Process Philosophy

[CharlieM]

Have you heard of argument from authority Charlie? Just one of the logical fallacies you keep leaving steaming on the forum.

But my argument is not dependent on the work of Edward Frenkel. I am discussing projective geometry and the generation of form, his work seems to be primarily on the algebra of higher dimensions. He and I both agree that all our minds are connected. I have been arguing for this for quite a while; long before I ever heard of Edward Frenkel. My argument about the single concept "triangle" held by multiple minds is one example. I believe that his work on the Langlands program has had a great deal of influence on his thinking about the mind. I am interested in learning more about his research and if what he says is credible.

His work with the mathematics of higher dimensions, infinity and infinitesimals has brought him to an understanding that reality is not confined to what can be grasped by the senses. I can agree with that.

Before I can come to any firm conclusion I have to at least do a bit of work on understanding his methods. All I ask is that if you feel that you need to judge him you will need to do likewise. I do wonder how thoroughly you research anything before criticizing it? Shallow criticism is so easy, requiring the minimum of effort. And that's what makes it virtually worthless.

[The_Metatron]

Who the fuck do you think you are, Charlie?

Our rejection of what you think true isn’t up to your standards?

So, all I can think to do right now is repeat. Who the fuck do you think you are?

[Fenrir]

Have you heard of argument from authority Charlie? Just one of the logical fallacies you keep leaving steaming on the forum.

But my argument is not dependent on the work of Edward Frenkel. I am discussing projective geometry and the generation of form, his work seems to be primarily on the algebra of higher dimensions. He and I both agree that all our minds are connected. I have been arguing for this for quite a while; long before I ever heard of Edward Frenkel. My argument about the single concept "triangle" held by multiple minds is one example. I believe that his work on the Langlands program has had a great deal of influence on his thinking about the mind. I am interested in learning more about his research and if what he says is credible.

His work with the mathematics of higher dimensions, infinity and infinitesimals has brought him to an understanding that reality is not confined to what can be grasped by the senses. I can agree with that.

Before I can come to any firm conclusion I have to at least do a bit of work on understanding his methods. All I ask is that if you feel that you need to judge him you will need to do likewise. I do wonder how thoroughly you research anything before criticizing it? Shallow criticism is so easy, requiring the minimum of effort. And that's what makes it virtually worthless.

I'm not judging him.

I'm judging you.

I'm judging you for your claims that the earth is intelligent and that majic geometry can't be measured.

You provide no support for such (on the face of it) nonsensical claims whatsoever.

And no, asserting that someone else says it as well isn't support, that's fan fiction.

Now i don't know if these people generally think such nonsense or themselves provide any support for these claims, or whether you are simply misrepresenting them, deliberately or not. One thing you haven't done is interested me enough to look into it. Largely because you provide no support whatsoever for these claims, which makes them rather trivial to simply dismiss.

[BlackBart]

It's beliefs that are worthless Charlie, not criticism thereof. That which is asserted without evidence can dismissed without evidence.

So, how would we demonstrate "Connected minds" Charlie? What would expect to see in that scenario as opposed to unconnected minds.

And we already know that reality is not confined to what can be grasped by the senses. How many Neutrinos have you sensed lately Charlie?

See, that's the problem -your vague woolly language. Oooh inifinity....woooo.. infinity is above reality... wooo

[The_Metatron]

It's beliefs that are worthless Charlie, not criticism thereof. That which is asserted without evidence can dismissed without evidence.

So, how would we demonstrate "Connected minds" Charlie? What would expect to see in that scenario as opposed to unconnected minds.

And we already know that reality is not confined to what can be grasped by the senses. How many Neutrinos have you sensed lately Charlie?

See, that's the problem -your vague woolly language. Oooh inifinity....woooo.. infinity is above reality... wooo

Worked for Conan:

[CharlieM]

After I watched the above video clip on infinity, this came up as a choice of videos to click on. I think it's well worth a watch .

[CharlieM]

Euclidean space, which is just a snapshot of projective space, is suitable for the study of mechanics. But life and organic forms are better understood through projective geometry.

Arse gravy.

Projective geometry describes the relationship between geometric objects and their images projected onto a surface. It says nothing about life or organic material.

Nor does it say anything about existence. Infinity just just describes a point where projected parallel lines intersect.

Your crap about parallel lives moving in opposite directions is simply that. Crap.

I suspect we'll be getting quantum deepities next.

Projective geometry is a tool which has many applications. D'Arcy Thompson has been an inspiration for this type of thinking in many fields such as biology, art & design and engineering.

D'Arcy Thompson (1860–1948) was one of the most celebrated biologists of his day, best known for his On Growth and Form (1917) which was the first successful biophysical explanation of the size and shape of organisms. In particular, his concept of allometric growth and theory of transformations have informed cutting edge research in biometrics and practice in the fields of fine art, urban design and civil engineering. He was a seminal figure in the development of the spatial analysis tradition within geography in the 1960s and 1970s underpinning major contributions by Haggett and Bunge and inspiring Tobler to develop cartograms which liberated map projections from sole reliance on Euclidean geometry. Re-assessing his contribution to geography fifty years later, it is still to be found in Batty's work on the size, shape and scale of cities and in Dorling's World Mapper project. This re-discovery of the importance of geometry within the geographic tradition over the last half century owes much to Thompson who spent the whole of his academic life in the University of St Andrews and (what was later to become) the University of Dundee.

Euclidean geometry confines perspective to a static frame of reference in which angles are fixed. Perspective geometry allows for an infinite variety of viewing perspectives and projected angles.


Projective Geometry: A Short Introduction

Like Goethe before him, D'Arcy Thompson while studying morphology, had the ability to see separate individual organisms and visualize forms transforming into each other. The visualizations in the mind enhanced and completed the sense impressions.

And this is the beauty of projective geometry. It trains the mind to look beyond the senses to a more dynamic and complete portion of reality. The reality envisioned, which the senses alone cannot grasp, is not created by the mind, it is apprehended by the mind.

So when I mentioned lines moving in opposite directions (sorry about the typo that slipped through - "lines" not "lives"), I was talking about a visualization in which one could imagine seeing these lines in the process of extending out to infinity. The Möbius band is a brilliant representation of this with its two edges acting as a shrunken version of those infinitely long parallel lines. An ant walking to the left along one edge will return from the right on which appears to be the opposite edge.

[CharlieM]

Who the fuck do you think you are, Charlie?

Our rejection of what you think true isn’t up to your standards?

So, all I can think to do right now is repeat. Who the fuck do you think you are?

I'm just a man

And I'm just a man,
Born of a woman like you,
I'm just a man,
who can't be blind to the things I find, in this world.

[CharlieM]

Euclidean space, which is just a snapshot of projective space, is suitable for the study of mechanics. But life and organic forms are better understood through projective geometry.

... I suspect we'll be getting quantum deepities next.

If you insist.

Philip Goyal has been doing some interesting research on quantum physics for a long time. In the video "Informational Reconstruction, Quantum Theory, Interpretive Inplications", he quotes John A. Wheeler:

It from bit symbolizes the- idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom... an immaterial source and explanation, that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment evoked responses... What we call reality consists of a few iron posts of observation between which we fill an elaborate papier-mâché of imagination and theory.

Goyal has substantial grounds for making the claim that microphysical events have priority over microphysical objects. In other words 'process' is more fundamental than 'things'.

[CharlieM]

INFORMATION, PHYSICS, QUANTUM: THE
SEARCH FOR LINKS by John Archibald Wheeler

The abstract:

This report reviews what quantum physics and information theory have to tell us about the age-old question, How come existence? No escape is evident from four conclusions: (1) The world cannot be a giant machine, ruled by any preestablished continuum physical law. (2) There is no such thing at the microscopic level as space or time or spacetime continuum. (3) The familiar probability function or functional, and wave equation or functional wave equation, of standard quantum theory provide mere continuum idealizations and by reason of this circumstance conceal the information-theoretic source from which they derive. (4) No element in the description of physics shows itself as closer to primordial than the elementary quantum phenomenon, that is, the elementary device-intermediated act of posing a yes-no physical question and eliciting an answer or, in brief, the elementary act of observer-participancy. Otherwise stated, every physical quantity, every it, derives its ultimate significance from bits, binary yes-or-no indications, a conclusion which we epitomize in the phrase, it from bit.

And from the body of the text:

It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe

Wheeler is guided by four 'nos', no tower of turtles, no persistent laws of physics, no continuum in mathematics nor in physics, no objective space or time. This is something in which I'd like to take a closer look.

[BWE]

Yeah. It leads straight to Buddhism. Go find a cult that has bastardized it so it will be easier to digest

[romansh]

“The misconception which has haunted philosophic literature throughout the centuries is the notion of 'independent existence.' There is no such mode of existence; every entity is to be understood in terms of the way it is interwoven with the rest of the universe.”
― Alfred North Whitehead