Explanations
Thank you, Jerry, for pointing out the excellent treatise by Hempel & Oppenheim on the Logic of Explanation. As I understand their viewpoint, the ultimate explanation refers to a system of facts that are known to all who use that system in which the explanation is placed. The explanation pictures reality, but the reality is outside of the explanation. The principle, expressed by Pythagoras, of “a²+b²=c²” is the deepest possible explanation of how measurement instruments, like theodolites, work; but note that the explanation makes no mention of sides of triangles, it is a simple algebraic statement, into the terms of which we project, think, look, visualise unto their application as a tool to calculate distances. The validity of the explanation is rooted in the facts that the numbers deliver. The ultimate explanation shows a relation among numbers – let me hope that I have interpreted the Hampel-Oppenheimer work correctly (by restating the results of Wittgenstein). Now we have a discovery – made possible by the availability of computers – of basic numeric relations that are as fundamental as “a²+b²=c²”. The present task is to alert the fellows in the applied fields that here is an explanation, and this could well be that explanation which you have been looking for. The task before the customer of the invention is again that of looking ideas into numbers, with the difference that we now look not sides of triangles but strings of matter-cum-energy-cum-information into the numbers. We see in reality the patterns this numeric explanation delivers by the magnetic field lines, by the eruptions of strings from the Sun, by the patterns of radiation as stars collapse, and as they explode … there are very many fields where the relevance of the explanation is visible to the eye; wherever filaments appear, a reorder is at work. The “where” has many variations, here it can be visualised as a string connecting the possible “wheres” during a reorder. The “what” can be anything that numbers can represent: dense or very dense predictability loads are this layman’s associations. The force lines are visible as lines in an Excel illustration, if one makes the trouble to set up one’s own resorting and track-following machine. The numbers support a different set of their interpretation, too. The resorting can be seen as the infusion of an ingredient into a cell. After the flooding of the cell with ingredient A has been completed, a reorder into A has taken place. Now a different biochemical constituent is to be supplied into the cell. Enter flooding by ingredient B. Can anyone tell, how this – concurrent or almost concurrent flooding with A and B - will affect the state, positions, availability of the elements of the cell? Yes, the satisfied customer of the string-thickness-measuring toposcopic tautomat can deliver. He has spent up to 10 hours of programming “ *sort(a,b)*” in many variations, but now he is very content, because he can see the force lines, generated by organising natural numbers. The bees also utilise this kind of built in hardwired numeric table. Likewise do we all, including children and animals. The ability to be oriented in space is delivered by ganglions that are organised in a phylogenetically more archaic way than those of the cortex. The regions and functionalities of the brain are of course highly interconnected, far more than the layers of an onion. That bees, besides knowing how to be oriented in space, also can count up to four, and communicate about it, has nothing to do with the statement that the knowledge of spatial orientation is a more archaic capacity of the brain than that of abstracting of perceptions and enumerating the abstracted ideas. If the bees can count abstract ideas up to four, that would indeed be an argument. The algorithms proposed here allow a conceptualisation of a feed-back loop that condenses information. Let us imagine cell X to be flooded by ingredients A and B and that this leads to a discontinuity, as too many elements that are to be flooded by B are not available because they are presently flooded with A, therefore the system breaks down. The resulting discontinuity could well have the form of an electric discharge, which then causes some concurrent flooding to stop. Then the frequency of how often an electric discharge happens would signal and determine the biochemical logistics of the cell by ingredients: voilá a ganglion, connecting hormonal states with patterns of bursts. Clever use of the discontinuities (of the firings of our ganglions while we think), means that there exist regularities about the genesis of discontinuities (which a less clever setup does not make use of). A numeric tool that keeps producing non-realisable predictions, ending in predictable breakdowns, by being in itself, on design, potentially self-contradictory: such a tool will not be first on the list for well-educated humans to take fancy to. The pity is that Nature is not that well-schooled and dares to make a difference between a+b=c and b+a=c, even if that is a taboo for us, having been instructed to disregard this small detail. By her archaic, uneducated, animal-like, primitive, unyielding nonchalance she produces many spectacles, for the explanation of which we are at loss, because we cannot think in an illogical fashion (another of Wittgenstein’s bonmots). Yet, it is not illogical to pay attention to small details. We can build with our logical tools a logical system that pictures how cooperation, compromises, conflicts and breakdowns happen. The algebraic facts are here, open for all (OEIS A235647, A242615). The numbers look good, they encourage the user’s creative ingenuity in looking interpretations into the algorithms, welcoming his scientific integrity in doublechecking, for which of his questions this is the explanation. 2016-12-07 11:22 GMT+01:00 Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>: > Da: "Jerry LR Chandler" <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> > <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> > > Data: 05/12/2016 0.50 > A: "fis"<fis@listas.unizar.es> <fis@listas.unizar.es> > Cc: <tozziart...@libero.it> <tozziart...@libero.it> > Ogg: Re: [Fis] Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ??? > > FISers: > > This is just a short note to communicate about two matters of substantial > importance with respect to foundational issues. > > Several contributors to this list serve have proposed a relationship > between phenomena and biological structures / processes and mathematics. > Perhaps of greatest interest have been the informational assertions seeking > to relate mind / consciousness / brain to either traditional mathematical > forms and/or Shannon information theory (with barely a mention of either > the semiotic or empirical necessities). > > A common scientific flaw inhabits these several proposals. In my view, > this common flaw is the absence of the relationships between scientific > causality and mathematical symbols that are necessary to meet the logic of > Lesniewski / Tarski, that is, a method to valid the proposed methods of > representations. (Krassimir’s post touched these concerns lightly.) > > While it is possible to cite hundreds (if not thousands) of texts that > seek to relate scientific phenomenon with causality, one well-written > account addresses the logical relations between scientific laws and the > antecedent causes that generate consequences of importance for the study of > the information sciences. see: > > Studies in the Logic of Explanation > > Carl G. Hempel; Paul Oppenheim > http://www.sfu.ca/~jillmc/Hempel%20and%20Oppenheim.pdf > <http://www.sfu.ca/%7Ejillmc/Hempel%20and%20Oppenheim.pdf> > > I would like to emphasis that scientific inquiry necessarily requires the > use of multiple symbol systems and hence intrinsically depends on the > symbols used to express scientific laws. > > > The second issue is relates to the various philosophical perspectives that > are related to information theory. > The web site > > http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/bois-reymond/ > > present the views on numerous philosophers (see list below) AS WELL AS > critical perspectives from a physical viewpoint. > > If time permits, I will add to this post in the coming week. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > Philosophers > > Mortimer Adler > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/adler/> > Rogers Albritton > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/albritton/> > Alexander of Aphrodisias > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/alexander/> > Samuel Alexander > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/alexanders/> > William Alston > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/alston/> > G.E.M.Anscombe > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/anscombe/> > Anselm > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/anselm/> > Louise Antony > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/antony/> > Thomas Aquinas > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/aquinas/> > Aristotle > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/aristotle/> > David Armstrong > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/armstrong/> > Harald Atmanspacher > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/atmanspacher/> > Robert Audi > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/audi/> > Augustine > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/augustine/> > J.L.Austin > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/austin/> > A.J.Ayer > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/ayer/> > Alexander Bain > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/bain/> > Mark Balaguer > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/balaguer/> > Jeffrey Barrett > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/barrett/> > William Belsham > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/belsham/> > Henri Bergson > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/bergson/> > Isaiah Berlin > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/berlin/> > Bernard Berofsky > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/berofsky/> > Robert Bishop > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/bishop/> > Max Black > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/black/> > Susanne Bobzien > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/bobzien/> > Emil du Bois-Reymond > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/bois-reymond/> > Hilary Bok > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/bok/> > Laurence BonJour > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/bonjour/> > George Boole > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/boole/> > Émile Boutroux > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/boutroux/> > F.H.Bradley > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/bradley/> > C.D.Broad > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/broad/> > Michael Burke > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/burke/> > C.A.Campbell > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/campbell/> > Joseph Keim Campbell > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/campbellj/> > Rudolf Carnap > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/carnap/> > Carneades > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/carneades/> > Ernst Cassirer > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/cassirer/> > David Chalmers > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/chalmers/> > Roderick Chisholm > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/chisholm/> > Chrysippus > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/chrysippus/> > Cicero > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/Cicero/> > Randolph Clarke > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/clarke/> > Samuel Clarke > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/clarkes/> > Anthony Collins > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/collins/> > Antonella Corradini > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/corradini/> > Diodorus Cronus > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/diodorus/> > Jonathan Dancy > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/dancy/> > Donald Davidson > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/davidson/> > Mario De Caro > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/decaro/> > Democritus > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/democritus/> > Daniel Dennett > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/dennett/> > Jacques Derrida > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/derrida/> > René Descartes > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/descartes/> > Richard Double > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/double/> > Fred Dretske > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/dretske/> > John Dupré > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/dupre/> > John Earman > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/earman/> > Laura Waddell Ekstrom > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/ekstrom/> > Epictetus > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/epictetus/> > Epicurus > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/epicurus/> > Herbert Feigl > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/feigl/> > John Martin Fischer > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/fischer/> > Owen Flanagan > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/flanagan/> > Luciano Floridi > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/floridi/> > Philippa Foot > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/foot/> > Alfred Fouilleé > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/fouillee/> > Harry Frankfurt > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/frankfurt/> > Richard L. Franklin > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/franklin/> > Michael Frede > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/frede/> > Gottlob Frege > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/frege/> > Peter Geach > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/geach/> > Edmund Gettier > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/gettier/> > Carl Ginet > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/ginet/> > Alvin Goldman > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/goldman/> > Gorgias > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/gorgias/> > Nicholas St. John Green > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/green/> > H.Paul Grice > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/grice/> > Ian Hacking > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/hacking/> > Ishtiyaque Haji > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/haji/> > Stuart Hampshire > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/hampshire/> > W.F.R.Hardie > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/hardie/> > Sam Harris > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/harris/> > William Hasker > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/hasker/> > R.M.Hare > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/hare/> > Georg W.F. Hegel > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/hegel/> > Martin Heidegger > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/heidegger/> > R.E.Hobart > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/hobart/> > Thomas Hobbes > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/hobbes/> > David Hodgson > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/hodgson/> > Shadsworth Hodgson > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/hodgsons/> > Baron d'Holbach > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/dholbach/> > Ted Honderich > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/honderich/> > Pamela Huby > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/huby/> > David Hume > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/hume/> > Ferenc Huoranszki > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/huoranszki/> > William James > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/james/> > Lord Kames > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/kames/> > Robert Kane > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/kane/> > Immanuel Kant > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/kant/> > Tomis Kapitan > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/kapitan/> > Jaegwon Kim > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/kim/> > William King > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/king/> > Hilary Kornblith > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/kornblith/> > Christine Korsgaard > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/korsgaard/> > Saul Kripke > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/kripke/> > Andrea Lavazza > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/lavazza/> > Keith Lehrer > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/lehrer/> > Gottfried Leibniz > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/leibniz/> > Leucippus > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/leucippus/> > Michael Levin > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/levin/> > George Henry Lewes > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/lewes/> > C.I.Lewis > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/lewis/> > David Lewis > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/lewis/> > Peter Lipton > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/lipton/> > John Locke > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/locke/> > Michael Lockwood > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/lockwood/> > E. Jonathan Lowe > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/lowe/> > John R. Lucas > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/lucas/> > Lucretius > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/lucretius/> > Ruth Barcan Marcus > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/marcus/> > James Martineau > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/martineau/> > Storrs McCall > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/mccall/> > Hugh McCann > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/mccann/> > Colin McGinn > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/mcginn/> > Michael McKenna > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/mckenna/> > Brian McLaughlin > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/mclaughlin/> > Paul E. Meehl > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/meehl/> > Uwe Meixner > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/meixner/> > Alfred Mele > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/mele/> > Trenton Merricks > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/merricks/> > John Stuart Mill > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/mill/> > Dickinson Miller > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/miller/> > G.E.Moore > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/moore/> > C. Lloyd Morgan > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/morgan/> > Thomas Nagel > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/nagelt/> > Friedrich Nietzsche > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/nietzsche/> > John Norton > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/norton/> > P.H.Nowell-Smith > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/nowell-smith/> > Robert Nozick > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/nozick/> > William of Ockham > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/ockham/> > Timothy O'Connor > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/oconnor/> > David F. Pears > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/pears/> > Charles Sanders Peirce > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/peirce/> > Derk Pereboom > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/pereboom/> > Steven Pinker > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/pinker/> > Plato > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/plato/> > Karl Popper > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/popper/> > Porphyry > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/porphyry/> > Huw Price > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/price/> > H.A.Prichard > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/prichard/> > Hilary Putnam > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/putnam/> > Willard van Orman Quine > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/quine/> > Frank Ramsey > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/ramsey/> > Ayn Rand > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/rand/> > Michael Rea > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/rea/> > Thomas Reid > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/reid/> > Charles Renouvier > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/renouvier/> > Nicholas Rescher > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/rescher/> > C.W.Rietdijk > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/rietdijk/> > Richard Rorty > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/rorty/> > Josiah Royce > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/royce/> > Bertrand Russell > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/russell/> > Paul Russell > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/russellp/> > Gilbert Ryle > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/ryle/> > Jean-Paul Sartre > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/sartre/> > Kenneth Sayre > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/sayre/> > T.M.Scanlon > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/scanlon/> > Moritz Schlick > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/schlick/> > Arthur Schopenhauer > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/schopenhauer/> > John Searle > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/searle/> > Wilfrid Sellars > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/sellars/> > Alan Sidelle > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/sidelle/> > Ted Sider > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/sider/> > Henry Sidgwick > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/sidgwick/> > Walter Sinnott-Armstrong > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/sinnott-armstrong/> > J.J.C.Smart > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/smart/> > Saul Smilansky > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/smilansky/> > Michael Smith > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/smith/> > Baruch Spinoza > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/spinoza/> > L. Susan Stebbing > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/stebbing/> > George F. Stout > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/stout/> > Galen Strawson > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/strawsong/> > Peter Strawson > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/strawson/> > Eleonore Stump > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/stump/> > Francisco Suárez > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/suarez/> > Richard Taylor > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/taylorr/> > Kevin Timpe > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/timpe/> > Mark Twain > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/twain/> > Peter Unger > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/unger/> > Peter van Inwagen > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/vaninwagen/> > Manuel Vargas > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/vargas/> > John Venn > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/venn/> > Kadri Vihvelin > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/vihvelin/> > Voltaire > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/voltaire/> > G.H. von Wright > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/vonwright/> > David Foster Wallace > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/wallacedf/> > R. Jay Wallace > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/wallace/> > W.G.Ward > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/ward/> > Ted Warfield > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/warfield/> > Roy Weatherford > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/weatherford/> > William Whewell > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/whewell/> > Alfred North Whitehead > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/whitehead/> > David Widerker > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/widerker/> > David Wiggins > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/wiggins/> > Bernard Williams > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/williams/> > Timothy Williamson > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/williamson/> > Ludwig Wittgenstein > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/wittgenstein/> > Susan Wolf > <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/wolf/> > > Scientists > > > > On Nov 26, 2016, at 12:06 PM, tozziart...@libero.it wrote: > > Dear Krassimir, > Thanks a lot for your question, now the discussion will become hotter! > > First of all, we never stated that consciousness lies either on a n-sphere > or on an Euclidean n-space. > Indeed, in our framework, consciousness IS the continuous function. > Such function stands for a gauge field that restores the brain symmetries, > broken by sensations. > Concerning brain and gauge fields, see my PLOS biology paper: > http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10. > 1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1002400 > > When consciousness lacks, the inter-dimensional projections are broken, > and the nervous higher functions temporarily disappear. > > Concerning the question about which are the manifolds where brain > functions lie, it does not matter whether they are spheres, or circles, or > concave, or flat structures: we demonstrated that the BUT is valid not just > for convex manifolds, but for all the kinds of manifolds. > See our: > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jnr.23720/ > abstract?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage= > > Therefore, even if you think that brain and biological functions are > trajectories moving on concave structures towards lesser energetic levels, > as suggested by, e.g., Fokker-Planck equations, it does not matter: you may > always find the antipodal points with matching description predicted by > BUT. > > Ciao! > > -- > Inviato da Libero Mail per Android > sabato, 26 novembre 2016, 06:23PM +01:00 da Krassimir Markov > mar...@foibg.com: > > Dear FIS colleagues, > > I think, it is needed to put discussion on mathematical foundation. Let me > remember that: > > > The *Borsuk–Ulam theorem* (BUT), states that every *continuous function* from > an *n*-sphere into *Euclidean n-space* maps some pair of antipodal points to > the same point. > > Here, two points on a sphere are called antipodal if they are in exactly > opposite directions from the sphere's center. > > Formally: *if* *is* *continuous* then there exists an such that: . > > [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borsuk%E2%80%93Ulam_theorem ] > > > Who may proof that consciousness is a *continuous function* from > reflected reality ??? > > Who may proof that consciousness is an *Euclidean n-space* ??? > > After proving these statements we may think further. > > > Yes, discussion is interesting but, I am afraid, it is not so scientific. > > > Friendly regards > > Krassimir > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
