http://blogs.msdn.com/b/msr_er/archive/2011/02/04/celebrating-richard-feynman-at-tedxcaltech.aspx
(Also check my post out here:) http://theawakeningoftheamericamind.blogspot.com/2011/08/complex-epistemology-of-logic-simple.html
Hi Tim, and yes I think we should pursue this line of opposing dialectics, as imo, the only way forward is even deeper stimulation, at these levels__I agree. Here's a link to a relationship between Feynman's ideas about quantum computing, which the leader of Digital Philosophy, a personal friend of Feynman's, Edward Fredkin, who is the leading voice for Digital Mechanics, and quantum computing, plus its logic gates, he's already invented. Carver Mead is also the tech guru for Intel, and also was a personal friend of Feynman. I'm just shooting you some research I've recently uncovered, to further the theorizing.
Here's also a few links to Fredkin's work:
http://www.digitalphilosophy.org/Home/Papers/tabid/61/Default.aspx
Here's just a few paras of the above:
CONTEMPORARY PHYSICS...
For an embarrassing collection of questions ordinary physics has not yet produced
fundamental explanations; what we have are mathematical relationships and
consequent tautologies.We fit together more and more subparts of a jigsaw puzzle
called physics, butwe have no idea of the big picture!Awonderful example of such
progress is the Standard Model. This was a fantastic accomplishment and it put
into one coherent theory a great many disparate observations. But it isn’t the final
answer; it is just one more piece of the puzzle, as were quantum electrodynamics,
QM, Einstein’s theory of relativity, Maxwell’s equations, thermodynamics,
Newton’s laws, etc. We would like to believe that at some point physics should
get simpler, but we aren’t there yet. The important thing that DP shows us is the
possibility of a different kind of theory that might tell us exactly what things are
and exactly how they work. DP could be consistent with common sense and, most
important, it might not leave any unanswered questions at the most microscopic
level. If DM is ever a good model of physics, we can expect to eventually know
and understand the most fundamental processes of physics exactly. But there will
still be plenty of mysteries. Most important, DP teaches us that it may be possible
for us to gain a new level of understanding as to how things work.
When Newton came up with the calculus, mechanics, and a theory of gravity,
various critics raised some interesting objections. It seemed contrary to common
sense that a force called gravity could act by unknown mechanisms through vast
regions of empty space to keep the Planets confined to their orbits around the sun.
Newton’s response to his critics was, “I make no hypotheses.” This was tongue
in cheek, as Newton had by then already devoted considerable efforts to trying to
find a mechanism that explained gravity; he and everyone ever since have come
up emptyhanded. Newton had developed a set of laws that were descriptive and
predictive. This was a good thing, much better than the pre-Newtonian state of
affairs. Nevertheless, if one can now throw off the shackles of a lifelong indoctrination as to what we shouldn’t question in physics, we observe that universally accepted models of most physical processes contain aspects contrary to common sense. Remarkably, by allowing us to develop one ad hoc, incorrect partial model of physics DP reveals to us that modern science, physics, and mathematics have so far offered no complete, logical, microscopic process-models for relativity, QM,
or even Newtonian mechanics. The truth of this revelation does not depend on
whether or not DM can actually model physical reality.
The greatest flaw of conventional physics is the acceptance of magic that
has been forced upon all of us by our ignorance of the science of informational
processes. This is particularly true with respect to Newtonian motion. We have
no right to complain about the fact that nowhere in all of contemporary physics
is there a commonsense model of motion. We haven’t had a way to know better.
Newton swept this matter under the rug and Poincar´e and Einstein convinced us
that we must believe that there is nothing under the rug. Intoxicated by all our
fantastic accomplishments since Newton, it is human nature to avoid dwelling on
dead-end issues. So, as smart as we all are, concepts of motion have remained in
a state similar to the vitalistic theories of life that flourished in the past. “Things move.” “Mass has inertia.” “Like begets like.” The idea that physics can get along without a fixed reference frame is utter nonsense from an informational viewpoint. It does not matter how brilliant and convenient the theory of relativity is or how many experiments validate its formulas. It is our collective misfortune that, until recently, no one has ever had any competent idea of what an informational point of view is.
If nothing else, DP(Digital Philosophy) shows us that there are new ways to think about such
things.
And here's a very interesting criticism of science and academics, I came across the other day, by a major bio-physicist:
http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~markhill/science64_strong_inference.pdf
This 'Strong Inference' article is the best I've ever read, as to the present problems in science and academics, Tim...
Also, yesterday I picked up two new physicists books, Penrose's new book and an unknown from England on 'The House of Wisdom' in the Muslim Empire, a history of its science and math. At the same time I just found another major logician and mathematician I didn't even know existed from Germany, 1898__Outlines of Logic and Metaphysics, Johann Erdmann, when the battle was raging between logic, psychology and quantum mechanics foundations, long before it actually developed...
So, I'm still at finding those elusive pieces of information. I long ago learned the mind is triggered by many different pieces of information, and often from even unrelated sources__but these are truly related sources, especially as to the very foundation of QM thinkings...
I'll let ya know if I find anything, super-interesting, as this guy's directly speaking about the core of mental processing... Here's just a few paras:
® Identity is inseparable combination, not sameness.
(2) The element of the understanding is an
essential one in philosophical contemplation. Where
it is wanting everything floats in nebulous indefiniteness.
This is by those forgotten who try to make the
understanding out to be something bad. <3) Correctly is it given as the character of dogmatism that, in the interest of definiteness it holds fast to aut aut. [See Hegel's " Encyklopadie," § 119.] Since it resolves everything into its fixed, simple determinations, dogmatism has an abstract character. In the so-called metaphysics of the understanding of the Wolfian school, this moment stands out in its extreme onesidedness. § 13. But, likewise, the necessary contains in itself, secondly, distinct determinations (that duality, § 12), since only thereby does it contain the motion which belongs to necessity. The contemplation of the understanding, therefore, does not suffice; for regard must be had to contradiction in the object as well as to its resting determinateness. To do this is the problem of reflection^ which, carried out one-sidedly, gives the diametrical opposite of dogmatism, scepticism!® The moment, which reflection emphasises, is by Hegel [" Encyklopadie," § § 79, 81] designated as the dialectical or negatively rational. (2>As dogmatism
holds fast to the fact that the object is and therefore
does not contradict itself, so scepticism maintains
that the object contradicts itself, and therefore cannot
be.
14. But, thirdly, the necessary is both at once :
it is, and contains in itself contradiction. Therein is
it something concreted The combining moment is,
therefore, precisely as essential in the account as are
the two others. But even this, which in practical
matters gives to the healthy human understanding
such superiority to all abstractions (i.e., one-sidedness),
may in science be one-sidedly emphasised at the expense
of the others ; and this happens not merely
upon the standpoint of so-called common sense, but
also upon that of intellectual intuition, and, finally,
even in Jacobi's immediate knowledge, both of which
last oppose themselves to the thought of the understanding
as well as to reflection/2)
W The abstract is that which contains in itself
only one determination ; the concrete that which contains
several. <2> The age has scarcely passed in
which the philosophy of reflection was the most
common term of reproach.
§ 15. Fully conceived, the necessary is found only
where all these moments receive their rights, i.e., in
speculative thought (cf. my "Outlines of Psychology," §
122) or where there is comprehension. This occurs
when the object is taken first as it is, then as it contradicts
itself, finally as it is the concrete identity of
opposites.
But, as per above, comprehension is the objective logic of perception, and not mere psychology…
Comprehension Is Objective Logical Perception__Direct Seeing…
The Fasle Interpretations of Psychology, Which Actually Is Logic…
§ 18. The property of an object to enter into such
eternal motion conditioned upon inner contradiction
is its dialectical nature, and this eternal motion,
itself, demanded by its essence, is its dialectic. This
the dialectic art
The Absolute Hypothesis of Logic…
Only Science Proves The Necessity Hypothesis of Itself…
The Necessity Hypothesis of Thought & Logic__Reflection and Self-Reflection Produce The Truth of Itself & The Universe of Thoughts & Objects, Through Normative & Reflective Comprehension/Seeing…
23. The assertion that philosophy must make no
presupposition, can not have the meaning that for
it nothing is presupposed, but only that by it nothing
is presupposed/1
) But in fact, if it supposes, i.e.,
asserts® nothing, it also /^supposes nothing. It
will therefore avoid that difficulty (§ 22) by beginning
not with an assertion, which of course would be
or would rest upon a mere assumption, but with a
demand or a postulate®) as regards which the question
of proof would be an absurdity/4) What it
necessarily has it does not derive elsewhere, but puts
forth.¬¬__False…!!!
§ 24 What logic will demand or wherein that
postulate will consist, is determined by its entire problem.
If, that is to say, it is the science of thought
(§6, obs. 2), it requires no other matter than merely
this; it will, therefore, naturally be compelled to
begin with the proposal to produce only this matter.
This means that it proposes that there be merely
thought, and begins with the postulate, Think! There
is, therefore, " at first present, merely the resolve to
engage in the activity of thinking." This resolve is
presupposed for logic without its having begun with
the definition of thought as its first deo-is.__No Problem Exists…!!!
Johann Erdmann’s 27 Paragraph Introduction to, ‘Outlines of Logic & Metaphysics…’(extremely informative…)
The Universe__Itself__Is The Absolute Logical Fundamental__Existence…
Existence__Itself__Is Primarily, Logical & Scientific…
The Universe Is Necessarily__Logical & Scientific…
When Heraclitus, in opposition to Xenophanes,
made becoming the predicate of everything, he was
right. Heraclitus is in his speculative depth equally
far removed from dogmatism and scepticism. His principle
of absolute flux is concrete. (See § 14.) W This
untruth of being is the reason why thought cannot
abide by that but must go further ; the untruth of
being therein corrects itself.
§ 33. Becoming, as the concrete unity of being and
not being, contains both in itself. But, of course, no
longer as they were before their union, but as degraded
to mere moments, i.e., as sublatedP^ Hence
in it being is contained as passing into nothing, i.e.,
as ceasing, and likewise nothing as passing into
being, as originating.^ The two as constituting
a becoming are inseparably joined.®
Sublate taken in the threefold sense of tollere,
conservare, elevare: hence sublate and degrade at
one and the same time. ® Similarly, in combinations
of oxygen radical and acid principles as such
no longer exist, because we have to do with something
other than a mixture. <3> That what originates
also ceases to be, or that what has a beginning also
comes to an end, is no merely empirical observation,
but origination and cessation are one {one becoming),
and every origination is in itself a cessation. Significance
of o-Te/Mjo-is for all origination, with Aristotle.__Early Supervenience Problem…
W Something is determined (coactum, determination)
when it receives its determinateness (to be
distinguished from determination) from other. The
same distinction underlies that between shall and
must. (9 All compulsion, as law, duty, etc., presupposes
an opposing tendency, since that which compels
is as such a foreign power, i.e., another (not one's own)
will. (3> Limit, barrier, termination are here em
ployed as synonyms, and in their use all spatial
meaning is abstracted from. Something is finite in
that it is limited by another. Since here the other
which appears to present itself beside something
( 38), and is so posited in something itself that this
owes its being to that, we have in the concept of finitude
the most important concept in this group ; and
hence it was employed as superscription. (See p. 33.)
W Hence the expression for one who has definite
duties of calling, that he (only then) is something.
The moment of iinitude {jvkpa.% was by Pythagoras and
Plato rightly emphasised as the higher compared with
mere indeterminateness {airupov). Limit is that
whereby something is this determinate thing (roSe n,
according to Aristotle) the haecceitas of Duns Scotus.
® This was above given as concept of determined
being. (§ 42.)__i.e., Logic Itself, Forms Mathematics, Through Necessary Finite Limits…
Haecceitas = Supervenience = One/Many Mechanics…
(Also check my post out here:) http://theawakeningoftheamericamind.blogspot.com/2011/08/complex-epistemology-of-logic-simple.html
Hi Tim, and yes I think we should pursue this line of opposing dialectics, as imo, the only way forward is even deeper stimulation, at these levels__I agree. Here's a link to a relationship between Feynman's ideas about quantum computing, which the leader of Digital Philosophy, a personal friend of Feynman's, Edward Fredkin, who is the leading voice for Digital Mechanics, and quantum computing, plus its logic gates, he's already invented. Carver Mead is also the tech guru for Intel, and also was a personal friend of Feynman. I'm just shooting you some research I've recently uncovered, to further the theorizing.
Here's also a few links to Fredkin's work:
http://www.digitalphilosophy.org/Home/Papers/tabid/61/Default.aspx
Here's just a few paras of the above:
CONTEMPORARY PHYSICS...
For an embarrassing collection of questions ordinary physics has not yet produced
fundamental explanations; what we have are mathematical relationships and
consequent tautologies.We fit together more and more subparts of a jigsaw puzzle
called physics, butwe have no idea of the big picture!Awonderful example of such
progress is the Standard Model. This was a fantastic accomplishment and it put
into one coherent theory a great many disparate observations. But it isn’t the final
answer; it is just one more piece of the puzzle, as were quantum electrodynamics,
QM, Einstein’s theory of relativity, Maxwell’s equations, thermodynamics,
Newton’s laws, etc. We would like to believe that at some point physics should
get simpler, but we aren’t there yet. The important thing that DP shows us is the
possibility of a different kind of theory that might tell us exactly what things are
and exactly how they work. DP could be consistent with common sense and, most
important, it might not leave any unanswered questions at the most microscopic
level. If DM is ever a good model of physics, we can expect to eventually know
and understand the most fundamental processes of physics exactly. But there will
still be plenty of mysteries. Most important, DP teaches us that it may be possible
for us to gain a new level of understanding as to how things work.
When Newton came up with the calculus, mechanics, and a theory of gravity,
various critics raised some interesting objections. It seemed contrary to common
sense that a force called gravity could act by unknown mechanisms through vast
regions of empty space to keep the Planets confined to their orbits around the sun.
Newton’s response to his critics was, “I make no hypotheses.” This was tongue
in cheek, as Newton had by then already devoted considerable efforts to trying to
find a mechanism that explained gravity; he and everyone ever since have come
up emptyhanded. Newton had developed a set of laws that were descriptive and
predictive. This was a good thing, much better than the pre-Newtonian state of
affairs. Nevertheless, if one can now throw off the shackles of a lifelong indoctrination as to what we shouldn’t question in physics, we observe that universally accepted models of most physical processes contain aspects contrary to common sense. Remarkably, by allowing us to develop one ad hoc, incorrect partial model of physics DP reveals to us that modern science, physics, and mathematics have so far offered no complete, logical, microscopic process-models for relativity, QM,
or even Newtonian mechanics. The truth of this revelation does not depend on
whether or not DM can actually model physical reality.
The greatest flaw of conventional physics is the acceptance of magic that
has been forced upon all of us by our ignorance of the science of informational
processes. This is particularly true with respect to Newtonian motion. We have
no right to complain about the fact that nowhere in all of contemporary physics
is there a commonsense model of motion. We haven’t had a way to know better.
Newton swept this matter under the rug and Poincar´e and Einstein convinced us
that we must believe that there is nothing under the rug. Intoxicated by all our
fantastic accomplishments since Newton, it is human nature to avoid dwelling on
dead-end issues. So, as smart as we all are, concepts of motion have remained in
a state similar to the vitalistic theories of life that flourished in the past. “Things move.” “Mass has inertia.” “Like begets like.” The idea that physics can get along without a fixed reference frame is utter nonsense from an informational viewpoint. It does not matter how brilliant and convenient the theory of relativity is or how many experiments validate its formulas. It is our collective misfortune that, until recently, no one has ever had any competent idea of what an informational point of view is.
If nothing else, DP(Digital Philosophy) shows us that there are new ways to think about such
things.
And here's a very interesting criticism of science and academics, I came across the other day, by a major bio-physicist:
http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~markhill/science64_strong_inference.pdf
This 'Strong Inference' article is the best I've ever read, as to the present problems in science and academics, Tim...
Also, yesterday I picked up two new physicists books, Penrose's new book and an unknown from England on 'The House of Wisdom' in the Muslim Empire, a history of its science and math. At the same time I just found another major logician and mathematician I didn't even know existed from Germany, 1898__Outlines of Logic and Metaphysics, Johann Erdmann, when the battle was raging between logic, psychology and quantum mechanics foundations, long before it actually developed...
So, I'm still at finding those elusive pieces of information. I long ago learned the mind is triggered by many different pieces of information, and often from even unrelated sources__but these are truly related sources, especially as to the very foundation of QM thinkings...
I'll let ya know if I find anything, super-interesting, as this guy's directly speaking about the core of mental processing... Here's just a few paras:
® Identity is inseparable combination, not sameness.
(2) The element of the understanding is an
essential one in philosophical contemplation. Where
it is wanting everything floats in nebulous indefiniteness.
This is by those forgotten who try to make the
understanding out to be something bad. <3) Correctly is it given as the character of dogmatism that, in the interest of definiteness it holds fast to aut aut. [See Hegel's " Encyklopadie," § 119.] Since it resolves everything into its fixed, simple determinations, dogmatism has an abstract character. In the so-called metaphysics of the understanding of the Wolfian school, this moment stands out in its extreme onesidedness. § 13. But, likewise, the necessary contains in itself, secondly, distinct determinations (that duality, § 12), since only thereby does it contain the motion which belongs to necessity. The contemplation of the understanding, therefore, does not suffice; for regard must be had to contradiction in the object as well as to its resting determinateness. To do this is the problem of reflection^ which, carried out one-sidedly, gives the diametrical opposite of dogmatism, scepticism!® The moment, which reflection emphasises, is by Hegel [" Encyklopadie," § § 79, 81] designated as the dialectical or negatively rational. (2>As dogmatism
holds fast to the fact that the object is and therefore
does not contradict itself, so scepticism maintains
that the object contradicts itself, and therefore cannot
be.
14. But, thirdly, the necessary is both at once :
it is, and contains in itself contradiction. Therein is
it something concreted The combining moment is,
therefore, precisely as essential in the account as are
the two others. But even this, which in practical
matters gives to the healthy human understanding
such superiority to all abstractions (i.e., one-sidedness),
may in science be one-sidedly emphasised at the expense
of the others ; and this happens not merely
upon the standpoint of so-called common sense, but
also upon that of intellectual intuition, and, finally,
even in Jacobi's immediate knowledge, both of which
last oppose themselves to the thought of the understanding
as well as to reflection/2)
W The abstract is that which contains in itself
only one determination ; the concrete that which contains
several. <2> The age has scarcely passed in
which the philosophy of reflection was the most
common term of reproach.
§ 15. Fully conceived, the necessary is found only
where all these moments receive their rights, i.e., in
speculative thought (cf. my "Outlines of Psychology," §
122) or where there is comprehension. This occurs
when the object is taken first as it is, then as it contradicts
itself, finally as it is the concrete identity of
opposites.
But, as per above, comprehension is the objective logic of perception, and not mere psychology…
Comprehension Is Objective Logical Perception__Direct Seeing…
The Fasle Interpretations of Psychology, Which Actually Is Logic…
§ 18. The property of an object to enter into such
eternal motion conditioned upon inner contradiction
is its dialectical nature, and this eternal motion,
itself, demanded by its essence, is its dialectic. This
the dialectic art
The Absolute Hypothesis of Logic…
Only Science Proves The Necessity Hypothesis of Itself…
The Necessity Hypothesis of Thought & Logic__Reflection and Self-Reflection Produce The Truth of Itself & The Universe of Thoughts & Objects, Through Normative & Reflective Comprehension/Seeing…
23. The assertion that philosophy must make no
presupposition, can not have the meaning that for
it nothing is presupposed, but only that by it nothing
is presupposed/1
) But in fact, if it supposes, i.e.,
asserts® nothing, it also /^supposes nothing. It
will therefore avoid that difficulty (§ 22) by beginning
not with an assertion, which of course would be
or would rest upon a mere assumption, but with a
demand or a postulate®) as regards which the question
of proof would be an absurdity/4) What it
necessarily has it does not derive elsewhere, but puts
forth.¬¬__False…!!!
§ 24 What logic will demand or wherein that
postulate will consist, is determined by its entire problem.
If, that is to say, it is the science of thought
(§6, obs. 2), it requires no other matter than merely
this; it will, therefore, naturally be compelled to
begin with the proposal to produce only this matter.
This means that it proposes that there be merely
thought, and begins with the postulate, Think! There
is, therefore, " at first present, merely the resolve to
engage in the activity of thinking." This resolve is
presupposed for logic without its having begun with
the definition of thought as its first deo-is.__No Problem Exists…!!!
Johann Erdmann’s 27 Paragraph Introduction to, ‘Outlines of Logic & Metaphysics…’(extremely informative…)
The Universe__Itself__Is The Absolute Logical Fundamental__Existence…
Existence__Itself__Is Primarily, Logical & Scientific…
The Universe Is Necessarily__Logical & Scientific…
When Heraclitus, in opposition to Xenophanes,
made becoming the predicate of everything, he was
right. Heraclitus is in his speculative depth equally
far removed from dogmatism and scepticism. His principle
of absolute flux is concrete. (See § 14.) W This
untruth of being is the reason why thought cannot
abide by that but must go further ; the untruth of
being therein corrects itself.
§ 33. Becoming, as the concrete unity of being and
not being, contains both in itself. But, of course, no
longer as they were before their union, but as degraded
to mere moments, i.e., as sublatedP^ Hence
in it being is contained as passing into nothing, i.e.,
as ceasing, and likewise nothing as passing into
being, as originating.^ The two as constituting
a becoming are inseparably joined.®
conservare, elevare: hence sublate and degrade at
one and the same time. ® Similarly, in combinations
of oxygen radical and acid principles as such
no longer exist, because we have to do with something
other than a mixture. <3> That what originates
also ceases to be, or that what has a beginning also
comes to an end, is no merely empirical observation,
but origination and cessation are one {one becoming),
and every origination is in itself a cessation. Significance
of o-Te/Mjo-is for all origination, with Aristotle.__Early Supervenience Problem…
W Something is determined (coactum, determination)
when it receives its determinateness (to be
distinguished from determination) from other. The
same distinction underlies that between shall and
must. (9 All compulsion, as law, duty, etc., presupposes
an opposing tendency, since that which compels
is as such a foreign power, i.e., another (not one's own)
will. (3> Limit, barrier, termination are here em
ployed as synonyms, and in their use all spatial
meaning is abstracted from. Something is finite in
that it is limited by another. Since here the other
which appears to present itself beside something
( 38), and is so posited in something itself that this
owes its being to that, we have in the concept of finitude
the most important concept in this group ; and
hence it was employed as superscription. (See p. 33.)
W Hence the expression for one who has definite
duties of calling, that he (only then) is something.
The moment of iinitude {jvkpa.% was by Pythagoras and
Plato rightly emphasised as the higher compared with
mere indeterminateness {airupov). Limit is that
whereby something is this determinate thing (roSe n,
according to Aristotle) the haecceitas of Duns Scotus.
® This was above given as concept of determined
being. (§ 42.)__i.e., Logic Itself, Forms Mathematics, Through Necessary Finite Limits…
Haecceitas = Supervenience = One/Many Mechanics…
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please let us know your logical, scientific opinions...