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

2018-02-28 Thread 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  on behalf of John Collier 


*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 the mathematical 
reasoning, in one hand, and, as the 

[Fis] Meta-observer?

2018-02-28 Thread PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ

Dear FISers,

Although I share Terry's concern, I do not think that expostulating one's 
general framework is going to facilitate the discussions. Perhaps oposite, 
as it will introduce a trend towards generalization that fortifies the 
perspectival differences and makes the rhetorics less adjusted to the 
concrete. The problem basically resides in the persistent immaturity of the 
"information synthesis" so to speak. Defenders of each approach advocate a 
different "observer", charged in each case with their favorite 
conceptualizations. Taking into account the apparent multitude of dimensions 
of information, and its almost unfathomable reach, a "battery" of those 
observers has to be in place. And an agile switching among the observers has 
to be established. A sort of "attention" capable of fast and furious 
displacements of the focus...  helas, this means a meta-observer or an

observer-in-command.
But what sort of reference may such a metaobserver arbitrate? There is no 
conceivable book of rules about the switching between heterogeneous 
disciplinary bodies.
I see only one way, imitating the central goal of nervous systems: the 
metaobserver should finally care about our collective social life. It was 
Whitehead, as far as I remember, who put it: "to live, to live better." In 
each level of organization it is the life cycle of the concerned entities 
and the aggregates built upon them what matters.
Information is not only about logic-formal aspects. It is the bread and 
butter of complexity, that which allows contemporary social life.

So, in the coming session about "dataism" we can also explore these themes.

Best--Pedro

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