Dear LizR, Yes, there are many ontological assumptions. Could you list a few that seem obvious to you? It is not easy to cut and paste from a pdf. Can you open it in the Chrome browser?
In this ontology, all of the known math ideas still work, and those that become known as discovered. The key is that they do not exist as independent entities that are some how separable from the observer. Representations require presentations, they must be rendered by a physical process to be perceived, understood, known, described, etc. Knowledge is not considered to be some thing that is projected into our minds by some mysterious process (see the allegory of the Cave). It is the action of the brain to implement a mind that allows knowledge to come into being. A related way of thinking is found here in a paper by Zurek on decoherence: http://cds.cern.ch/record/640029/files/0308163.pdf "This view of the emergence of the classical can be regarded as (a Darwinian) natural selection of the preferred states. Thus, (evolutionary) fitness of the state is defined both by its ability to survive intact in spite of the immersion in the environment (i.e., environment-induced superselection is still important) but also by its propensity to create o spring { copies of the information describing the state of the system in that environment. I show that this ability to `survive and procreate' is central to effective classicality of quantum states. Environment retains its decohering role, but it also becomes a "communication channel" through which the state of the system is found out by the observers. In this sense, indirect acquisition of the information about the system from its environment allows quantum theory to come close to what happens in the classical physics: The information about a classical system can be "dissociated" from its state. (In the case of an isolated quantum system this is impossible { what is known about it is inseparably tied to the state it is in.)" On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:48 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: > From what I've read so far, he (?) seems to have a lot of ontological > assumptions built in. Unless I am misunderstanding what he is saying. > Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to cut and paste from that > document... But he says something like "Mathematical results...have an air > of permanence..." > > What? The last time I looked, Pythagoras' theorem still worked on a > Euclidean plane, and I know of no reason to assume it ever won't. Similarly > for 17 being prime etc etc. Sounds like he's trying to imply some > unjustified *im*permanence there, for some reasons of his own. That isn't > a promising start, imho! > > > > On 22 January 2014 15:37, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com>wrote: > >> Dear LizR, >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:06 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 22 January 2014 11:38, Stephen Paul King >>> <stephe...@provensecure.com>wrote: >>> >>>> Dear LizR, >>>> >>>> Plain English explanations are the problem: they carry a set of >>>> ontological assumptions built it. Kauffman is challenging these assumptions >>>> and thus as to use a mixture of poetry and math to explain and elaborate >>>> the idea. >>>> >>> >>> I know, I know ... I was a bit tongue in cheek - but even so, he *does*seem >>> to be going out of his way to make what he is saying hard to follow. >>> It is possible to explain a complex theory, and to point out / remove the >>> assumptions, and still be intelligible to an audience which doesn't have a >>> degree in advanced hand-waving. You don't get away from ontological >>> assumptions by obfuscation, you just hide them! >>> >> >> Not really. Lou does >> not intentionally unfathomable explanation >> . His ideas demand meditation, not quick jumps to comprehension. >> >> >> >>> Anyway, as I said, it seems to be suggesting something sensible, but I >>> couldn't work out what it was, probably because I don't have time to give >>> it the attention it deserves. So a plain English version (with ontological >>> assumptions addressed in plain English) would be preferable. >>> >> >> Try this: >> http://www.gwu.edu/~rpsol/preconf/wmsci/kaufman2.pdf >> >> >> >>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 5:35 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 21 January 2014 17:51, Stephen Paul King < >>>>> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear LizR, >>>>>> >>>>>> Did the notion of an Eigenform, as defined, make sense to you? >>>>>> >>>>>> Heinz performs the magic trick of convincing us that the familiar >>>>>> objects of our >>>>>> existence can be seen to be nothing more than tokens for the >>>>>> behaviors of the organism >>>>>> that apparently create stable forms. These stabilities persist, for >>>>>> that organism, as an >>>>>> observing system. This is not to deny an underlying reality that is >>>>>> the source of >>>>>> objects, but rather to emphasize the role of process, and the role of >>>>>> the organism in the >>>>>> production of a living map, a map that is so sensitive that map and >>>>>> territory are >>>>>> conjoined. Von Foerster’s (1981a-d) book and papers were instrumental >>>>>> in pioneering >>>>>> the field of second-order cybernetics. >>>>>> The notion of an eigenform is inextricably linked with second-order >>>>>> cybernetics. >>>>>> One starts on the road to such a concept as soon as one begins to >>>>>> consider a pattern of >>>>>> patterns, the form of form or the cybernetics of cybernetics. Such >>>>>> concepts appear to >>>>>> close around upon themselves, and at the same time they lead outward. >>>>>> They suggest >>>>>> the possibility of transcending the boundaries of a system from a >>>>>> locus that might have >>>>>> been within the system until the circular concept is called into >>>>>> being. But then the >>>>>> boundaries have turned inside out, and the inside is the outside. >>>>>> Forms are created from the concatenation of operations upon >>>>>> themselves and objects >>>>>> are not objects at all, but rather indications of processes. Upon >>>>>> encountering an object as >>>>>> such a form of creation, you are compelled to ask: How is that object >>>>>> created? How is it >>>>>> designed? What do I do to produce it? What is the network of >>>>>> productions? Where is the >>>>>> home of that object? In what context does it exist? How am I involved >>>>>> in its creation? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> The above hints at some sort of sense - it isn't something I could >>>>> (quite) dismiss as postmodern nonsense, for example - but I think I can >>>>> safely answer your question - "no, please resubmit in plain English!" >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>>>> Google Groups "Everything List" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe >>>>> . >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Kindest Regards, >>>> >>>> Stephen Paul King >>>> >>>> Senior Researcher >>>> >>>> Mobile: (864) 567-3099 >>>> >>>> stephe...@provensecure.com >>>> >>>> http://www.provensecure.us/ >>>> >>>> >>>> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use >>>> of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain >>>> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and >>>> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as >>>> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >>>> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of >>>> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >>>> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message >>>> immediately.” >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>> >>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>> Google Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe >>> . >>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Kindest Regards, >> >> Stephen Paul King >> >> Senior Researcher >> >> Mobile: (864) 567-3099 >> >> stephe...@provensecure.com >> >> http://www.provensecure.us/ >> >> >> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of >> the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain >> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and >> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as >> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of >> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message >> immediately.” >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
