From: (Thanasis Argiriou) Sender: (Yaneer Bar-Yam) To: complex-science Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:02:06 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.249] verified) by necsi.org (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.6) with ESMTP id 22128872 for complex-science@necsi.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:37:06 -0400 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d31so615662and.92 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:37:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=EWP1BsGlVoS2UajE/Tk6gYLCXNtBMmc1IcR9Gv8VjVc=; b=ZuJcl2ZGW7PcoTHB1mZ+xSo4Do+EyYnumBPfGBqTPFS80ip5J2D//q6mc5n8oVS64m HrOAEJ9pSvYqXmAmQcTTeri/SSfWGdRyvUx2cREsHqD+M7WbF0RcyhnRPMUeYkDkOp7q N3bXe2HaTnizO5Y0LajUwfg7XW43I6zisdLPw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references; b=isOK9jNPg6BSI7nrAXj/CWF+qgHLoSt1O8vKhy8Bis1kGSlicnsmaNpR8UW7baoEaS CA8EE8Btelfp96VejQca1Pu0KUK+7QX0z4P+dYSSk3PGby+5Puadst51bwm84/Uypipd vHmXn5/ifVb8ebA8/VuerbL17IZzILymbxAr0= Received: by 10.100.91.17 with SMTP id o17mr7279262anb.150.1215675426096; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:37:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.33.2 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:37:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Message-ID: <79285ab50807100037p3d39ef84ke7e6370d1e55c81a@mail.gmail.com> X-Original-Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:37:05 +0300 X-Original-To: complex-science@necsi.org Subject: Re: non-natural philosophy In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_20841_25083420.1215675426040" References: ------=_Part_20841_25083420.1215675426040 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Do not know, things are much too complex about that, the math figurations d= o not stand alone, and there is a sum of events that are linked to them, that could depict even wider sums? and thus the change could be impossible? Theorization of what I said, an answer solution? is provided when it solves the question and thus nor the question nor the answer exist any more. The outgrown might mean this thing, the condition is no more? So if we could depict it somehow, an hierarchy (though still not so good in the depiction cause it is still linear? no better word to state it in my mind now) means that the solution is in a higher order than the question itself and can not be provided in the lower order whatever transformation is used? maybe something like that, so maybe the refiguration is not in math itself, but it is in leaving the math behind? and the way we think behind? I also think that the hierarchy is a good depiction but not vague enough, belonging to the external and not internal-external. (Sorry for the internal-external it seems like symmetry and mirroring thoug= h I do not know if it is so, in particle physics I sometimes use examples, symmetry does not always exist, does this has to do with a denouncement of the external-internal symmetries I use? do not know...) The question of science itself, is should not it become more simple instead of more complex? if we are approaching reality itself why such ever more complexity? why does not science gives us real? knowledge of what is going on?. In the mystical-myth traditions enlightenment gives understanding of the world around you what does science give us? In the hierarchy depiction of solutions science is a split event of the whole? and to approach something broader one should abandon science ? do no= t know... John the events of Atlantis and Greek Language belong to the linear history perspective, a succession of events, the atractor is Atlantis maybe to a glorius past and our leftover? but the reality has no attractor?, just events... So the myth of Atlantis may mean something and out of the possible interpretations we choose the most coherent? to our data? but we try to hav= e all possible interpretations and still leave the question open? Languages and etymology along with the myths might give us more info? do no= t know, you are more the expert of languages that is why I ask you, a few of the words in English I checked spoke more of transformations of events rather than something concrete, but the transformation lost most of its degrees of freedom as the years passed?.... Greek though is different language much more logical and stable in its represantations? do not know my ancient greek are almost inexistent/ Stan The Greek word is apeiron a thing that has no end, peras, and from thi= s comes the Latin that later became infinity... I met recently a person who says that Greek and numbers might have representations, which for me takes to arithmology, (something also used in hebrew), but I can not say whether it is so or not, cause I have not checke= d it, and I also do not trust the opinion of the one who stated that. The condition is of course mcuh broader than I give here hope I could learn mor= e on the facts... Certain people for some reason are attracted to the ancient past and also glorify it? but is there something more to this glorification other than a deficiency of the one who glorifies? my mind goes to myths again. To end the mail, this again from another list, where no answer was given... *Something more on the something more on the modesty part, which in fact wa= s not so modest of me. Guess that I am falling in the degree of representations but today is a holiday so on I go, with nothing of mine thi= s time, but Sheldrake's. **Well, science is inevitably based on assumptions about the nature of the universe. In the seventeenth century the view that most scientists started from was a kind of neoplatonic conception of God, where there's a sort of timeless mind underlying the universe, essentially mathematical in nature. In this view, the mind of God is filled with mathematical equations and mathematical forms which are what ultimately shape and govern the whole of nature. The conventional scientific assumption of universal changeless laws of nature is simply derived from this neoplatonic theology of the seventeenth century. Most scientists have eliminated the mind of God from the world machine, but what they are left with is the ghost of the mind of that God, which is the idea of eternal laws of nature, fixed forever and applying to the whole universe. The big bang theory itself depends on this assumption. You assume that the laws of nature observed over the last fifty years in the laboratories on Earth apply throughout the entire fifteen-billion-year history of the entire universe, without variation, in every single part of the universe, even parts as yet unobserved by our extralarge arrays of radio telescopes. And, on this assumption, you then crank back the calculations to arrive at the big bang. But the assumption o= f universal laws of nature that never change, that have all been there from the beginning, is a pure assumption. There's no empirical evidence for it whatever. Insofar as people have tried to study the laws and constants of nature on Earth, they vary. I mean, we are always updating our view of the laws of nature and the so-called constants, like the speed of light. If you look at the data, they've actually fluctuated wildly over the last fifty or a hundred years in which they've been studied. These fluctuations have been dismissed as experimental errors. But in my book Seven Experiments That Could Change the World I actually go through the history of the fundamental constants, and I discuss how constant are the fundamental constants. The empirical evidence shows they are not very constant. The assumption is that= , okay, if the empirical facts show variation, the empirical facts must be wrong because we know they are constant, because they are constants. Scienc= e is based, through and through, on metaphysical assumptions about the nature of the universe, and this one of eternal laws and unvarying constants is in fact, in my opinion, very questionable. A lot of my own work is based on the assumption that the so-called laws of nature may not have been fixed through all time. In an evolutionary universe, why shouldn't they evolve? And in fact, my own view is that they are not laws at all. They are more like habits. There's a kind of memory in nature and these habits of nature evolve as time goes on. They are not fixe= d laws that were all there from the beginning=97a position that can never be proved by experiment, but can only be assumed as an axiom. Yet most scientists take this for granted, as an unquestioned assumption. So I think science is based on all sorts of assumptions about nature which are essentially theological or metaphysical. In point of fact, most of the ones that science is dominated by at the moment come from a particular kind of theology common in the seventeenth century, this very Greek neoplatonic theology of God as beyond all space and time, with a mind that is eternally full of changeless mathematical ideas, and with the universe coming forth from that kind of mathematical God. If you don't call it "God," you just call it the laws of nature, or mathematical reality or something. But this is the assumption. Stephen Hawking and Steven Weinberg and all the leading physicists of today, including Einstein, all subscribe to this kind of view= . Even though they wouldn't call it "God," they believe the ultimate reality is a timeless mathematical realm. **I do not know if his possitions are real, meaning were his depictions falter in the historical representation of facts or any other kind of facts= , but he sounds interesting though he talks in other books about psi dogs, angels, morphic fields, and living suns. **Well, I suppose in some cases it's because people like small little bits of work=97"resultlets," as David called them, not results but "resultlets." When Dave did his work he really dealt with ideas, with concepts, and in very broad brush strokes; whereas the fashion in physics today is that it should all be hyper-mathematical, and he always mistrusted mathematics. Mathematics to him was a good tool, but it was a tool and no more. The thin= g with mathematics, even the most beautiful and elegant mathematics, is that somewhere in there a lot of assumptions have been hidden, and when we speak together, using ordinary language, it's a little bit easier to discover wha= t those assumptions are. Mathematics tends to conceal a lot. He was also suspicious of other aspects of the way physics was being done=97for example= , all this reliance in particle physics on breaking things apart rather than seeing them in an all-embracing fashion. You see, Dave felt there had been = a major revolution in this century in quantum mechanics and relativity, but that our thinking hadn't really caught up with it. In the old order you could fragment things, you could define everything on a Cartesian grid of space and time. Now we needed an entirely new order, and the implicate order, which is inherently infinite, was one of the approaches he was working on. But of course, that's asking too much of physicists. They like to see things small and finite, and Dave was too much of a global thinker, = I think, for many of them=97except the very good ones, who were sympathetic t= o Dave because they realized that something new was called for. **This is of the two Davids the one speaking about the other Peat to Bohm. * *So?* * But are these analogies valid beyond use as fanciful metaphors? A psychological theorist, Julian Jaynes, questions the relevance of psychology's use of scientific metaphor. He refers to "a delusion in our reasoning" and a "huge historical neurosis. Psychology has many of them. An= d one of the reasons that the history of science is essential to the study of psychology is that it is the only way to get out of and above such intellectual disorders."49 He argues that * *each age has described consciousness in terms of the images of its externa= l gestalt. In the golden age of Greece, when men traveled about in freedom while slaves did the work, consciousness was as free as that . . . an enormous space whose boundaries . . . could never be found out . . . Augustine among the caverned hills of Carthage was astonished at the "mountains and hills of my high imaginations," "the plains and caverns of m= y memory."50 * *Jaynes refers to the first half of the nineteenth century as "the age of the great geological discoveries . . . This led to the popularization of th= e idea of consciousness as being in layers." Then, "in the middle of the nineteenth century, chemistry succeeded geology as the fashionable science, and consciousness . . . was a compound structure that could be analyzed in the laboratory . . . As the steam locomotives chugged their way, . . . the subconscious becomes a boiler of straining energy." He then notes that "whe= n the astonishing successes of particle physics were being talked of everywhere," when "the solidity of matter was being dissolved into mere mathematical relationships in space," this seemed to psychologists like the same unphysical duality as the relationship of individuals conscious of eac= h other.51 In contrast to Jaynes's critique, Arthur Koestler sees that "all decisive advances in the history of scientific thought can be described in terms of mental cross-fertilization between different disciplines."52 (And for the cultural critic George Steiner, "even the illicit metaphor, the term borrowed though misunderstood, may be an essential part of a process of reunification. It is very probable that the sciences will furnish an increasing part of our mythologies and imaginative reference."53 Even Jayne= s admits that the "concepts of science are all . . . abstract concepts generated by concrete metaphors. In physics we have force, acceleration (to increase one's steps), inertia (originally an indolent person), impedance, resistance, fields, and now charm."54 "What I have argued so far is this," writes Steiner. * *Until the seventeenth century, the sphere of language encompassed nearly the whole of experience and reality; today it comprises a narrower domain. It no longer articulates or is relevant to all major modes of action, thought, and sensibility. Large areas of meaning and praxis now belong to such non-verbal languages as mathematics, symbolic logic, and formulas of chemical or electronic relation.55 * *And conversely, the physics, mathematics, and astronomy sections of bookstores now carry such titles as The God Particle: If the Universe Is th= e Answer, What is the Question?; The Mind of God; Fearful Symmetry: Is God a Geometer? For Jung, "the common background of microphysics and depth psychology" is a= s much physical as psychic, and so is "neither, but rather a third thing, a neutral nature which can at most be grasped in hints since in essence it is transcendental."56 Pauli sought "to find a new language that could make the hidden dimension in nature accessible to the intellect . . . neutral with respect to the distinction between psyche and matter . . . from the physica= l and mathematical symbols . . . in his dreams." He alluded to the self as th= e "radioactive nucleus," and in a 1950 letter to Emma Jung he described synchronistic phenomena as "radioactivity."57 **So? * *For any **consistent* *for= mal, **recursively enumerable* * **theory* * tha= t proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can be constructed.1That is, any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and **complete* *. * * Complete when? and consistent to what? and why when and what and not the opposite? **Modesty or humility? when what how where and why? * ** ** * * Stan thanks for the Aristotele causations, John for the answers, guess we work together, but in a slow process... Filika, Thanasis* * ** *Ps: the mail is argyrioy@gmail.com so if anyone wants private talk would b= e happy... * ** 2008/7/4 : > Th and Stan: "axiomatic thesis"? I have a terrible definition: we call > axioms those figments that are necessary to keep our theories workable. (= Forget > about 1 + 1 =3D 2 and the entire math is lost. That does not mean that th= e > world is lost, just our 'perceived reality' has to be changed). Maybe to = a > better one? Let's try it? > * > Another is 'bifurcation', the stingy scientist who restricts nature's > capability to select between ways into those TWO alternates what WE, huma= ns > are capable of recognising. Nature may have more (as: tetrafurcation, > gigafurcation?) Just keep away from the 'infinite'. > * > Math is human invention upon having invented quantities (D.Bohm). > It started with smaller, larger, then '2' (hands etc.) and half of that. > My (non IndoEuropean) mother tongue calls a one-legged person a > "half-legged one, a lost eye makes a 'half-eyer'. Different logic. > * > Greek is a 'language' developed under living circumstances within a > territory and its inhabitants. - OR?? - Since I like the idea that the > Aegeian archipelago is the remnant of a tsunami that destroyed - > 'Atlantis' (in THIS area, not in the Atlantic Ocean) Greek may have much > older roots than what the present history is accounting for. The survivor= s > on the mountaintops...they think, can 'talk' but lost all technical > facilities. (Crete may have saved some mental heritage). > Maybe even the language underwent so huge changes that it did adjust to t= he > later formulated communicational patterns from other areas. So may be the > lesser developed cultural languages that lack of a firm origination > (Dravidians, Basques, Albanians to name some). > > Happy 4th of July > John M > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Stanley Salthe > *To:* complex-science@necsi.org > *Sent:* Monday, June 30, 2008 11:47 PM > *Subject:* Re: non-natural philosophy > > Thanasis -- > > > There is a description that consciousness is at rare events consistent a= nd > axiomatic in its behavior and when it moves towards axiomatic thesis of > consistency it has terrible time doing it, (might it also collapse?). So = in > that scale one might ask why. Why it remains vague. The difficulty of > memorization could? be an example- proof of this. > A thing that changes continuously in a pattern has difficulty in changing > its pattern but the fact is why? why do we have such trouble changing > ourselves, which axiom is the axiom when axioms constantly change? > > I am looking for its characteristics in order to define her. > (Characteristics I call a description beyond borders, of its phenotype, > without correlations.) > Can I ever express what I want to like the first time-unless I memorize i= t, > or it comes out of memory? If my ruminations are free every description w= ill > be different and at rare times would they be of the depth I desire in ord= er > thought is identical to expression, as to give me a sense of fulfillment. > And the question is why the different ruminations, what this means for > consciousness lying in certain margins of meanings. > > The consistency could lie in places where the theory of the noose takes > place, the base that negates itself, as is Godel theorem, which disproves > itself. > > > Now to dynamics themselves, I wonder what bifurcation is indeed. You see > now in my world there exist a variety of phenomena and events which are > expressed in a multi faceted way. > There is a hypothesis I have not checked yet, and do not know if I will, > that the Greek language and therefore mostly the ancient Greek where it > derives from, is an axiomatic language, and has a similarity to logical > structuring or is of stricly logical structuring?. > Which means what in the multi faceted world were everything is connected? > > Math and Greek are of similar origin? of ancient greek origin? And if it = is > ? > so? > What do math really create with their sympolism? > Possible answers? > > > S: Certainty. Not possible in the World, but possible in math and > logic (if you keep it simple!). > > So does have to do with Godel, dynamics with Godel? > math of Godel to math to dynamics to language to Godel > We forgot something Greece. > We add that up. > Greece to ancient > And this is dynamics? > > "The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense, not > between* right and wrong"* > > Jung > > math of Godel to math to dynamics to language to Godel to Jung to math to > dynamics > > Sense to math? > math to sense? > > we go again > > math of Godel to math to dynamics to language to Godel to Jung to math to > dynamics > sense to math to Greece to ancient to math to sense to Godel to Jung? > > ancient goes to? > yes history > history to ancient to math to history to ancient > > math of Godel to math to dynamics to language to Godel to Jung to math to > dynamics > sense to math to Greece to ancient to math to sense to Godel to Jung to > history to ancient to math to history to ancient to Godel to dynamics to > history to dynamics to ancient .... > > Tired. > > Does anyone want to continue with other interractions, what is the number > called ? infinite, and it comes from? > > God it sounds all Greek to me?. > > > S: Have another hit. > > STAN > > > > > > If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a* fool*= as one said long ago. > But who cares about Jung, Jung thoughts were nonsense he says that the > greatest and most important problems of life are all fundamentally > insoluble. They can never be solved but only outgrown. > ? > > Wonder what growth could be... > Should I add a sense to growth to the calculation and calculation to Gode= l > to* fundamentally insoluble*?. > > > Best, > Thanasis, unemployed physicist, guess some kind of a fool, whatever a foo= l > is,( guess my Greek is better than my English) > > Ps:Should I add that up to the list? and that is which list? > and the purpose of the list to the ones subscribing to dynamics to me to > the ones who created it to me to language to purpose to sense to Godel to > logic to madness to sense to language? > > > Sense is being... > wonder who said that? > what sense and what being? > > > > *Welcome to Gestalt* > > ** > > > ------=_Part_20841_25083420.1215675426040 Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
Do not know, things are much too complex about that, the math figurati= ons do not stand alone, and there is a sum of events that are linked to the= m, that could depict even wider sums? and thus the change could be impossib= le?
Theorization of what I said, an answer solution? is provided when it s= olves the question and thus nor the question nor the answer exist any more.= The outgrown might mean this thing, the condition is no more?
So if we could depict it somehow, an hierarchy (though still not so go= od in the depiction cause it is still linear? no better word to state it in= my mind now)
means that the solution is in a higher order than the question itself = and can not be provided in the lower order whatever transformatio= n is used? maybe something like that, so maybe the refiguration is not in m= ath itself, but it is in leaving the math behind? and the way we think behi= nd?
 
I also think that the hierarchy is a good depiction but not vague enou= gh, belonging to the external and not internal-external.
(Sorry for the internal-external it seems like symmetry and mirroring = though I do not know if it is so, in particle physics I sometimes use examp= les, symmetry does not always exist, does this has to do with a denoun= cement of the external-internal symmetries I use? do not know...)
 
The question of science itself, is should not it become more simple in= stead of more complex? if we are approaching reality itself why such ever m= ore complexity? why does not science gives us real? knowledge of what is go= ing on?.
 
In the mystical-myth traditions enlightenment gives understanding of t= he world around you what does science give us?  

In the hi= erarchy depiction of solutions science is a split event of the whole? and t= o approach something broader one should abandon science ? do not know...
 
John the events of Atlantis and Greek Language belong to the linear hi= story perspective, a succession of events, the atractor is Atlantis maybe t= o a glorius past and our leftover? but the reality has no attractor?, just = events...
So the myth of Atlantis may mean something and out of the possible int= erpretations we choose the most coherent? to our data? but we try to have a= ll possible interpretations and still leave the question open?
 
Languages and etymology along with the myths might give us more info? = do not know, you are more the expert of languages that is why I ask you, a = few of the words in English I checked spoke more of transformations of even= ts rather than something concrete, but the transformation lost most of its = degrees of freedom as the years passed?....
Greek though is different language much more logical and stable in its= represantations?
do not know my ancient greek are almost inexistent/
 
Stan The Greek word is apeiron a thing that has no end, peras, and fro= m this comes the Latin that later became infinity...
 
I met recently a person who says that Greek and numbers might have rep= resentations, which for me takes to arithmology, (something also used in he= brew), but I can not say whether it is so or not, cause I have not checked = it, and I also do not trust the opinion of the one who stated that. The con= dition is of course mcuh broader than I give here hope I could learn more o= n the facts...
 
Certain people for some reason are attracted to the ancient past and a= lso glorify it? but is there something more to this glorification other tha= n a deficiency of the one who glorifies? my mind goes to myths again.
 
To end the mail, this again from another list, where no answer was giv= en...
 
Something more on the something more on the modesty part, = which in fact was not so modest of me. Guess that I am falling in the degre= e of representations but today is a holiday so on I go, with nothing of min= e this time, but Sheldrake's.
 
Well, = science is inevitably based on assumptions about the nature of the universe= . In the seventeenth century the view that most scientists started from was= a kind of neoplatonic conception of God, where there's a sort of timel= ess mind underlying the universe, essentially mathematical in nature. In th= is view, the mind of God is filled with mathematical equations and mathemat= ical forms which are what ultimately shape and govern the whole of nature. = The conventional scientific assumption of universal changeless laws of natu= re is simply derived from this neoplatonic theology of the seventeenth cent= ury. Most scientists have eliminated the mind of God from the world machine= , but what they are left with is the ghost of the mind of that God, which i= s the idea of eternal laws of nature, fixed forever and applying to the who= le universe. The big bang theory itself depends on this assumption. You ass= ume that the laws of nature observed over the last fifty years in the labor= atories on Earth apply throughout the entire fifteen-billion-year history o= f the entire universe, without variation, in every single part of the unive= rse, even parts as yet unobserved by our extralarge arrays of radio telesco= pes. And, on this assumption, you then crank back the calculations to arriv= e at the big bang. But the assumption of universal laws of nature that neve= r change, that have all been there from the beginning, is a pure assumption= . There's no empirical evidence for it whatever.

Insofar as people have tried to study the laws and constants of nature = on Earth, they vary. I mean, we are always updating our view of the laws of= nature and the so-called constants, like the speed of light. If you look a= t the data, they've actually fluctuated wildly over the last fifty or a= hundred years in which they've been studied. These fluctuations have b= een dismissed as experimental errors. But in my book Seven Experiments That= Could Change the World I actually go through the history of the fundamenta= l constants, and I discuss how constant are the fundamental constants. The = empirical evidence shows they are not very constant. The assumption is that= , okay, if the empirical facts show variation, the empirical facts must be = wrong because we know they are constant, because they are constants. Scienc= e is based, through and through, on metaphysical assumptions about the natu= re of the universe, and this one of eternal laws and unvarying constants is= in fact, in my opinion, very questionable.

A lot of my own work is based on the assumption that the so-called laws= of nature may not have been fixed through all time. In an evolutionary uni= verse, why shouldn't they evolve? And in fact, my own view is that they= are not laws at all. They are more like habits. There's a kind of memo= ry in nature and these habits of nature evolve as time goes on. They are no= t fixed laws that were all there from the beginning=97a position that can n= ever be proved by experiment, but can only be assumed as an axiom. Yet most= scientists take this for granted, as an unquestioned assumption. So I thin= k science is based on all sorts of assumptions about nature which are essen= tially theological or metaphysical. In point of fact, most of the ones that= science is dominated by at the moment come from a particular kind of theol= ogy common in the seventeenth century, this very Greek neoplatonic theology= of God as beyond all space and time, with a mind that is eternally full of= changeless mathematical ideas, and with the universe coming forth from tha= t kind of mathematical God. If you don't call it "God," you j= ust call it the laws of nature, or mathematical reality or something. But t= his is the assumption. Stephen Hawking and Steven Weinberg and all the lead= ing physicists of today, including Einstein, all subscribe to this kind of = view. Even though they wouldn't call it "God," they believe t= he ultimate reality is a timeless mathematical realm.
 
I do not know if his possitions are real, meanin= g were his depictions falter in the historical representation of facts or a= ny other kind of facts, but he sounds interesting though he talks in other = books about psi dogs, angels, morphic fields, and living suns.
 
Well, = I suppose in some cases it's because people like small little bits of w= ork=97"resultlets," as David called them, not results but "r= esultlets." When Dave did his work he really dealt with ideas, with co= ncepts, and in very broad brush strokes; whereas the fashion in physics tod= ay is that it should all be hyper-mathematical, and he always mistrusted ma= thematics. Mathematics to him was a good tool, but it was a tool and no mor= e. The thing with mathematics, even the most beautiful and elegant mathemat= ics, is that somewhere in there a lot of assumptions have been hidden, and = when we speak together, using ordinary language, it's a little bit easi= er to discover what those assumptions are. Mathematics tends to conceal a l= ot. He was also suspicious of other aspects of the way physics was being do= ne=97for example, all this reliance in particle physics on breaking things = apart rather than seeing them in an all-embracing fashion. You see, Dave fe= lt there had been a major revolution in this century in quantum mechanics a= nd relativity, but that our thinking hadn't really caught up with it. I= n the old order you could fragment things, you could define everything on a= Cartesian grid of space and time. Now we needed an entirely new order, and= the implicate order, which is inherently infinite, was one of the approach= es he was working on. But of course, that's asking too much of physicis= ts. They like to see things small and finite, and Dave was too much of a gl= obal thinker, I think, for many of them=97except the very good ones, who we= re sympathetic to Dave because they realized that something new was called = for.

This is of the two Davids the one speaking about the other= Peat to Bohm.

So?
&nb= sp;
 
But are these ana= logies valid beyond use as fanciful metaphors?
A psychological theorist, Julian Jaynes, questions = the relevance of psychology's use of scientific metaphor. He refers to = "a delusion in our reasoning" and a "huge historical neurosi= s. Psychology has many of them. And one of the reasons that the history of = science is essential to the study of psychology is that it is the only way = to get out of and above such intellectual disorders."49 He = argues that
each age has descr= ibed consciousness in terms of the images of its external gestalt. In the g= olden age of Greece, when men traveled about in freedom while slaves did th= e work, consciousness was as free as that . . . an enormous space whose bou= ndaries . . . could never be found out . . . Augustine among the caverned h= ills of Carthage was astonished at the "mountains and hills of my high= imaginations," "the plains and caverns of my memory."5= 0
Jaynes refers to the firs= t half of the nineteenth century as "the age of the great geological d= iscoveries . . . This led to the popularization of the idea of consciousnes= s as being in layers." Then, "in the middle of the nineteenth cen= tury, chemistry succeeded geology as the fashionable science, and conscious= ness . . . was a compound structure that could be analyzed in the laborator= y . . . As the steam locomotives chugged their way, . . . the subconscious = becomes a boiler of straining energy." He then notes that "when t= he astonishing successes of particle physics were being talked of everywher= e," when "the solidity of matter was being dissolved into mere ma= thematical relationships in space," this seemed to psychologists like = the same unphysical duality as the relationship of individuals conscious of= each other.51
In contrast to Jaynes's critiq= ue, Arthur Koestler sees that "all decisive advances in the history of= scientific thought can be described in terms of mental cross-fertilization= between different disciplines."52 (And for the cultural cr= itic George Steiner, "even the illicit metaphor, the term borrowed tho= ugh misunderstood, may be an essential part of a process of reunification. = It is very probable that the sciences will furnish an increasing part of ou= r mythologies and imaginative reference."53 Even Jaynes adm= its that the "concepts of science are all . . . abstract concepts gene= rated by concrete metaphors. In physics we have force, acceleration (to inc= rease one's steps), inertia (originally an indolent person), impedance,= resistance, fields, and now charm."54
"What I have argued so far is= this," writes Steiner.
Until the seventee= nth century, the sphere of language encompassed nearly the whole of experie= nce and reality; today it comprises a narrower domain. It no longer articul= ates or is relevant to all major modes of action, thought, and sensibility.= Large areas of meaning and praxis now belong to such non-verbal languages = as mathematics, symbolic logic, and formulas of chemical or electronic rela= tion.55
And conversely, the physi= cs, mathematics, and astronomy sections of bookstores now carry such titles= as The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What is the Question?;= The Mind of God; Fearful Symmetry: Is God a Geometer?
For Jung, "the common backgro= und of microphysics and depth psychology" is as much physical as psych= ic, and so is "neither, but rather a third thing, a neutral nature whi= ch can at most be grasped in hints since in essence it is transcendental.&q= uot;56 Pauli sought "to find a new language that could make= the hidden dimension in nature accessible to the intellect . . . neutral w= ith respect to the distinction between psyche and matter . . . from the phy= sical and mathematical symbols . . . in his dreams." He alluded to the= self as the "radioactive nucleus," and in a 1950 letter to Emma = Jung he described synchronistic phenomena as "radioactivity."57
 
So?
 
For any consistent formal, recursively enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an ari= thmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can be co= nstructed.1 That is, any effectively generated theory capable of expressing el= ementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and = complete.
 
Complete when? and consistent to what? and why w= hen and what and not the opposite?
Modesty or = humility? when what how where and why?
 
 
 
Stan thanks for the Aristotele causations, John for the answers, guess= we work together, but in a slow process...
 
Filika, 
Thanasis 
 
Ps: the mail is argyrioy@gma= il.com so if anyone wants private talk would be happy... 
 
2008/7/4 <complex-science@necsi.org>:
Th and Stan: "axiomatic thesis"? I have a t= errible definition: we call axioms those figments that are necessary to kee= p our theories workable. (Forget about 1 + 1 =3D 2 and the entire ma= th is lost. That does not mean that the world is lost, just our 'percei= ved reality' has to be changed). Maybe to a better one? Let's try i= t?<GG>
*
Another is 'bifurcation', the stingy scientist who restricts n= ature's capability to select between ways into those TWO alternates wha= t WE, humans are capable of recognising. Nature may have more (as: tet= rafurcation, gigafurcation?) Just keep away from the 'infinite'.
*
Math is human invention upon having invented quantities (D.Bohm).
It started with smaller, larger, then '2' (hands etc.) and hal= f of that.
My (non IndoEuropean) mother tongue calls a one-legged person a "= half-legged one, a lost eye makes a 'half-eyer'. Different logic. <= /div>
*
Greek is a 'language' developed under living circumstances wit= hin a territory and its inhabitants. - OR?? -  Since I like the idea t= hat the Aegeian archipelago is the remnant of a tsunami that destroyed = ; -  'Atlantis' (in THIS area, not in the Atlantic Ocean) Gree= k may have much older roots than what the present history is accounting for= . The survivors on the mountaintops...they think, can 'talk' but lo= st all technical facilities. (Crete may have saved some me= ntal heritage).
Maybe even the language underwent so huge changes that it did adjust t= o the later formulated communicational patterns from other areas. = ;So may be the lesser developed cultural languages that lack of a firm orig= ination (Dravidians, Basques, Albanians to name some).
 
Happy 4th of July
John M
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:47 PM=
Subject: Re: non-natural philosophy<= /div>

Thanasis --


 There is a description that consciousn= ess is at rare events consistent and axiomatic in its behavior and when it = moves towards axiomatic thesis of consistency it has terrible time doing it= , (might it also collapse?). So in that scale one might ask why. Why i= t remains vague. The difficulty of memorization could? be an example- proof= of this. 
A thing that changes continuously in a pattern has difficulty in changing i= ts pattern but the fact is why? why do we have such trouble changing oursel= ves, which axiom is the axiom when axioms constantly change?
 I am looking for its characteristics in ord= er to define her. (Characteristics I call a description beyond borders, of = its phenotype, without correlations.)
Can I ever express what I want to = like the first time-unless I memorize it, or it comes out of memory? If my = ruminations are free every description will be different and at rare times = would they be of the depth I desire in order thought is identical to expres= sion, as to give me a sense of fulfillment. And the question is why the dif= ferent ruminations, what this means for consciousness lying in certain marg= ins of meanings.
 
The consistency could lie in places where the theory of the noose= takes place, the base that negates itself, as is Godel theorem, which disp= roves itself.
 
Now to dynamics themselves, I wonder what bifurca= tion is indeed. You see now in my world there exist a variety of phenomena = and events which are expressed in a multi faceted way.
There is a hypoth= esis I have not checked yet, and do not know if I will, that the Greek lang= uage and therefore mostly the ancient Greek where it derives from, is an ax= iomatic language, and has a similarity to logical structuring or is of stri= cly logical structuring?.
Which means what in the multi faceted world were everything is connected? 
Math and Greek are of similar origin? of ancient gree= k origin? And if it is ?
so?
What do math really create with their sy= mpolism?
Possible answers?

      S: Certainty.  Not possible in the= World, but possible in math and logic (if you keep it simple!).

So does have to do with Godel, dynamics with Gode= l?
math of Godel to math to dynamics to language to Godel
We forgot s= omething Greece.
We add that up.
Greece to ancient
And this is dyn= amics?
 
"The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonse= nse, not between right and wrong"
 
Jung
 math of Godel to math to dynamics to language to Godel to Jung to math to= dynamics
 
Sense to math?
math to sense?
 
we go again
&nbs= p;
math of Godel to math to dynamics to language to Godel to Jung to mat= h to dynamics
sense to math to Greece to ancient to math to sense to God= el to Jung?
 
ancient goes to?
yes history
history to ancient to math to = history to ancient
 
math of Godel to math to dynamics to langua= ge to Godel to Jung to math to dynamics
sense to math to Greece to ancie= nt to math to sense to Godel to Jung to history to ancient to math to histo= ry to ancient to Godel to dynamics to history to dynamics to ancient ....  
Tired.
 
Does anyone want to continue with other = interractions, what is the number called ? infinite, and it comes from= ?
 
God it sounds all Greek to me?.

     S: Have another hit.

STAN

 
 
 =20

 If one does not understand a person, one te= nds to regard him as a fool as one said long ago.
But who cares a= bout Jung, Jung thoughts were nonsense he says that the greatest and m= ost important problems of life are all fundamentally insoluble. They can ne= ver be solved but only outgrown. 
?
 
Wonder what growth could be...
Should I add a sense to gr= owth to the calculation and calculation to Godel to fundamenta= lly insoluble?. 
 
 
Best,
Thanasis, unemplo= yed physicist, guess some kind of a fool, whatever a fool is,( guess my&nbs= p;Greek is better than my English)
 
Ps:Should I add that up to the list? and that is which list?=
and the purpose of the list to the ones subscribing to dynamics to me t= o the ones who created it to me to language to purpose to sense to God= el to logic to madness to sense to language? 

Sense is being...
wonder who said that?what sense and what being?
 
 
 
Welcome to = Gestalt
 


------=_Part_20841_25083420.1215675426040--