- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Michael Rosefield <rosyatrandom.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:16:35 +0100

The trouble with this whole area is that it's so incredibly easy to

not-quite understand each other without quite realising it. It's like that

Wilde quote: "England and America are two countries separated by a common

language."

I think I understand you, though....

As regards the crystal, I think the best way to put it is that I'm thinking

in terms of 'possible contexts'; for every selected object, it could belong

in a number of supporting universes. My mind, for example, could be in a

physical body, a brain in a jar, or an abstract software emulation, etc...

and each of these possibilities has an infinite variety of instances. As far

as I'm concerned, I always exist in all the possible universes that can

generate my consiousness. And each universe can have its own set of

metaphysical contexts, etc.

I think I'm departing from my point rapidly, so I'll try another way. It's

like an inverted form of Kaufmann's 'adjacent possible', which is all the

possible ways a system may evolve next, and what features they may have.

Rather, this takes a feature of a system and asks what its immediate

possible surroudings/precursors are.

Oh, and the holy trinity thing was a term I just thought of -- but what I

mean to convey is that I think of reality as a bit like a fractal; you can

take a little bit of it and it will generate the complete form. In this way

the whole is equivalent to any bit plus the generational principle (growth

algorithm). Actually, I suppose the generational principle by itself should

be able to form the whole from scratch. Perhaps there are a number of

different principles you could have; they will 'grow out' in different ways,

but ultimately lead to the same whole.

Excuse me if I make absolutely no sense. I find language to be a real

problem when it comes to communicating this sort of thing....

2008/8/21 John Mikes <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>

*> Redface - ME!
*

*> Michael, you picked my careless statement and I want to correct it:
*

*> "...You cannot *build up* unknown complexity from its simple parts..."
*

*> should refer to THOSE parts we know of, observe, include, select, handle, -
*

*> not ALL of the (unlimited, incl. potential) parts (simple or not). From
*

*> such ALL parts together (a topical oxymoron) you can(?) build anything,
*

*> although it does not make sense.
*

*>
*

*> What I had in mind was a cut, a structural, functional, ideational select
*

*> model (system organization) FROM which you have no way to expand into the
*

*> application of originally not included items.
*

*> I agree with your 'whole caboodle' as a deterministic product (complexity),
*

*> as far as its entailment is concerned. I don't understand "holy trinities" -
*

*> yours included.
*

*>
*

*> "Growing out" your -it*- requires IMO the substrates it* grows by, - by
*

*> addition - I dislike miraculous creations. A crystal grows by absorbing the
*

*> ingredients already present. Cf (my) entail-determinism (- no goal or aim).
*

*>
*

*> John
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Michael Rosefield <rosyatrandom.domain.name.hidden
*

*> > wrote:
*

*>
*

*>> "You cannot *build up* unknown complexity from its simple parts"
*

*>>
*

*>> That would be the case if we were trying to reconstruct an arbitrary
*

*>> universe, but you were talking about 'the totality'. My take is that the
*

*>> whole caboodle is not arbitrary - it's totally specified by its requirement
*

*>> to be complete. You could take a little bit of it* and 'grow' it out like a
*

*>> crystal in some kind of fractal kaleidoscopic space; eventually its
*

*>> exploration would completely fill it. This makes a kind of holy trinity of
*

*>> equivalence of (Whole | Parts | Process) which I like.
*

*>>
*

*>>
*

*>>
*

*>> * That little bit could even be unitary or empty in nature, solving for me
*

*>> the issue as to why something rather than nothing, and why anything in
*

*>> particular.
*

*>>
*

*>> 2008/8/20 John Mikes <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
*

*>>
*

*>>> Brent wrote:
*

*>>>
*

*>>> "...But if one can reconstruct "the rest of the world" from these simpler
*

*>>> domains, so much the better that they are simple...."
*

*>>>
*

*>>> Paraphrased (facetiously): you have a painting of a landscape with
*

*>>> mountains, river, people, animals, sky and plants. Call that 'the totality'
*

*>>> and *select the animals as your model* (disregarding the rest) even you
*

*>>> continue by Occam - reject the non-4-legged ones, to make it (even) simpler.
*

*>>> ((All you have is some beasts in a frame))
*

*>>> Now try to *"reconstruct"* the 'rest of the total' ONLY from those
*

*>>> remnant 'model-elements' dreaming up (?) mountains, sunshine, river etc.
*

*>>> *from nowhere*, not even from your nonexisting fantasy, or even(2!) as
*

*>>> you say: from the *Occam-simple*, i.e. as you say: from those few
*

*>>> 4-legged animals, - to make it even simpler.
*

*>>> Good luck.
*

*>>> You must be a 'creator', or a 'cheater', having at least seen the *total
*

*>>> *to do so. You cannot *build up* unknown complexity from its simple
*

*>>> parts - you are restricted to the (reduced?) inventory you have - in a
*

*>>> synthesis, (while in the analysis you can restrict yourself to a choice of
*

*>>> it. )
*

*>>>
*

*>>> John
*

*>>>
*

*>>>
*

*>>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>wrote:
*

*>>>
*

*>>>>
*

*>>>> John Mikes wrote:
*

*>>>> > Isn't logical inconsistency = insanity? (Depends how we formulate the
*

*>>>> > state of being "sane".)
*

*>>>>
*

*>>>> As Bertrand Russell pointed out, if you are perfectly consistent you are
*

*>>>> either
*

*>>>> 100% right or 100% wrong. Human fallibility being what it is, don't bet
*

*>>>> on
*

*>>>> being 100% right. :-)
*

*>>>>
*

*>>>> In classical logic, an inconsistency allows you to prove every
*

*>>>> propositon. In a
*

*>>>> para-consistent logic the rules of inference are changed (e.g. by
*

*>>>> restoring the
*

*>>>> excluded middle) so that an inconsistency doesn't allow you to prove
*

*>>>> everything.
*

*>>>>
*

*>>>> Graham Priest has written a couple of interesting books arguing that all
*

*>>>> logic
*

*>>>> beyond the narrow mathematical domain leads to inconsistencies and so we
*

*>>>> need to
*

*>>>> have ways to deal with them.
*

*>>>>
*

*>>>> > Simplicity in my vocabulary of the 'totality-view' means mainly to
*

*>>>> "cut"
*

*>>>> > our model of observation narrower and narrower to eliminate more and
*

*>>>> > more from the "rest of the world" (which only would complicate things)
*

*>>>> > from our chosen topic of the actual interest in our observational
*

*>>>> field
*

*>>>> > (our topical model).
*

*>>>> > Occam's razor is a classic in such simplification.
*

*>>>>
*

*>>>> And so is mathematical logic and arithmetic. But if one can reconstruct
*

*>>>> "the
*

*>>>> rest of the world" from these simpler domains, so much the better that
*

*>>>> they are
*

*>>>> simple.
*

*>>>>
*

*>>>> Brent Meeker
*

*>>>>
*

*>>>> > John M
*

*>>>> >
*

*>>>> > On 8/18/08, *Bruno Marchal* <marchal.domain.name.hidden
*

*>>>> > <mailto:marchal.domain.name.hidden>> wrote:
*

*>>>> >
*

*>>>> >
*

*>>>> >
*

*>>>> > On 18 Aug 2008, at 03:45, Brent Meeker wrote:
*

*>>>> >
*

*>>>> > > Sorry. I quite agree with you. I regard logic and mathematics
*

*>>>> > as our
*

*>>>> > > inventions - not restrictions on the world, but restrictions we
*

*>>>> > > place on how we
*

*>>>> > > think and talk about the world. We can change them as in para-
*

*>>>> > > consistent logics.
*

*>>>> >
*

*>>>> >
*

*>>>> >
*

*>>>> >
*

*>>>> > I think it depends of the domain of inquiry or application.
*

*>>>> > Para-consistent logic can be interesting for the laws and in
*

*>>>> natural
*

*>>>> > language mind processing, but hardly in elementary computer
*

*>>>> science or
*

*>>>> > number theory.
*

*>>>> >
*

*>>>> > Then recall that any universal machine, enough good in the art of
*

*>>>> > remaining correct during introspection, discovers eventually at
*

*>>>> least
*

*>>>> > 8 non classical logics (the arithmetical hypostases) most of them
*

*>>>> > being near "paraconsistency" (by Godel's consistency of
*

*>>>> inconsistency)
*

*>>>> > making the most sane machine always very near insanity.
*

*>>>> > And so easily falling down.
*

*>>>> >
*

*>>>> >
*

*>>>> >
*

*>>>> > Bruno
*

*>>>> >
*

*>>>> >
*

*>>>> >
*

*>>>> > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/<http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
*

*>>>> >
*

*>>>> >
*

*>>>> >
*

*>>>> >
*

*>>>> >
*

*>>>> >
*

*>>>> > >
*

*>>>>
*

*>>>>
*

*>>>>
*

*>>>>
*

*>>>
*

*>>>
*

*>>>
*

*>>
*

*>>
*

*>>
*

*>
*

*> >
*

*>
*

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Received on Thu Aug 21 2008 - 11:16:52 PDT

Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:16:35 +0100

The trouble with this whole area is that it's so incredibly easy to

not-quite understand each other without quite realising it. It's like that

Wilde quote: "England and America are two countries separated by a common

language."

I think I understand you, though....

As regards the crystal, I think the best way to put it is that I'm thinking

in terms of 'possible contexts'; for every selected object, it could belong

in a number of supporting universes. My mind, for example, could be in a

physical body, a brain in a jar, or an abstract software emulation, etc...

and each of these possibilities has an infinite variety of instances. As far

as I'm concerned, I always exist in all the possible universes that can

generate my consiousness. And each universe can have its own set of

metaphysical contexts, etc.

I think I'm departing from my point rapidly, so I'll try another way. It's

like an inverted form of Kaufmann's 'adjacent possible', which is all the

possible ways a system may evolve next, and what features they may have.

Rather, this takes a feature of a system and asks what its immediate

possible surroudings/precursors are.

Oh, and the holy trinity thing was a term I just thought of -- but what I

mean to convey is that I think of reality as a bit like a fractal; you can

take a little bit of it and it will generate the complete form. In this way

the whole is equivalent to any bit plus the generational principle (growth

algorithm). Actually, I suppose the generational principle by itself should

be able to form the whole from scratch. Perhaps there are a number of

different principles you could have; they will 'grow out' in different ways,

but ultimately lead to the same whole.

Excuse me if I make absolutely no sense. I find language to be a real

problem when it comes to communicating this sort of thing....

2008/8/21 John Mikes <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Received on Thu Aug 21 2008 - 11:16:52 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:15 PST
*