Objects
in [Logic]
|
Prev: "CRUCIAL THEOREM IN THERMODYNAMICS
Next: Bending Time and Space: A Conclusive 1st Simple Counterexample Disproving Alan Turing's Claim The Diagonalization Argument Provides Proof the Halting Problem Cannot Be Solved.
From: bigfletch8 on 15 May 2010 02:28 On May 15, 5:17 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> writes: > > There are no physical objects that have properties. For example, we do > > not have a body, nor is an object heavy. > > > Rather, properties are a means of identifying one type of object, the > > physical object. The physical object behaves in a certain way, a way > > that is distinct from the behaviour of properties. > > > Thus, it follows that all physical objects are identical. For the > > mathematician or logician, it also follows that a function only > > establishes a relationship between variables when the variables are of a > > particular type. For example, the volume of a sphere is a function of > > (or is related to) the radius of a sphere only if the sphere is not > > physical. > > A long, long time ago, you came to the unfortunate conclusion that > philosophy was a game of absurdities. The more obviously stupid the > claim, the better the philosopher. > > Since then, you've worked hard to be the best philosopher in the > world. > > It's just a damned shame that you still don't know what philosophy is. Much philosophy is about the search. The observer can connect with a diverse variety of philosophical viewpoints and not be satisfied. Spirituality is about realizing answers. There are many who are caught between both levels. Pirsig (Zen and The Art of Moror Cycle Maintenance) was a good example of someone caugh betwixt and between. I see JJ in a similar position. Trying to dismantle one, to discover the other, when in fact they are examples of parallel realities. For those who dont know,Pirsig had a 'predictable' breakdown, trying to 'carry' one level to another. BOfL
From: bigfletch8 on 15 May 2010 02:39 On May 15, 6:53 am, "Jonathan" <Wr...(a)Instead.com> wrote: > "John Jones" <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:hsi6io$u5e$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > > There are no physical objects that have properties. For example, we do not > > have a body, nor is an object heavy. > > > Rather, properties are a means of identifying one type of object, the > > physical object. The physical object behaves in a certain way, a way that > > is distinct from the behaviour of properties. > > > Thus, it follows that all physical objects are identical. For the > > mathematician or logician, it also follows that a function only > > establishes a relationship between variables when the variables are of a > > particular type. For example, the volume of a sphere is a function of (or > > is related to) the radius of a sphere only if the sphere is not physical. > > "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, > as far > as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." > > Albert Einstein > > Math is just an attempt to simplify the complicated real world. > The greater the simplification, the more accurate the math. > Only reaching complete accuracy when finding the simplest > possible, which is farthest from reality possible. > > Implying of course that all questions of meaning are found > farthest from accuracy, farthest from objective scientific > methods as possible. At the most subjective and abstract. > > There is no such thing as an objective reality. As our perception > of reality is often the most powerful variable of all deciding the > the future of our surroundings. > > Since objective methods take us farthest from truth and > understanding, we must simply inverse the method. > Instead of a part detail driven method of deriving fundamental > laws, we use the output of the whole. We let the global > system behavior serve as our primary source of knowledge. > > And to be rigorous we must also begin with the most complex > systems the universe has to offer, not the simplest parts. > And we measure a systems behavior against it's possible behavior. > So in essence all things are compared to themselves, not other > things or independent yardstick. > . > This boils down to abstractly modeling the most complex systems > known, which are living systems. Called a complex adaptive > system, this new mathematics of complexity science is essentially > the abstract form of Darwinian evolution. In abstract form this > math applies as well to living systems, as it does to the less complex > ones such as physical systems. > > By rigorously inversing our method of understanding, we discover > that living systems best display the fundamental (system) properties > of the universe. Our fundamental laws are to be derived from > the most complex the universe has to offer, life. > Not the other way around, which is looking to the physical > universe first to understand higher order. > > A single mathematical language for all the real world > complex dynamic systems that exist, physical or > living. > > http://www.necsi.org/publications/dcs/ Do you not see the individual journey into mathematical objective understanding as inevitably mutating into the quantum or subjective realm? Was not Hawking demonstrating this when referring to 'imaginary time' beyond the event horizon? BOfL
From: jillarontown on 15 May 2010 03:29 Geometrical Optics is a topic of study which advances geometrical properties. Physical Optics is a field of study which advances general properties of light. They stand apart because they have respective findings of investigative properties. The preceding paragraph jettisons the volume of sphere analogy argument in the OP. Lets progress. Does light constitute a physical object? I think its physically real and not a mathematical nor theoretical entity. Is my logic wrong? regards, Vjillaris
From: John Jones on 15 May 2010 19:27 Mark Earnest wrote: > On May 13, 7:47 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> There are no physical objects that have properties. For example, we do >> not have a body, nor is an object heavy. >> >> Rather, properties are a means of identifying one type of object, the >> physical object. The physical object behaves in a certain way, a way >> that is distinct from the behaviour of properties. >> >> Thus, it follows that all physical objects are identical. For the >> mathematician or logician, it also follows that a function only >> establishes a relationship between variables when the variables are of a >> particular type. For example, the volume of a sphere is a function of >> (or is related to) the radius of a sphere only if the sphere is not >> physical. > > Even atoms have properties. Look at oxygen and hydrogen. > The whole entire ocean is their properties. > The ocean, a physical object, is identified through objects that are not physical.
From: John Jones on 15 May 2010 19:28
bigfletch8(a)gmail.com wrote: > On May 14, 5:25 pm, Mark Earnest <gmearn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On May 13, 7:47 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> >>> There are no physical objects that have properties. For example, we do >>> not have a body, nor is an object heavy. >>> Rather, properties are a means of identifying one type of object, the >>> physical object. The physical object behaves in a certain way, a way >>> that is distinct from the behaviour of properties. >>> Thus, it follows that all physical objects are identical. For the >>> mathematician or logician, it also follows that a function only >>> establishes a relationship between variables when the variables are of a >>> particular type. For example, the volume of a sphere is a function of >>> (or is related to) the radius of a sphere only if the sphere is not >>> physical. >> Even atoms have properties. Look at oxygen and hydrogen. >> The whole entire ocean is their properties. > > However you describe items, senses, even your physical makeup, all can > be reduced to energy, No. |