Re: [Fis] The shadows are real !!!

[Burgin, Mark]

Dear Sung,

Thank you for sharing with us your interesting ideas based on the 
Peircean triadic approach. It is not by chance that your triad exactly 
corresponds to the Existential Triad, which stratifies the whole World 
into three interrelated components:


Physical World

Mental World

Structural World

*Form (A) corresponds to the **Structural**World*

*Shadow (B) ***corresponds to *the **Physical World***

*Thought (C)* *corresponds to the **Mental World*


So, shadows are indeed real as they belong to the physical world, in 
which we live.



Sincerely,

Mark Burgin



On 2/25/2018 3:04 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:


Hi Krassimir,


I agree with you that  "/The shadows are real/ but only a part of the 
whole. What is needed is a systematic research from what they are part."



In my previous post,  I was suggesting that Shadows are a part of 
the irreudicible triad consisting of *Form (A), Shadow (B) 
*and*Thought (C)*.  The essential notion of the ITR (Irreducible 
Triadic realrtion) is that A, B, and C cannot be reduced to any one or 
a pair of the triad.  This automatically means that 'Shadow' is a part 
of the whole triad (which is, to me, another name for the Ultimate 
Reality), as Form and Thought are.  In other words, the Ultimate 
Reality is not Form nor Shadow nor Thought individually but all of 
them together, since they constitute an irreducible triad.    This 
idea is expressed in 1995  in another way: The Ultimate Reality is the 
/complementary union/ of the /Visble/ and the /Invisible World/ (see 
*Table 1* attached).  Apparently a similar idea underlies the 
philosophy of Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961), according to my son, 
Douglas Sayer Ji (see his semior research thesis submitted in 1996 to 
the Department of Philosophy at Rutgers University under the guidance 
of B. Wilshire, attached).



All the best.


Sung



*From:* Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of John Collier 
<ag...@ncf.ca>

*Sent:* Sunday, February 25, 2018 2:51 PM
*To:* fis@listas.unizar.es
*Subject:* Re: [Fis] The shadows are real !!!
Daer Krassimir, List

I basically support what you are saying. I understand the mathematics 
you presented, I am good at mathematics and studied logic with some of 
the best. However, and this is a big however, giving a mathematical or 
logical proof by itself, in its formalism, does not show anything at 
all. One has to be able to connect teh mathematics to experience in a 
comprehensible way. This was partly the topic of my dissertation, and 
I take a basically Peircean approach, though there are others that are 
pretty strong as well.


I fgenerally skip over the mathematics and look for the empirical 
connections. If I find them, then generally all becomes clear. Without 
this, the formalism is nothing more than formalism. It does not help 
to give formal names to things and assume that this identifies things, 
Often trying to follow up approaches kine this is a profound waste of 
time. I try to, and often am able to, express my ideas in a nonformal 
way. Some mathematically oriented colleagues see this as automatically 
defective, since they think that formal representation is all that 
really rigorously explains things. This sort of thinking (in Logical 
Positivism) eventually led to its own destruction as people started to 
ask the meaning of theoretical terms and their relation to 
observations. It is a defunct and self destructive metaphysics. Irt 
leads nowhere -- my PhD thesis was about this problem. It hurts me to 
see people making the same mistake, especially when it leads them to 
bizarre conclusions that are compatible with the formalism (actually, 
it is provable that almost anything is compatible with a specific 
formalism, up to numerosity).


I don't like to waste my time with such emptiness,

John

On 2018/02/25 6:22 PM, Krassimir Markov wrote:

Dear Sung,
I like your approach but I think it is only a part of the whole.
1. */The shadows are real/* but only a part of the whole. What is 
needed is a systematic research from what they are part.
2. About the whole now I will use the category theory I have seen you 
like:

/CAT_A => F => CAT_B => G => CAT_C /
//
/CAT_A => H => CAT_C /
//
/_F ○ G = H /
where
/F/, /G/, and /H/ are /*functors*/;
/CAT_II Î CAT/ is the category of /*information interaction categories*/;
/CAT_A Î CAT_II / and /CAT_C Î CAT_II /  are the categories of 
*/mental models’ categories/*;

/CAT_B Î CAT_II / is the category of */models’ categories/*.
Of course, I will explain this in natural language (English) in 
further posts.

Smile
;
Dear  Karl,
Thank you for your post – it is very useful and I will discus it in 
further posts.

;
Dear Pedro,
Thank you for your nice words.
Mathematics is very good to be used when all know the mathematical 
languages.
Unfortunately, only a few scientists are involved in 

Re: [Fis] The shadows are real !!!

[Bruno Marchal]

 as it depends on *all* computations, and that is mimicked 
by all universal machine/word/number/finite-entity. Then we get all the 
phenomenological nuances by the modal variants: physical existence if of the 
type []<>p, on the logic of []p & <>t, with p a semi-computable/provable 
propositions.

Peirce’s account is not fundamental at this stage, but it should plausibly 
introduced itself in the perception modes, around the []p & <>t & p nuances 
implied by incompleteness. It is very interesting, but to see how the 
“persistent and partially sharable illusion” emerges, the semantic of Tarski is 
enough (and easier for a mathematician of course).

I don’t want you to bother too much, as mathematical logic and computer science 
are not well known, and when used in philosophy it is often invalid ((cf 
Penrose and Lucas). Yet very interesting as such works points on the response 
of the universal machine, which makes such reasoning into a confusion between 
[]p & p with []p. 

Sometimes I agree with many people here, but then some can either dismiss the 
digital world, or favour a material basic reality, and well, some choice 
(Aristotle or Plato) does not have to been made, but we must be aware that not 
everybody take physicalism or materialism for granted. My works make Quantum 
Mechanics testing retrospectively Aristotle V Plato in Metaphysic/Theology, and 
that confirms mechanism, and not materialism, unless we introduce some wave 
packet reduction, which indeed is an alternative taken by some.

Bruno

PS Second, and thus last, post of the week! 



> 
> John
> 
> On 2018/02/26 4:58 AM, joe.bren...@bluewin.ch <mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch> 
> wrote:
>> Dear FISers,
>> With all due respect to Krassimir, Sung, and his son, it is becoming a 
>> matter of scientific interest that statements by them and others to the 
>> effect that "systematic research of what the 'shadows' are a part" has not 
>> been done are made routinely. First of all, the logic in reality  of Lupasco 
>> about which I have been talking here for 10 years, includes a new mereology 
>> in which the dynamic relations between part and whole are set out for 
>> discussion. Second, while the 'diagram' of Merleau-Ponty may be considered 
>> interesting as philosophy and as a foundation of religious belief, I see no 
>> reason to include it, without heavy qualification, in a discussion of the 
>> foundations of information science.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> 
>> Joseph
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----Message d'origine----
>> De : s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu <mailto:s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu>
>> Date : 25/02/2018 - 15:04 (PST)
>> À : ag...@ncf.ca <mailto:ag...@ncf.ca>, fis@listas.unizar.es 
>> <mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>
>> Objet : Re: [Fis] The shadows are real !!!
>> 
>> Hi Krassimir,
>> 
>> I agree with you that  "The shadows are real but only a part of the whole. 
>> What is needed is a systematic research from what they are part."
>> 
>> In my previous post,  I was suggesting that Shadows are a part of the 
>> irreudicible triad consisting of Form (A), Shadow (B) and Thought (C).  The 
>> essential notion of the ITR (Irreducible Triadic realrtion) is that A, B, 
>> and C cannot be reduced to any one or a pair of the triad.  This 
>> automatically means that 'Shadow' is a part of the whole triad (which is, to 
>> me, another name for the Ultimate Reality), as Form and Thought are.  In 
>> other words, the Ultimate Reality is not Form nor Shadow nor Thought 
>> individually but all of them together, since they constitute an irreducible 
>> triad.This idea is expressed in 1995  in another way: The Ultimate 
>> Reality is the complementary union of the Visble and the Invisible World 
>> (see Table 1 attached).  Apparently a similar idea underlies the philosophy 
>> of Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961), according to my son, Douglas Sayer Ji 
>> (see his semior research thesis submitted in 1996 to the Department of 
>> Philosophy at Rutgers University under the guidance of B. Wilshire, 
>> attached). 
>> 
>> All the best.
>> 
>> Sung
>> 
>> 
>> From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> 
>> <mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of John Collier 
>> <ag...@ncf.ca> <mailto:ag...@ncf.ca>
>> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 2:51 PM
>> To: fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>
>> Subject: Re: [Fis] The shadows are real !!!
>>  
>> Daer Krassimir, List
>> 
>> I basically support what you are saying. I understand the mathematics you 
>> presented, I

Re: [Fis] The shadows are real !!!

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear John, Dear colleagues,

> On 25 Feb 2018, at 20:51, John Collier  wrote:
> 
> Daer Krassimir, List
> 
> I basically support what you are saying. I understand the mathematics you 
> presented, I am good at mathematics and studied logic with some of the best. 
> However, and this is a big however, giving a mathematical or logical proof by 
> itself, in its formalism, does not show anything at all. One has to be able 
> to connect teh mathematics to experience in a comprehensible way. This was 
> partly the topic of my dissertation, and I take a basically Peircean 
> approach, though there are others that are pretty strong as well.
> 
> I fgenerally skip over the mathematics and look for the empirical 
> connections. If I find them, then generally all becomes clear. Without this, 
> the formalism is nothing more than formalism. It does not help to give formal 
> names to things and assume that this identifies things, Often trying to 
> follow up approaches kine this is a profound waste of time. I try to, and 
> often am able to, express my ideas in a nonformal way. Some mathematically 
> oriented colleagues see this as automatically defective, since they think 
> that formal representation is all that really rigorously explains things. 
> This sort of thinking (in Logical Positivism) eventually led to its own 
> destruction as people started to ask the meaning of theoretical terms and 
> their relation to observations. It is a defunct and self destructive 
> metaphysics. Irt leads nowhere -- my PhD thesis was about this problem. It 
> hurts me to see people making the same mistake, especially when it leads them 
> to bizarre conclusions that are compatible with the formalism (actually, it 
> is provable that almost anything is compatible with a specific formalism, up 
> to numerosity).


Since Gödel, in mathematics we have to distinguish between truth and proof, and 
even when we restrict ourself to arithmetic, we know that the truth escape 
*all* formalism. Logical positivism is dead since long for logicians and 
mathematicians.

Then, when we assume mechanism (the brain is a digitalizable natural 
machinery), and as elementary arithmetic emulates all Turing universal 
machinery and all computations (we assume the Church-Turing thesis, and a small 
amount of passive understanding of Gödel’s method or proofs), it becomes an 
open problem in (scientific) metaphysics if there could be a physical primary 
universe.

The evidence we get so far is that there are none. Mechanism and materialism 
can be shown incompatible logically. Mechanism forces a reduction of the 
physical appearance to computer science, which embeds itself in number theory. 
Mechanism becomes empirically testable: extract physics from arithmetic, and 
compare to the observation. This has been done, and the result sustain 
mechanism, and not materialism.

So, we in that frame, we have to come back to Plato, where the shadow on the 
wall, mentioned by Krassimir,  is given by the empirical reality, which appears 
to be the logical border of the mind of the universal machine. To get this, it 
is imperative to well understand that the notion of computation and of 
universal machine have been discovered in pure mathematics (and quickly after 
even in elementary arithmetic).

The God/non-God debate hides since long the original debate among the antic 
greeks, which was about the existence or inexistence of a primary physical 
universe. Is physics or mathematics the fundamental science/realm? Now with 
Mechanism, we do have a testable explanation of consciousness. It is testable 
because physics *is* reduced to the statistics on the first person view that we 
can associate to the machine.

How to define such first person notions? Gödel’s incompleteness shows that 
proof and truth are different, but also that the machine will makes a 
difference between all the modal variants of provability, and this leads to 
eight different logic of self-reference. Most of them were foreseen by the 
Neoplatonist inquirers.

p (truth)
[]p (provability, Gödel’s beweisbar)
[]p & p (theatetus’ notion of knower, the first person: that notion is not 
definable in the language of the machine: it is non nameable self)
[]p & <>t. (Observability, measure one on the computable consistent extension) 
——> this gives a quantum logic
[]p & <>t & p. (Perception, sensibility)

Those are 8, not fives, because not only incompleteness does makes those 
vertical distinction, but it separates three of those modes in two, along the 
separation of truth and what the machine can prove Abi-out itself. We get six 
quantum logics, making us able to distinguish the sharable quanta and the 
private non sharable qualia which actually extends the quanta. So even the 
quanta are not “objective” but belongs to the “shadow” which hides the deeper 
and simpler reality of the numbers (or of anything Turing equivalent).

So, yes, the shadow are real, and include the whole of 

Re: [Fis] The shadows are real !!!

[John Collier]

Inclined to agree with Joseph. I would like to point out that there are 
different meanings for "real', and one has to be clear about ones 
metaphysics to make the idea (somewhat) clear. Peirce, for example, 
would call Plato's shadows (which aren't really shadows at all, real, 
but not existent. The sort of shadows that we normal experience are both 
real and existent on Peirce's account.


John

On 2018/02/26 4:58 AM, joe.bren...@bluewin.ch wrote:


Dear FISers,

With all due respect to Krassimir, Sung, and his son, it is
becoming a matter of scientific interest that statements by them
and others to the effect that "systematic research of what the
'shadows' are a part" has not been done are made routinely. First
of all, the logic in reality  of Lupasco about which I have been
talking here for 10 years, includesa new mereology in which the
dynamic relations between part and whole are set out for
discussion. Second, while the 'diagram' of Merleau-Ponty may be
considered interesting as philosophy and as a foundation of
religious belief, I see no reason to include it, without heavy
qualification, in a discussion of the foundations of information
science.

Thank you,

Joseph



Message d'origine
De : s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu
Date : 25/02/2018 - 15:04 (PST)
À : ag...@ncf.ca, fis@listas.unizar.es
        Objet : Re: [Fis] The shadows are real !!!

Hi Krassimir,


I agree with you that  "/The shadows are real/ but only a part
of the whole. What is needed is a systematic research from
what they are part."


In my previous post,  I was suggesting that Shadows are a part
of the irreudicible triad consisting of *Form (A), Shadow (B)
*and*Thought (C)*.  The essential notion of the ITR
(Irreducible Triadic realrtion) is that A, B, and C cannot be
reduced to any one or a pair of the triad.  This
automatically means that 'Shadow' is a part of the whole triad
(which is, to me, another name for the Ultimate Reality), as
Form and Thought are.  In other words, the Ultimate Reality is
not Form nor Shadow nor Thought individually but all of them
together, since they constitute an irreducible triad.    This
idea is expressed in 1995  in another way: The Ultimate
Reality is the /complementary union/ of the /Visble/ and the
/Invisible World/ (see *Table 1* attached).  Apparently a
similar idea underlies the philosophy of Maurice Merleau-Ponty
(1908-1961), according to my son, Douglas Sayer Ji (see his
semior research thesis submitted in 1996 to the Department of
Philosophy at Rutgers University under the guidance of B.
Wilshire, attached).


All the best.


Sung



*From:* Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of John
Collier <ag...@ncf.ca>
*Sent:* Sunday, February 25, 2018 2:51 PM
*To:* fis@listas.unizar.es
    *Subject:* Re: [Fis] The shadows are real !!!
Daer Krassimir, List

I basically support what you are saying. I understand the
mathematics you presented, I am good at mathematics and
studied logic with some of the best. However, and this is a
big however, giving a mathematical or logical proof by itself,
in its formalism, does not show anything at all. One has to be
able to connect teh mathematics to experience in a
comprehensible way. This was partly the topic of my
dissertation, and I take a basically Peircean approach, though
there are others that are pretty strong as well.

I fgenerally skip over the mathematics and look for the
empirical connections. If I find them, then generally all
becomes clear. Without this, the formalism is nothing more
than formalism. It does not help to give formal names to
things and assume that this identifies things, Often trying to
follow up approaches kine this is a profound waste of time. I
try to, and often am able to, express my ideas in a nonformal
way. Some mathematically oriented colleagues see this as
automatically defective, since they think that formal
representation is all that really rigorously explains things.
This sort of thinking (in Logical Positivism) eventually led
to its own destruction as people started to ask the meaning of
theoretical terms and their relation to observations. It is a
defunct and self destructive metaphysics. Irt leads nowhere --
my PhD thesis was about this problem. It hurts me to see
people making the same mistake, especially when it leads them
to bizarre conclusions that are compatible

Re: [Fis] The shadows are real !!!

[joe.bren...@bluewin.ch]

Dear FISers,
With all due respect to Krassimir, Sung, and his son, it is becoming a matter 
of scientific interest that statements by them and others to the effect that 
"systematic research of what the 'shadows' are a part" has not been done are 
made routinely. First of all, the logic in reality  of Lupasco about which I 
have been talking here for 10 years, includes a new mereology in which the 
dynamic relations between part and whole are set out for discussion. Second, 
while the 'diagram' of Merleau-Ponty may be considered interesting as 
philosophy and as a foundation of religious belief, I see no reason to include 
it, without heavy qualification, in a discussion of the foundations of 
information science.
Thank you,
Joseph
Message d'origine
De : s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu
Date : 25/02/2018 - 15:04 (PST)
À : ag...@ncf.ca, fis@listas.unizar.es
Objet : Re: [Fis] The shadows are real !!!
Hi Krassimir,
I agree with you that  "The shadows are real but only a part of the whole. What 
is needed
 is a systematic research from what they are part."
In my previous post,  I was suggesting that Shadows are a part of the 
irreudicible triad consisting of
Form (A), Shadow (B) and Thought (C).  The essential notion of the ITR 
(Irreducible Triadic realrtion) is that A, B, and C cannot be reduced to any 
one or a pair of the triad.  This automatically means that 'Shadow' is a part 
of the whole triad
 (which is, to me, another name for the Ultimate Reality), as Form and Thought 
are.  In other words, the Ultimate Reality is not Form nor Shadow nor Thought 
individually but all of them together, since they constitute an irreducible 
triad.This idea is expressed
 in 1995  in another way: The Ultimate Reality is the complementary union of the
Visble and the Invisible World (see Table 1 attached).  Apparently a similar 
idea underlies the philosophy of Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961), according 
to my son, Douglas Sayer Ji (see his semior research thesis submitted in 1996 to
 the Department of Philosophy at Rutgers University under the guidance of B. 
Wilshire, attached). 
All the best.
Sung

From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of John Collier 
<ag...@ncf.ca>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 2:51 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] The shadows are real !!!
Daer Krassimir, List
I basically support what you are saying. I understand the mathematics you 
presented, I am good at mathematics and studied logic with some of the best. 
However, and this is a big however, giving a mathematical or logical proof by 
itself, in its formalism, does
 not show anything at all. One has to be able to connect teh mathematics to 
experience in a comprehensible way. This was partly the topic of my 
dissertation, and I take a basically Peircean approach, though there are others 
that are pretty strong as well.
I fgenerally skip over the mathematics and look for the empirical connections. 
If I find them, then generally all becomes clear. Without this, the formalism 
is nothing more than formalism. It does not help to give formal names to things 
and assume that this
 identifies things, Often trying to follow up approaches kine this is a 
profound waste of time. I try to, and often am able to, express my ideas in a 
nonformal way. Some mathematically oriented colleagues see this as 
automatically defective, since they think
 that formal representation is all that really rigorously explains things. This 
sort of thinking (in Logical Positivism) eventually led to its own destruction 
as people started to ask the meaning of theoretical terms and their relation to 
observations. It is
 a defunct and self destructive metaphysics. Irt leads nowhere -- my PhD thesis 
was about this problem. It hurts me to see people making the same mistake, 
especially when it leads them to bizarre conclusions that are compatible with 
the formalism (actually,
 it is provable that almost anything is compatible with a specific formalism, 
up to numerosity).
I don't like to waste my time with such emptiness,
John
On 2018/02/25 6:22 PM, Krassimir Markov wrote:
Dear Sung,
I like your approach but I think it is only a part of the whole.
1. The shadows are real but only a part of the whole. What is needed is a 
systematic research from what they are part.
2. About the whole now I will use the category theory I have seen you like:
CATA => F => CATB => G => CATC
 
CATA => H => CATC
 
F ○ G = H
where
F, G, and H are functors;
CATII 
Î CAT is the category of information interaction categories;
CATA Î CATII and
CATC Î CATII  are the categories of
mental models’ categories;
CATB Î CATII  is the category of
models’ categories.
Of course, I will explain this in natural language (English) in further posts.
;
Dear  Karl,
Thank you for your post – it is very useful and I will discus it in further 
posts.
;
Dear Pedro,
Thank you for your nice words. 
Mathematics is very good t

Re: [Fis] The shadows are real !!!

[John Collier]

Daer Krassimir, List

I basically support what you are saying. I understand the mathematics 
you presented, I am good at mathematics and studied logic with some of 
the best. However, and this is a big however, giving a mathematical or 
logical proof by itself, in its formalism, does not show anything at 
all. One has to be able to connect teh mathematics to experience in a 
comprehensible way. This was partly the topic of my dissertation, and I 
take a basically Peircean approach, though there are others that are 
pretty strong as well.


I fgenerally skip over the mathematics and look for the empirical 
connections. If I find them, then generally all becomes clear. Without 
this, the formalism is nothing more than formalism. It does not help to 
give formal names to things and assume that this identifies things, 
Often trying to follow up approaches kine this is a profound waste of 
time. I try to, and often am able to, express my ideas in a nonformal 
way. Some mathematically oriented colleagues see this as automatically 
defective, since they think that formal representation is all that 
really rigorously explains things. This sort of thinking (in Logical 
Positivism) eventually led to its own destruction as people started to 
ask the meaning of theoretical terms and their relation to observations. 
It is a defunct and self destructive metaphysics. Irt leads nowhere -- 
my PhD thesis was about this problem. It hurts me to see people making 
the same mistake, especially when it leads them to bizarre conclusions 
that are compatible with the formalism (actually, it is provable that 
almost anything is compatible with a specific formalism, up to numerosity).


I don't like to waste my time with such emptiness,

John

On 2018/02/25 6:22 PM, Krassimir Markov wrote:

Dear Sung,
I like your approach but I think it is only a part of the whole.
1. */The shadows are real/* but only a part of the whole. What is 
needed is a systematic research from what they are part.
2. About the whole now I will use the category theory I have seen you 
like:

/CAT_A => F => CAT_B => G => CAT_C /
//
/CAT_A => H => CAT_C /
//
/_F ○ G = H /
where
/F/, /G/, and /H/ are /*functors*/;
/CAT_II Î CAT/ is the category of /*information interaction categories*/;
/CAT_A Î CAT_II / and /CAT_C Î CAT_II /  are the categories of 
*/mental models’ categories/*;

/CAT_B Î CAT_II /  is the category of */models’ categories/*.
Of course, I will explain this in natural language (English) in 
further posts.

Smile
;
Dear  Karl,
Thank you for your post – it is very useful and I will discus it in 
further posts.

;
Dear Pedro,
Thank you for your nice words.
Mathematics is very good to be used when all know the mathematical 
languages.
Unfortunately, only a few scientists are involved in the mathematical 
reasoning, in one hand, and, as the Bourbaki experiment had shown, not 
everything is ready to be formalized.

How much of FIS members understood what I had written above?
The way starts from philosophical reasoning  and only some times ends 
in mathematical formal explanations.

Friendly greetings
Krassimir


___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


--
John Collier
Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban
Collier web page 
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis