. Now we would imagine, we are leaving out a spatial-dimension or the time-dimension. Possibly. It may have no relationship to physics, but this integration produced an unusual result that is tickling my brain with a hunch.
So the equation before the integration looks like so:
Eqn:. [(x + y) - c]^2 - [(x + y) -c]
The integrated form looks like this, unless I mixed up a sign somewhere:
Int. Eqn:. x^2 + 2xy + y^2 + c^2 + c - 2xc - 2yc - x - y
What is so unusual about this is that I went over the factors quite a bit and I see no way to group or reduce. So there you have it. I've checked my work on the integration a couple of times, and you just multiply everything together until she goes - so I think it's right. Pretty good material - I must boast - whether it is useful for physics or simply theoretical mathematics.
Let me just plug in something fun here. When I was a kid, I used to sit and do permutations and combinatorics at the table in my home when I was bored. So I was looking at this particular combinatoric, another discrete math problem, and I found another axiomatic problem, and it has to do with algebra. Effing right, I am your demon! Wait until you see.
Eqn:. x^2 - [(x^2 - x)/2]
Now, if we do a normal factoring here, we distribute:
Fact. Eqn:. x^2 - x^2/2 - x/2
Mult: 2x^2/2 - x^2/2 - x/2
Group: (2x^2 - x^2 - x)/2
Result Eqn:. (x^2 - x)/2
Begin Neg. Proof:
1. Select 2 as x.
2. Original Eqn:. 2^2 - (2^2 -2)/2
3. Result: 3
4. Fact. Eqn:. (2^2 - 2)/2
5. Result: 1
6. x does not equal x, null proof, from the identity function, a=a.
I really want someone to check this one and give me a heads up, as I may have performed an improper operation, or I may be misunderstanding what I achieved. It confuses me a great deal. I would like to have some peers on my team. Anyway, I will return, and then we will talk about something else, and I may do a historical article this time. We shall see.
Our next assumption is the quadratic assumption. We have altitude, latitude, longitude and time. We treat time as our tensor. The tensor will be inverse in relation to the other three-dimensions. My first question is, if all of our dimensions are relative positions, then why couldn't any of our dimensions be measured as our tensor?
So at one time four-dimensional geometries interested me a great deal, and I cobbled at them with the resources I had. I don't have any interest in four-dimensional geometries, no matter how complex - any longer. I've moved on to another geometry that is gutter-simple in comparison, and you'll see.
Now, let me boast a little about my knowledge. I hope I have this definition correct, as I have no access to anyone to correct me if I'm wrong. I formulated a - get this - partially-tesserated, hyperbolic, matrix-integral tensor. The equation looks about like this:
Eqn:. [(x + y + z) - c]^3 - [(x + y + z) - c]
I did a derivative-inverse by hand and it was interesting, but the full integral to this is way beyond my capability of solving by hand. If you're a mathematician with a specialty in the tensor and some supercomputer time, this might be worth a go. The integral itself is defiantly complex, and the number and vast size of many of the real solutions is way out in outer space.
However, my opinion is that we can drop the quadratic tensor entirely. As a mathematician, one develops hunches and intuitions. Just as an absolute discrete-finistic-reduction of mathematics, a finite number of finite sets - is incredibly attractive, so is this next piece of work I came up with. The next part to mention is that this is not as pie-in-the-sky as such a dramatic finistic reduction, and that in fact, this was just a thought that occurred to me one morning.
I did the integration in about fifteen minutes by hand before bedtime one day. Also, it is so utterly simple in contrast to what you see above. It is a three-dimensional version of that particular tesseract above. A three-dimensional tensor. Now we would imagine, we are leaving out a spatial-dimension or the time-dimension. Possibly. It may have no relationship to physics, but this integration produced an unusual result that is tickling my brain with a hunch.
So the equation before the integration looks like so:
Eqn:. [(x + y) - c]^2 - [(x + y) -c]
The integrated form looks like this, unless I mixed up a sign somewhere:
Int. Eqn:. x^2 + 2xy + y^2 + c^2 + c - 2xc - 2yc - x - y
What is so unusual about this is that I went over the factors quite a bit and I see no way to group or reduce. So there you have it. I've checked my work on the integration a couple of times, and you just multiply everything together until she goes - so I think it's right. Pretty good material - I must boast - whether it is useful for physics or simply theoretical mathematics.
Let me just plug in something fun here. When I was a kid, I used to sit and do permutations and combinatorics at the table in my home when I was bored. So I was looking at this particular combinatoric, another discrete math problem, and I found another axiomatic problem, and it has to do with algebra. Effing right, I am your demon! Wait until you see.
Eqn:. x^2 - [(x^2 - x)/2]
Now, if we do a normal factoring here, we distribute:
Fact. Eqn:. x^2 - x^2/2 - x/2
Mult: 2x^2/2 - x^2/2 - x/2
Group: (2x^2 - x^2 - x)/2
Result Eqn:. (x^2 - x)/2
Begin Neg. Proof:
1. Select 2 as x.
2. Original Eqn:. 2^2 - (2^2 -2)/2
3. Result: 3
4. Fact. Eqn:. (2^2 - 2)/2
5. Result: 1
6. x does not equal x, null proof, from the identity function, a=a.
I really want someone to check this one and give me a heads up, as I may have performed an improper operation, or I may be misunderstanding what I achieved. It confuses me a great deal. I would like to have some peers on my team. Anyway, I will return, and then we will talk about something else, and I may do a historical article this time. We shall see.
Quantum Mechanics and Two Ibuprofen Tablets, Call Me In the Morning
The trope with quantum mechanics always is, "Only three or four people in the world understand quantum mechanics." Part one, anyone with an abstract mind can understand the basic principles of quantum mechanics. It is not that elite.
Part two, in quantum mechanics we plug a statistical variable - really an entire statistics equation - into a calculus integral-equation of some pretty high complexity. I do not know that kind of mathematics, and the thought of such mathematics almost has me running with a migraine for the Advil in my W.C. That kind of mathematics is for an elite few, and don't hand that elite tube-socks, as people might wind up dead.
Next problem. Quantum mechanics is weird, so people have all these "guide-quanta," delusions and other garbage. Please, just put down the giblets and stop using hallucinogens. That is not science, that is pseudo-science. That kind of behavior is very pathetic.
So let us go into quantum mechanics through a development in the philosophy of science. We'll touch on this, and then we'll move on. It is called, "the instrumental view of science." It is a re-statement of what Kant the bore took 6000 years to put into our Western minds, which is that knowledge of existence isn't exactly the same as existence.
The basic idea is this, and I may have done this, but I'll re-state it here as it is a very important philosophical idea. You go out into a place and you do some orienteering. You go back to your desk, and you use a certain set of symbols to map the place you took data from. Then you make a key for your symbols. You have a map of a place, but you don't have a place. To quote Ken Wilber, "the map is not the territory."
This is instrumental science. We have made a model of a reality, and it may even be effective - quantum mechanics is amazing for studying and engineering light refractions - but it is merely a model of the existence - however powerful that model may be.
So what happened is that since Democritus in the West, 2400 years ago - or thereabouts - we have imagined, "atoms," these spheres that fall into different categories and interact with each other in certain ways. The product today is modern particle physics, and this is powerful stuff. Controlled and uncontrolled fission - and currently - uncontrolled fusion. One of our problems in particle physics today is that we have maybe 30 particles with very different characteristics - according to our best data - and we can't seem to put these 30 or so particles in any reasonable categories.
I would not want to work in a particle accelerator. You are wasting millions of dollars of studio time and millions of dollars of very specialized materials if you make a single data collection mistake. I would find a solid rope and a solid rafter if I made such a mistake, in preference to what the other results might be for my self.
Let me just hit string-theory very quickly, and we'll go back to quantum mechanics. There is a man named Dr. Glashow who has worked in the FERMI labs for many years, and his critique of string-theory and its hypotheses has been quite heavy. However, even though he is a data-based physicist, he has very respectfully stated that string-theory is not total nonsense. Dr. Glashow strikes me as the kind of guy you want on your team, and would probably be discreetly even more critical if he felt string-theory was all nonsense.
So, with this in mind, string-theory and its hypotheses are very likely a distinct possibility. It will be many pennies into our treasury before we can know. Here is my own critique. We are abstracting a hyper-dimensional vibration-substance instead of our little spheres, but are we still playing Democritus, the atom, and the fundamental particle? That is my critique. I have looked into string-theory some, and it strikes me as attractive as well, but - 2400 years of fundamental particles - that is my critique.
Now here is the thing, because it is funny and I want to be fair. You have a man like Dr. Witten at the Princeton Academy of Science who is a mathematician who works on string-theory, and he is the kind of guy I think I would want on my team. He is a theoritician. You have a very respectable hard-data physicist like Dr. Glashow making a critique of these theories. Men - as well as sciences - are very competitive.
So in public, Dr. Witten and Dr. Glashow are discreet and respectful, as anyone in such a position has to be. They also seem to genuinely respect one another. However, I can imagine Dr. Witten and Dr. Glashow banging holes in walls and ripping apart phonebooks in private over their differences.
I also want to make the reiteration that I am making a critique, but that I respect the hypotheses of string-theory, though I happen to disagree with the whole mindset behind the work. I rip apart my own phonebooks to heavy metal music over some things. Life ain't easy.
So we return to quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics developed from a question really, "What is a model of small-scale physical interactions that doesn't involve particles?" The first principle of quantum mechanics is the quanta. There is a best definition, and this is not easy, but it isn't only for people who need to be helped with their socks and need cases of ibuprofen a week.
It goes like this: "The smallest measurable unit that can be measured at a specific position at a specific time in a closed system." What this means is that we choose a place and time to measure, and then we measure the smallest unit at that time and position. It means that the quanta is variable in size, dependent on the time and position of measure.
So the quantum theory has really made huge breakthroughs in light-refraction technology. Now this is the hilarity of it. One of the only other uses for quantum mechanics is in the very particle physics it aimed to replace! In a particle accelerator, you are taking approximate data, so you can view the particles only from a specific position at a certain time. This is particularly because such particles drop out of our ability to detect so quickly.
So there you have it. Comedy physics! You theorize, "Let us try a model without particles," and you advance the study of particles! Trust me, other than light refraction and its use in particle physics, quantum mechanics is pretty much nothing but a dud.
The concept of a variable standard of measurement and that measurement's dependence on position and time is very important - I think - a very big development. However, other than amazing lenses and fiber optic cables and particle data - fuhgeddaboutit. Total dud.
I did this article next because I know people are interested in these subjects, and I've decided to release some of my matrix geometry work before I start on the category principles. I like to joke around, and remember, if the critique is hard to take, go get a phone book and rip it to pieces, or buy a punching bag - whatever it takes. The thing is that respectful critique is very important as a theorist, and I do try to be discreet and respectful. I will continue on in this pleasant morning.
Part two, in quantum mechanics we plug a statistical variable - really an entire statistics equation - into a calculus integral-equation of some pretty high complexity. I do not know that kind of mathematics, and the thought of such mathematics almost has me running with a migraine for the Advil in my W.C. That kind of mathematics is for an elite few, and don't hand that elite tube-socks, as people might wind up dead.
Next problem. Quantum mechanics is weird, so people have all these "guide-quanta," delusions and other garbage. Please, just put down the giblets and stop using hallucinogens. That is not science, that is pseudo-science. That kind of behavior is very pathetic.
So let us go into quantum mechanics through a development in the philosophy of science. We'll touch on this, and then we'll move on. It is called, "the instrumental view of science." It is a re-statement of what Kant the bore took 6000 years to put into our Western minds, which is that knowledge of existence isn't exactly the same as existence.
The basic idea is this, and I may have done this, but I'll re-state it here as it is a very important philosophical idea. You go out into a place and you do some orienteering. You go back to your desk, and you use a certain set of symbols to map the place you took data from. Then you make a key for your symbols. You have a map of a place, but you don't have a place. To quote Ken Wilber, "the map is not the territory."
This is instrumental science. We have made a model of a reality, and it may even be effective - quantum mechanics is amazing for studying and engineering light refractions - but it is merely a model of the existence - however powerful that model may be.
So what happened is that since Democritus in the West, 2400 years ago - or thereabouts - we have imagined, "atoms," these spheres that fall into different categories and interact with each other in certain ways. The product today is modern particle physics, and this is powerful stuff. Controlled and uncontrolled fission - and currently - uncontrolled fusion. One of our problems in particle physics today is that we have maybe 30 particles with very different characteristics - according to our best data - and we can't seem to put these 30 or so particles in any reasonable categories.
I would not want to work in a particle accelerator. You are wasting millions of dollars of studio time and millions of dollars of very specialized materials if you make a single data collection mistake. I would find a solid rope and a solid rafter if I made such a mistake, in preference to what the other results might be for my self.
Let me just hit string-theory very quickly, and we'll go back to quantum mechanics. There is a man named Dr. Glashow who has worked in the FERMI labs for many years, and his critique of string-theory and its hypotheses has been quite heavy. However, even though he is a data-based physicist, he has very respectfully stated that string-theory is not total nonsense. Dr. Glashow strikes me as the kind of guy you want on your team, and would probably be discreetly even more critical if he felt string-theory was all nonsense.
So, with this in mind, string-theory and its hypotheses are very likely a distinct possibility. It will be many pennies into our treasury before we can know. Here is my own critique. We are abstracting a hyper-dimensional vibration-substance instead of our little spheres, but are we still playing Democritus, the atom, and the fundamental particle? That is my critique. I have looked into string-theory some, and it strikes me as attractive as well, but - 2400 years of fundamental particles - that is my critique.
Now here is the thing, because it is funny and I want to be fair. You have a man like Dr. Witten at the Princeton Academy of Science who is a mathematician who works on string-theory, and he is the kind of guy I think I would want on my team. He is a theoritician. You have a very respectable hard-data physicist like Dr. Glashow making a critique of these theories. Men - as well as sciences - are very competitive.
So in public, Dr. Witten and Dr. Glashow are discreet and respectful, as anyone in such a position has to be. They also seem to genuinely respect one another. However, I can imagine Dr. Witten and Dr. Glashow banging holes in walls and ripping apart phonebooks in private over their differences.
I also want to make the reiteration that I am making a critique, but that I respect the hypotheses of string-theory, though I happen to disagree with the whole mindset behind the work. I rip apart my own phonebooks to heavy metal music over some things. Life ain't easy.
So we return to quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics developed from a question really, "What is a model of small-scale physical interactions that doesn't involve particles?" The first principle of quantum mechanics is the quanta. There is a best definition, and this is not easy, but it isn't only for people who need to be helped with their socks and need cases of ibuprofen a week.
It goes like this: "The smallest measurable unit that can be measured at a specific position at a specific time in a closed system." What this means is that we choose a place and time to measure, and then we measure the smallest unit at that time and position. It means that the quanta is variable in size, dependent on the time and position of measure.
So the quantum theory has really made huge breakthroughs in light-refraction technology. Now this is the hilarity of it. One of the only other uses for quantum mechanics is in the very particle physics it aimed to replace! In a particle accelerator, you are taking approximate data, so you can view the particles only from a specific position at a certain time. This is particularly because such particles drop out of our ability to detect so quickly.
So there you have it. Comedy physics! You theorize, "Let us try a model without particles," and you advance the study of particles! Trust me, other than light refraction and its use in particle physics, quantum mechanics is pretty much nothing but a dud.
The concept of a variable standard of measurement and that measurement's dependence on position and time is very important - I think - a very big development. However, other than amazing lenses and fiber optic cables and particle data - fuhgeddaboutit. Total dud.
I did this article next because I know people are interested in these subjects, and I've decided to release some of my matrix geometry work before I start on the category principles. I like to joke around, and remember, if the critique is hard to take, go get a phone book and rip it to pieces, or buy a punching bag - whatever it takes. The thing is that respectful critique is very important as a theorist, and I do try to be discreet and respectful. I will continue on in this pleasant morning.
Fundamental Problems of Mathematics, and Why It Isn't the Apocalypse Right Now
Let us start with a stunner to people's prejudices. All over the world today, we use Arabic numerals in mathematics because they are very simple and clear. If we go back to maybe 800 in the Common Era, the Arabs had a stunning mathematics knowledge, and even a very crude form of calculus. They also used the base-10 system very early, and by the way, this was never common in the world.
Base-10 is very advantageous for certain reasons, although really, you can use any base-system without any real difference in measuring quantities. The problem with other base-systems isn't that you have, "funny numbers," it is that base-10 is simply - more simple and more clear. Simplicity and clarity of notation can revolutionize the world - and in the case of Arabic numerals and base-10 - this is a big reason for our engineering advances - a simple massive shift in the clarity of mathematics notation.
Other base systems are quite interesting - binary for computers - senary in terms of primes - octal-base has some strange obscurities - we use hexadecimal in programming languages based in binary for certain reasons. All of these obscurities in base-systems are really a matter of notation - except in binary where an efficient processor switches on - or off.
A fundamental problem that goes back to Arabic mathematics is the problem with indeterminate sets. An indeterminate set is an infinitely large set, and a determinate set is a set of finite size. The first problem is that indeterminate sets are loosey-goosey by definition to start with. The second problem is that when you integrate an infinite set with a finite one, you get nonsense.
So we use logarithms to approximate the solutions for our engineering and for other calculations, as we have to integrate indeterminate sets and determinate sets all the time in mathematics. One reason we have to do this all of the time, is that our fundamental set in our set theory is the set of natural numbers, which is an indeterminate-infinite-number series.
The problem has been known since 800 of the Common Era by the Arabs. The problem goes back at least that far. So let us do some history. A philosopher named Bertrand Rusell and a mathematician named Alfred North Whitead came up with the idea that we might solve this problem by building our sets in hierarches. The umbrella of the set would widen as it went up the chain.
The set theory had some large advantages. What was the problem? It was cumbersome and unwieldy. It was too complex to ever be effectively used! So, mathematicians at the time said, "Very interesting Mr. Russell and Mr. Whitehead. However, I'm doing my research with logarithm tables and approximations, and my research is going just fine. Go to hell, Mr. Russell and Mr. Whitehead!"
So our next Whitehead was a man named Kurt Godel. He did an amazing and iron-clad deductive proof, and it went like this: For every set of axioms, there is a deductive error in those axioms which cannot be solved. The proof is a monster, and "needs more study," but again, "I see your amazing proof Mr. Godel. However, I am working very hard on my research with logarithm tables and approximations, and I don't have the time for your silly proof. Go to hell Mr. Godel!"
A further answer might be, "I hope you are aware that other than deductive logic, we also have a rather difficult branch of logic called induction." Inductive logic is the most important part of our data-based sciences today. You collect approximate data and interpret it by induction. That is how we do almost all of our amazing engineering!
In mathematics today, one of the things maniacs obsess over is called, "finistic reductionism." The idea would be to prove that all mathematics can be reduced to a finite set of finite sets. First, this is probably just as maniacal as these maniacs are. However, it is attractive to wonder if we could reduce our problems to both discrete and finite terms. It is likely utterly impossible, but it is attractive, and, "needs more study." Most people are too busy for such obscure and abstruse work, but I've put my mind to it some, and I am not - that type of maniac.
So, let us look at our fundamental natural numbers set. Remember, not many mathematicians delve into set theory much, but an advanced mathematician is aware of this problem. I am not inventing a new wheel here. I can't plug true math notation in, but less us look at a simple-negative-deductive proof involving the set of natural numbers.
1. The set of natural numbers is defined as: Set N = Set N + 1. This is the most common definition you'll see in math classes.
2. Select any element x from Set N.
3. Let x = x + 1
4. x does not equal x + 1, as x must equal x by the identity theorem, a = a.
5. Null proof. Set N can contain no elements, and is union with a null-set as defined.
This is our entire problem with indeterminate sets, particularly if they are of the form of an infinite series, and the set of natural numbers if the fundamental set of all of our mathematics. I've imagined a new definition, and it may be already suggested by mathematicians with a better education and more resources than my own. I can't be sure as I have no contact with any peers in mathematics.
It comes from my study of discrete mathematics, and uses a form of notation that started in inductive logic. It also uses the concept of an infinitely-limited series. I can't plug the exact notation in, but it goes like so:
Definition of Set N, the Set of Natural Numbers: For any element x that is discrete, Set N is union with {E+ = 1 --> |x+1|}.
That short statement is the result of three years of effort. Now, there are other big set theory problems. How do we define what the number one is? There is a branch of mathematics that is developing called number theory to try to understand that. No one really has the time for number theory. I have some ideas on the platter, but I'm not so sure at this point.
Also, how do you define an operation? Just take addition. We have two quantities and we arrive at a sum. Fine. What is that? That is a problem of what is called Modern Algebra. Few people even understand modern algebra well enough to do any work on it, and very few people have any time for it. I have some ideas on the platter, but I'm not so sure at this point.
The definition of a limit. That is a complex SOB. A finite-limit definition is way beyond most people, and I can't remember well-enough the beta-delta forms to list it here without going to look it up. An infinite-limit definition is worse, because of those same problems we see with infinite series and indeterminate sets.
However, my simple reduction to a discrete function of Set N, whether previously in mathematical minds or not, produces some simple and clear results. For the integers, we can simply do a positive and negative summation of the exact same equation. The zero-number is a different problem, and I have thought of something hilarious - comedy math - over zero numbers. However, I want to probe at that one some more before I release it into the world at large. That is farther along than the definition for the number one, or the definitions for operations.
This is one of the silver-linings of my life, is that while other people need to probe some other tough questions, I've been able to trawl through set theory, number theory discrete mathematics and modern algebra, because I simply have the time and the freedom to do so. I remember remarking once that, "What if all of this development has a flaw at the bottom of the pile?" - and that is the kind of analysis I'm working on.
There are flaws at the bottom of the pile. We've known about set theory problems for at least 1200 years or so, and Godel is right, no axiomatic system is perfect. However what can I do with my time to look at the cracks at the bottom of the pile? I'll show you some other way out things I've done with matrix geometry in another article, but the next one up is my attempt to construct a fundamental philosophical system of category and context. It isn't done or perfect, but it's important to me, and I hope someone might find some value in it. Off we go, after a short break for me and a bit of food.
Base-10 is very advantageous for certain reasons, although really, you can use any base-system without any real difference in measuring quantities. The problem with other base-systems isn't that you have, "funny numbers," it is that base-10 is simply - more simple and more clear. Simplicity and clarity of notation can revolutionize the world - and in the case of Arabic numerals and base-10 - this is a big reason for our engineering advances - a simple massive shift in the clarity of mathematics notation.
Other base systems are quite interesting - binary for computers - senary in terms of primes - octal-base has some strange obscurities - we use hexadecimal in programming languages based in binary for certain reasons. All of these obscurities in base-systems are really a matter of notation - except in binary where an efficient processor switches on - or off.
A fundamental problem that goes back to Arabic mathematics is the problem with indeterminate sets. An indeterminate set is an infinitely large set, and a determinate set is a set of finite size. The first problem is that indeterminate sets are loosey-goosey by definition to start with. The second problem is that when you integrate an infinite set with a finite one, you get nonsense.
So we use logarithms to approximate the solutions for our engineering and for other calculations, as we have to integrate indeterminate sets and determinate sets all the time in mathematics. One reason we have to do this all of the time, is that our fundamental set in our set theory is the set of natural numbers, which is an indeterminate-infinite-number series.
The problem has been known since 800 of the Common Era by the Arabs. The problem goes back at least that far. So let us do some history. A philosopher named Bertrand Rusell and a mathematician named Alfred North Whitead came up with the idea that we might solve this problem by building our sets in hierarches. The umbrella of the set would widen as it went up the chain.
The set theory had some large advantages. What was the problem? It was cumbersome and unwieldy. It was too complex to ever be effectively used! So, mathematicians at the time said, "Very interesting Mr. Russell and Mr. Whitehead. However, I'm doing my research with logarithm tables and approximations, and my research is going just fine. Go to hell, Mr. Russell and Mr. Whitehead!"
So our next Whitehead was a man named Kurt Godel. He did an amazing and iron-clad deductive proof, and it went like this: For every set of axioms, there is a deductive error in those axioms which cannot be solved. The proof is a monster, and "needs more study," but again, "I see your amazing proof Mr. Godel. However, I am working very hard on my research with logarithm tables and approximations, and I don't have the time for your silly proof. Go to hell Mr. Godel!"
A further answer might be, "I hope you are aware that other than deductive logic, we also have a rather difficult branch of logic called induction." Inductive logic is the most important part of our data-based sciences today. You collect approximate data and interpret it by induction. That is how we do almost all of our amazing engineering!
In mathematics today, one of the things maniacs obsess over is called, "finistic reductionism." The idea would be to prove that all mathematics can be reduced to a finite set of finite sets. First, this is probably just as maniacal as these maniacs are. However, it is attractive to wonder if we could reduce our problems to both discrete and finite terms. It is likely utterly impossible, but it is attractive, and, "needs more study." Most people are too busy for such obscure and abstruse work, but I've put my mind to it some, and I am not - that type of maniac.
So, let us look at our fundamental natural numbers set. Remember, not many mathematicians delve into set theory much, but an advanced mathematician is aware of this problem. I am not inventing a new wheel here. I can't plug true math notation in, but less us look at a simple-negative-deductive proof involving the set of natural numbers.
1. The set of natural numbers is defined as: Set N = Set N + 1. This is the most common definition you'll see in math classes.
2. Select any element x from Set N.
3. Let x = x + 1
4. x does not equal x + 1, as x must equal x by the identity theorem, a = a.
5. Null proof. Set N can contain no elements, and is union with a null-set as defined.
This is our entire problem with indeterminate sets, particularly if they are of the form of an infinite series, and the set of natural numbers if the fundamental set of all of our mathematics. I've imagined a new definition, and it may be already suggested by mathematicians with a better education and more resources than my own. I can't be sure as I have no contact with any peers in mathematics.
It comes from my study of discrete mathematics, and uses a form of notation that started in inductive logic. It also uses the concept of an infinitely-limited series. I can't plug the exact notation in, but it goes like so:
Definition of Set N, the Set of Natural Numbers: For any element x that is discrete, Set N is union with {E+ = 1 --> |x+1|}.
That short statement is the result of three years of effort. Now, there are other big set theory problems. How do we define what the number one is? There is a branch of mathematics that is developing called number theory to try to understand that. No one really has the time for number theory. I have some ideas on the platter, but I'm not so sure at this point.
Also, how do you define an operation? Just take addition. We have two quantities and we arrive at a sum. Fine. What is that? That is a problem of what is called Modern Algebra. Few people even understand modern algebra well enough to do any work on it, and very few people have any time for it. I have some ideas on the platter, but I'm not so sure at this point.
The definition of a limit. That is a complex SOB. A finite-limit definition is way beyond most people, and I can't remember well-enough the beta-delta forms to list it here without going to look it up. An infinite-limit definition is worse, because of those same problems we see with infinite series and indeterminate sets.
However, my simple reduction to a discrete function of Set N, whether previously in mathematical minds or not, produces some simple and clear results. For the integers, we can simply do a positive and negative summation of the exact same equation. The zero-number is a different problem, and I have thought of something hilarious - comedy math - over zero numbers. However, I want to probe at that one some more before I release it into the world at large. That is farther along than the definition for the number one, or the definitions for operations.
This is one of the silver-linings of my life, is that while other people need to probe some other tough questions, I've been able to trawl through set theory, number theory discrete mathematics and modern algebra, because I simply have the time and the freedom to do so. I remember remarking once that, "What if all of this development has a flaw at the bottom of the pile?" - and that is the kind of analysis I'm working on.
There are flaws at the bottom of the pile. We've known about set theory problems for at least 1200 years or so, and Godel is right, no axiomatic system is perfect. However what can I do with my time to look at the cracks at the bottom of the pile? I'll show you some other way out things I've done with matrix geometry in another article, but the next one up is my attempt to construct a fundamental philosophical system of category and context. It isn't done or perfect, but it's important to me, and I hope someone might find some value in it. Off we go, after a short break for me and a bit of food.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
The Fundamental Human Problems, A Short Introduction
Let us start with a man named Huston Smith. Huston Smith was a professor at Harvard in comparative religions, and is the ultimate guide to comparative religion in the English language. He was not a minister. He attended either an American Methodist or an American Episcopal Church, and referred to himself as a Vedic-Christian. He attended a fairly standard Christian-liberal Church, and ran a coffee-klastch on the Vedas for the Church once a month.
He had a list of four basic fundamental human questions. The list is succinct and it does leave many things out, but it is a very good distillation of our problems as people. The list goes as follows:
1. Where do I come from?
2. Where am I?
3. Where am I going?
4. Why am I here?
There was an author of a great UK radio-show called "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," named Douglas Adams. Adams must have been acquainted with Smith's list and joked that civilization inevitably proceeds through three fundamental states. First, to question, "Where do we come from?," then second to question, "Where are we going?" and then third - to ask - "Where do we do lunch?"
So let us attack our first question, "Where do I come from?" Let us imagine an abstract idea - but one that I think fits a simple article. It comes from Camus and Santanyana's existentialism, and it is called, "thrown-ness." The basic idea is that you arrived in this world as a human as an infant, and you don't remember your origins, so now you are, "thrown," into the mix of a very puzzling and queer human world.
In other words, we have a fundamental disconnection in our experience as people. We've arrived at the restaurant at the end of the universe, but we're not quite sure how we arrived here. As people we search for our origins in different ways - through geneaeology, through family stories, through our cultural myths, through religious tradition, and through philosophy. What you can't really know is exactly what it was before you got thrown into this queer madhouse.
Orwell noted that it is the victorss who (not write) but re-write history, after an old Latin maxim. Throughout history, every historian has had an axe to grind. As objective as we want to be, history has evaporated because the victors re-canted their history in order to remain victors in the next spam-news program. We as people are such human fools. It gets pretty pathetic.
So there you are, a reasonable man or woman, and the simple question, "How the eff did I get here?" - remains something of a mystery to you. If you dug into case after case of spam, you would still only get spam out of the bargain bin. You can achieve very little veracity with history, although archaeology helps a great deal. It helps.
Imagine this joke. An archaeologist is going through a garbage heap of our culture, and our culture and its ideals are long gone. He keeps finding Snickers bar wrappers. There is wrapper after wrapper, the wrappers are immortal and unfaded, and the font on the wrapper is large and proud. This Snickers must have been significant religion to these people! Yes, the religion of marketing!
Garbage heaps are great archaeological finds, and you wonder if our interpretations of what we see in these ancient garbage heaps might not be as corny as the one I just mentioned. Meanwhile, the victors write a spam-treat every time an actual history might be a bit too real to keep them in power. The point being, that being thrown into the mix of our human asylum is a state we all live in, and a state that can't be fully cured. We can only wonder at what real meat once lay in the bargain-bin of spam-treats.
There was a sketch on the original Monty Python show - this is real - and not most people's kind of humor - called "The Philosopher's Soccer Game." Alright so the game starts, the rules are the same as soccer. Plato, Socrates, Camus, Sartre, and everyone wanders about the soccer field pontificating for a great while. Nietzsche kicks the ball into the net and scores! No one else bothers to score a point, they just wander around and continue to pontificate. Nietzsche wins the soccer game!
The joke is that while Nietzsche did love to pontificate, he was also one of the first philosophers who had the gall to admit that pragmatism, "if it's effective, that is truth enough," might be valuable as a sound philosophy. So Nietzche decides, "There is no fundamental meaning to the rules of this game. However, it is truth enough that in this game, scoring points by kicking the ball into the net is the manner of winning the game. I will kick the ball into the net in order to win the game." Meanwhile, everyone else continues to pontificate on more sound philosophies.
Pragmatic philosophy is not dumb. As people we need to be pragmatic. Take most people's day in an office - "Gee, there is no reason why this office should run this way. This is fruity nonsense. I would like to keep my job though, so in this game, I will just play by the rules of this office." Your reward is a continuing career and a paycheck. Nothing wrong with that philosophy. Nothing at all. Very simple, functional reasoning, and it makes the world go 'round - and 'round and 'round.
The only problem with pragmatism is when it goes to the end of its logical chain. That would be something like, "I can make a lot more money as a swindler and get away with it if I do it in a certain way. I want to satisfy my unlimited desires and I have limited resources. I will keep myself in the right place to receive my swindling-rewards, as it is a more effective way to obtain the resources I desire." This is also a common pragmatic-philosophy in the world, and that kind of pragmatism is malignant.
So how do you find a more sound fundamental principle over simple-pragmatism as a person? A simple enough answer is moderation. Everyone has unlimited desires. Everyone has limited resources. You say to yourself, "I will moderate what desires I will achieve." Civilization would run majestically if more of our members chose to do this in their lives. As it is, civilization has never worked out so entirely well. It runs like a very queer asylum full of maniacs - always did - and continues to do so.
To end this article, a moderate-pragmatism is about all a functional human being needs as a philosopher. You will be pragmatic in your approach, "However meaningless the rules of these human games, you score points in a certain way," and part two, "I will moderate how many points I score, because it is simply malignant to live any other way." That is all a person needs. Two very functional bits of reasoning, and you have the philosophy for succesful living.
In the meantime people like me wander about the field pontificating about more sound philosophies. However, you maniacs need maniacs like me, and I do not spit at my state-rewards check too often, as I use those two functional principles to maintain my very little, clay-crawling life and my little warren in that clay beneath a shrub. We're going to do an article on mathematics next, and that will be in the abstract category. Then we'll see if I'm up for producing more spam treats.
He had a list of four basic fundamental human questions. The list is succinct and it does leave many things out, but it is a very good distillation of our problems as people. The list goes as follows:
1. Where do I come from?
2. Where am I?
3. Where am I going?
4. Why am I here?
There was an author of a great UK radio-show called "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," named Douglas Adams. Adams must have been acquainted with Smith's list and joked that civilization inevitably proceeds through three fundamental states. First, to question, "Where do we come from?," then second to question, "Where are we going?" and then third - to ask - "Where do we do lunch?"
So let us attack our first question, "Where do I come from?" Let us imagine an abstract idea - but one that I think fits a simple article. It comes from Camus and Santanyana's existentialism, and it is called, "thrown-ness." The basic idea is that you arrived in this world as a human as an infant, and you don't remember your origins, so now you are, "thrown," into the mix of a very puzzling and queer human world.
In other words, we have a fundamental disconnection in our experience as people. We've arrived at the restaurant at the end of the universe, but we're not quite sure how we arrived here. As people we search for our origins in different ways - through geneaeology, through family stories, through our cultural myths, through religious tradition, and through philosophy. What you can't really know is exactly what it was before you got thrown into this queer madhouse.
Orwell noted that it is the victorss who (not write) but re-write history, after an old Latin maxim. Throughout history, every historian has had an axe to grind. As objective as we want to be, history has evaporated because the victors re-canted their history in order to remain victors in the next spam-news program. We as people are such human fools. It gets pretty pathetic.
So there you are, a reasonable man or woman, and the simple question, "How the eff did I get here?" - remains something of a mystery to you. If you dug into case after case of spam, you would still only get spam out of the bargain bin. You can achieve very little veracity with history, although archaeology helps a great deal. It helps.
Imagine this joke. An archaeologist is going through a garbage heap of our culture, and our culture and its ideals are long gone. He keeps finding Snickers bar wrappers. There is wrapper after wrapper, the wrappers are immortal and unfaded, and the font on the wrapper is large and proud. This Snickers must have been significant religion to these people! Yes, the religion of marketing!
Garbage heaps are great archaeological finds, and you wonder if our interpretations of what we see in these ancient garbage heaps might not be as corny as the one I just mentioned. Meanwhile, the victors write a spam-treat every time an actual history might be a bit too real to keep them in power. The point being, that being thrown into the mix of our human asylum is a state we all live in, and a state that can't be fully cured. We can only wonder at what real meat once lay in the bargain-bin of spam-treats.
There was a sketch on the original Monty Python show - this is real - and not most people's kind of humor - called "The Philosopher's Soccer Game." Alright so the game starts, the rules are the same as soccer. Plato, Socrates, Camus, Sartre, and everyone wanders about the soccer field pontificating for a great while. Nietzsche kicks the ball into the net and scores! No one else bothers to score a point, they just wander around and continue to pontificate. Nietzsche wins the soccer game!
The joke is that while Nietzsche did love to pontificate, he was also one of the first philosophers who had the gall to admit that pragmatism, "if it's effective, that is truth enough," might be valuable as a sound philosophy. So Nietzche decides, "There is no fundamental meaning to the rules of this game. However, it is truth enough that in this game, scoring points by kicking the ball into the net is the manner of winning the game. I will kick the ball into the net in order to win the game." Meanwhile, everyone else continues to pontificate on more sound philosophies.
Pragmatic philosophy is not dumb. As people we need to be pragmatic. Take most people's day in an office - "Gee, there is no reason why this office should run this way. This is fruity nonsense. I would like to keep my job though, so in this game, I will just play by the rules of this office." Your reward is a continuing career and a paycheck. Nothing wrong with that philosophy. Nothing at all. Very simple, functional reasoning, and it makes the world go 'round - and 'round and 'round.
The only problem with pragmatism is when it goes to the end of its logical chain. That would be something like, "I can make a lot more money as a swindler and get away with it if I do it in a certain way. I want to satisfy my unlimited desires and I have limited resources. I will keep myself in the right place to receive my swindling-rewards, as it is a more effective way to obtain the resources I desire." This is also a common pragmatic-philosophy in the world, and that kind of pragmatism is malignant.
So how do you find a more sound fundamental principle over simple-pragmatism as a person? A simple enough answer is moderation. Everyone has unlimited desires. Everyone has limited resources. You say to yourself, "I will moderate what desires I will achieve." Civilization would run majestically if more of our members chose to do this in their lives. As it is, civilization has never worked out so entirely well. It runs like a very queer asylum full of maniacs - always did - and continues to do so.
To end this article, a moderate-pragmatism is about all a functional human being needs as a philosopher. You will be pragmatic in your approach, "However meaningless the rules of these human games, you score points in a certain way," and part two, "I will moderate how many points I score, because it is simply malignant to live any other way." That is all a person needs. Two very functional bits of reasoning, and you have the philosophy for succesful living.
In the meantime people like me wander about the field pontificating about more sound philosophies. However, you maniacs need maniacs like me, and I do not spit at my state-rewards check too often, as I use those two functional principles to maintain my very little, clay-crawling life and my little warren in that clay beneath a shrub. We're going to do an article on mathematics next, and that will be in the abstract category. Then we'll see if I'm up for producing more spam treats.
Introduction to A Philosophy Blog
First, there is a huge problem in philosophy today. There are many, but there is one big one. If you were to pick up an ordinary academic philosophy journal and read a fairly average article as an average person, you would be unable to read the article because of its use of language. The first part of this is that when we talk about very abstract ideas, we need specific language. The second part of this is that the philosophy community today has fallen off the shelf in its use of language to describe abstraction.
As elitist as the Greeks who founded our Western philosophical tradition were, the goal of philosophy was not to exclude someone who wasn't privy to a certain education. The ideal of even these elitist Greek aristocrats was that philosophy would provide a better way of living for anyone. The idea was to develop, "wisdom," a human knowledge, instead of merely - learning.
One of my favorite philosophy jokes is that we should rename philosophy today, "philo-episteme," instead of, "philosophy." The Greek, "episteme,"" meant learning, and philo meant, "love," or, "affiliation." So instead of, "philo sophos," or, "the love of wisdom," we might more accurately call post-modern philosophy, "love of learning."
So let me lay the plan of the blog out. I'm going to use tags in a very different way at this blog. Each article gets one and only one tag, and these tags will be our bargain bins for different categories of articles. This one will be tagged, "introduction." Some of the articles will be very abstract, but in keeping with avoiding, "ivory-tower syndrome," there will be articles titled, "simple briefs," for those who don't care for intense abstraction - or who don't have a gift for it.
If you don't have a gift for abstraction, this is not a moral flaw. In our better IQ tests today, people with a high abstract ability fail in other areas, particularly in the area of functional intelligence. The nutty-professor image we all have emerges because of this typical problem.
What we see is that a person has a huge abstract ability, but they can't figure out if tube-socks go on the left or right foot. As a bachelor, I've developed some of my functional ability, as I keep my home as best as I can, but the nutty professor image fits. Ask those who have known me for a long time - and it is real.
There will be historical articles, a set of dictionary articles for some unusual terms the blog will be forced to use, and then the meat of the articles will be contained in the tag, "categorical principles." To keep things clear, the breakdown of our bargain bins will go like this:
1. Introduction
2. Simple
3. Historical
4. Dictionary
5. Categorical
I'll revise my idea and use one word for the tag, as that keeps the solution to the problem even more minimal.
Let me finish off with my own biography in philosophy. I was always a person to question, and a buddy of mine who has since gone to pieces recommended the Ayn Rand books to me. I was obsessed with Ayn Rand and her Objectivist philosophy for a few years. I matured, and I saw that the content was not what I had thought, and I saw that Rand's books were mostly polemic, and I rejected the entire ordeal. However, one great part about this is that I started opening other philosophy books, starting with Nietzsche, then Plato, and moved on to Kant and Frega and Sartre and Camus and Santanyana and Nagarjuna and the Guatma Buddha - even Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
I do not have an official philosophy education, but I'm widely read on the topic, and I've formed some serious opinions on the topic. Also, as it turns out, there are two pieces of Rand's Objectivism, first the existentialist, "existence exists," and second, Peikoff's theory of knowledge in context that are very important to my own thinking today. It may be that other philosophers have discussed these ideas better, but those fragments are the ones I have seen, and they are important.
Taking, "existence exists," the way Rand approached it is not effective. That much I knew pretty far back. If we look at the concept of identity in mathematics, this is really important to quantitative analysis. If our number is 3 then it has identity as the number 3. There are other quantities - approximations, quantities defined as having variable quantities, or the limit of calculus.
The limit in calculus is an abstraction that is hard to understand, and yet it forms the basis of our calculus today. I once joked that one way to define a limit is, "a number that doesn't have identity with itself." This is crude and not exactly right, but it is kind of close to the definition of a limit. It really is.
So the idea of identity is important in terms of quantities, but that doesn't necessarily mean it applies to anything else. After scrap-booking a great deal, I think there is credence for the idea that identity is a solid ontological principle, rather than just part of quantitative analysis. Ontology is defined pretty simply as, "a study of what we know to exist (rather than the study of what actually exists.)"
It was one of Kant's firm suggestions - and a quite correct one - that as people we ought to realize that knowledge-of-existence is not the same as existence-itself. It took the Western mind 6000 years to get to dry, dusty, nutty old Kant - who radically suggested that knowledge and existence were not the exact same thing. This is why Kant was no fool. However, you should read a good biography - only Hegel could have been more of a dummy in his personal life.
That about sums up our basic issues at hand. I think what we may do is start with a sort of imitation of Russell's, "The Basic Problems of Philosophy," and then we'll just branch out and fill in the gaps in these bargain bins, and you can trawl the site for what you want to read. That pretty much sets this particular blog up, and so we're off to our next article. Just a moment.
As elitist as the Greeks who founded our Western philosophical tradition were, the goal of philosophy was not to exclude someone who wasn't privy to a certain education. The ideal of even these elitist Greek aristocrats was that philosophy would provide a better way of living for anyone. The idea was to develop, "wisdom," a human knowledge, instead of merely - learning.
One of my favorite philosophy jokes is that we should rename philosophy today, "philo-episteme," instead of, "philosophy." The Greek, "episteme,"" meant learning, and philo meant, "love," or, "affiliation." So instead of, "philo sophos," or, "the love of wisdom," we might more accurately call post-modern philosophy, "love of learning."
So let me lay the plan of the blog out. I'm going to use tags in a very different way at this blog. Each article gets one and only one tag, and these tags will be our bargain bins for different categories of articles. This one will be tagged, "introduction." Some of the articles will be very abstract, but in keeping with avoiding, "ivory-tower syndrome," there will be articles titled, "simple briefs," for those who don't care for intense abstraction - or who don't have a gift for it.
If you don't have a gift for abstraction, this is not a moral flaw. In our better IQ tests today, people with a high abstract ability fail in other areas, particularly in the area of functional intelligence. The nutty-professor image we all have emerges because of this typical problem.
What we see is that a person has a huge abstract ability, but they can't figure out if tube-socks go on the left or right foot. As a bachelor, I've developed some of my functional ability, as I keep my home as best as I can, but the nutty professor image fits. Ask those who have known me for a long time - and it is real.
There will be historical articles, a set of dictionary articles for some unusual terms the blog will be forced to use, and then the meat of the articles will be contained in the tag, "categorical principles." To keep things clear, the breakdown of our bargain bins will go like this:
1. Introduction
2. Simple
3. Historical
4. Dictionary
5. Categorical
I'll revise my idea and use one word for the tag, as that keeps the solution to the problem even more minimal.
Let me finish off with my own biography in philosophy. I was always a person to question, and a buddy of mine who has since gone to pieces recommended the Ayn Rand books to me. I was obsessed with Ayn Rand and her Objectivist philosophy for a few years. I matured, and I saw that the content was not what I had thought, and I saw that Rand's books were mostly polemic, and I rejected the entire ordeal. However, one great part about this is that I started opening other philosophy books, starting with Nietzsche, then Plato, and moved on to Kant and Frega and Sartre and Camus and Santanyana and Nagarjuna and the Guatma Buddha - even Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
I do not have an official philosophy education, but I'm widely read on the topic, and I've formed some serious opinions on the topic. Also, as it turns out, there are two pieces of Rand's Objectivism, first the existentialist, "existence exists," and second, Peikoff's theory of knowledge in context that are very important to my own thinking today. It may be that other philosophers have discussed these ideas better, but those fragments are the ones I have seen, and they are important.
Taking, "existence exists," the way Rand approached it is not effective. That much I knew pretty far back. If we look at the concept of identity in mathematics, this is really important to quantitative analysis. If our number is 3 then it has identity as the number 3. There are other quantities - approximations, quantities defined as having variable quantities, or the limit of calculus.
The limit in calculus is an abstraction that is hard to understand, and yet it forms the basis of our calculus today. I once joked that one way to define a limit is, "a number that doesn't have identity with itself." This is crude and not exactly right, but it is kind of close to the definition of a limit. It really is.
So the idea of identity is important in terms of quantities, but that doesn't necessarily mean it applies to anything else. After scrap-booking a great deal, I think there is credence for the idea that identity is a solid ontological principle, rather than just part of quantitative analysis. Ontology is defined pretty simply as, "a study of what we know to exist (rather than the study of what actually exists.)"
It was one of Kant's firm suggestions - and a quite correct one - that as people we ought to realize that knowledge-of-existence is not the same as existence-itself. It took the Western mind 6000 years to get to dry, dusty, nutty old Kant - who radically suggested that knowledge and existence were not the exact same thing. This is why Kant was no fool. However, you should read a good biography - only Hegel could have been more of a dummy in his personal life.
That about sums up our basic issues at hand. I think what we may do is start with a sort of imitation of Russell's, "The Basic Problems of Philosophy," and then we'll just branch out and fill in the gaps in these bargain bins, and you can trawl the site for what you want to read. That pretty much sets this particular blog up, and so we're off to our next article. Just a moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
