|
Author
|
Topic: T-Duality Universe
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 24. May 2003 01:22
In the past, I have really *grilled* teachers, professors, instructors... etc.
Chris Langan was well within his rights to ...*scold* me ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
There are no hard feelings.
As far as the "UBT" is concerned, it probably takes some advanced math.
If my interpretation from the various physics books is correct, configuration space refers to how the state of a system evolves in
time. This seems to be an ill-posed idea according to the various writings in general relativity, because the evolution is different for
different observers. Each object has its own measure of time. One must specify the gravitational field "all at once" throughout all of spacetime, then you can look at what any individual observer will measure.
Alternatively, you can choose some arbitrary slicing of spacetime into space and time. You can then ask how the geometry of space(not spacetime) evolves from slice to slice. This is the 3+1 or ADM formalism. The configuration space is the space of all spatial metrics(modulo diffeomorphisms). However, this process involves artificially slicing up spacetime, and so obscures the underlying spacetime geometry. If you canonically quantize the theory, you'll just get configuration variables which are quantum spatial geometries of space instead of classical spatial geometries. By extending the ADM
formalism, a refractive Euclidean "dual" formulation OF general relativity could be derived.
Or one can return to the spacetime perspective, and upon quantization, take path integrals instead of dealing with evolution in configuration
space.
But if we use our "imagination" why not employ "chaos theory"? Then time becomes an iteration function. Reality becomes a continual
embedding of future iterations of itself. The refractive Euclidean physics for an iterative nesting for circle of radius 1/R is equivalent to the the non-Euclidean continuous geometry of an expanding circle of radius R. The relativistic effects of length contraction and time dilation are actually rotational perspective effects. Why not also explain the effects of gravitational time dilation and length contraction as
rotational perspective effects? Acceleration is a rotation with respect to constant velocity. Acceleration and gravity have a type of
"equivalence".
To me this 1/R T-duality is an interesting diversion. An equivalent dual formulation of the
"big bang"
Russ
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 25. May 2003 21:26
A reply from Hooft 't G on the "Fractal Universe".
Nature is approximately fractal, not exactly fractal...
Very interesting...
From: "Hooft 't G."
To: "'Russell E. Rierson'"
Subject: RE: T-Duality?
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 00:00:15 +0200
Just a brief reply. The standard theory of general
relativity requires that one slices space-time up, and
the way it is done doesn't matter. Indeed, each slice
represents a space, not a space-time, and yes, this
obscures the geometry, but not in a fatal way.
When we try to quantize this, this procedure does lead
to difficulties, but again probably not fatal.
I don't believe `chaos' is the answer. Like when one
tries
to fill out a tax form: chaos is an option but not
likely
t be a successful one. Physicists are more ambitious
and
prefer real laws that tell us how things evolve.
Proponents of fractal theories of Nature often forget
that true fractals occur NOWHERE in physics.
Greetings,
G. 't H.
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 25. May 2003 22:30
Russell writes, As far as the "UBT" is concerned, it probably takes some advanced math.”
But Chris Langan says in his CTMU article that “unbound telesis or UBT” is “a primordial realm of infocognitive potential free of informational constraint.”
My understanding is that the UBT is something like the undifferentiated Tao from which the principle of yin/yang produces the manifested world, or the essential oneness of Hinduism from which the illusion of multiplicity arises: that is, the UBT itself has no specified or differentiated content - it is all potential - but content and information arise from the UBT according to further principles described in the CTMU theory.
Therefore, it is wrong to say that the UBT “probably takes some advanced math.” Although advanced math is needed to understand the manifested world, no math whatsoever applies to the UBT. The UBT is “free of informational constraint” and so math cannot be applied to it.
As the Taoists say, “the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao.” Likewise, “the UBT that needs advanced math is not the true UBT.”
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 26. May 2003 00:05
If reality can *self organize*, into a dualism represented by two juxtaposed quantities(TAO?), exactly what are the steps involved in this "self organization"? How can this pre-reality or pre-dualism exist?
Total chaos?
Really "nothing" could be defined as an equilibrium of every possible(infinite numbers of) permutation and combination of existence? It would be total chaos, which is a type of homogeneous zeroing out of the multiplicity of possibility. Quantum mechanically defined as an infinite number of intersecting wavefunctions. Waves that are in phase, are re-enforced. Waves that are 180 degrees out of phase, sum to zero. Certain waves are re-enforced. A complex self organizing system?
Advanced mathematics?
Russ
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 26. May 2003 23:53
There are some interesting ideas here. The ID connection (supposing that someone might be wondering if there is one) is that a fundamental question is where does the structure of the world come from, and why does that structure produce interesting and complex things? - and perhaps more centrally, does that structure contain within itself all that is necessary to produce the things that we recognize as signifying “intelligence,” or is intelligence agency something that must be additionally applied in order for certain parts of the world to become as they are. Dembski says the latter is true. Taoism / neo-Gnosticism / UBT / whatever you want to call this other view says not so.
Now to Russell’s post:
Russell writes,
quote:
If reality can *self organize*, into a dualism represented by two juxtaposed quantities(TAO?), exactly what are the steps involved in this "self organization"? How can this pre-reality or pre-dualism exist? Total chaos?
1) “How can this pre-reality or pre-dualism exist?” This is an unanswerable question, by definition and in practice. To ask it, much less try to answer it, is to try to apply specifics to the unspecified. Can’t be done.
2) It is a mistake to say that “reality can *self organize* into a dualism.” Reality is what exists after the duality manifests itself, but the Tao that does the manifesting is not reality. Similarly, it is not correct to say that the Tao “self-organizes.” The Tao doesn’t do anything - the Tao is not an actor.
It is certainly true that the world manifested by the Tao contains organizing principles, just as it contains disorganizing principles - that is one of the fundamental dualities. However, I’m not sure that the phrase “self-organizing” is appropriate, as that seems to imply a coherent and comprehensive “self” for the world that I don’t think the world has. The Tao is not a “self” behind the world, and the world is not a “self” either. Organizational principles pervade the world - witness the properties of the elemental particles and forces as well as the sophisticated interplay among them. From these principles flow the world that we experience, one which is orderly and structured and I would say “intelligent” (in a sense of the word befitting this view), but there is no overarching “self” tying together all the parts of the world. The world organizes, it is true, but it doesn’t “self-organize.”
3) Is the Tao “total chaos?” No. (Although the idea that chaos was the primordial state of the universe does have along history that goes back to Greek mythology.) The Tao (or UBT) is total undifferentiated potential, not total disorder. Disorder and order are again a fundamental duality that arises from the Tao. The Tao contains the potential for both order and disorder - if one wants to say that the Tao is total chaos one has to say that the Tao is also total order, for the Tao is both and neither.
Also, Russell writes,
quote:
Really "nothing" could be defined as an equilibrium of every possible(infinite numbers of) permutation and combination of existence? It would be total chaos, which is a type of homogeneous zeroing out of the multiplicity of possibility. Quantum mechanically defined as an infinite number of intersecting wavefunctions. Waves that are in phase, are re-enforced. Waves that are 180 degrees out of phase, sum to zero. Certain waves are re-enforced. A complex self organizing system? Advanced mathematics?
It may be that quantum phenomena reside at the interface between the Tao and the world, and that some of the properties you mention get us as close to the arising of duality as we are ever going to get. But the Tao is on the other side of the quantum curtain. Advanced mathematics applies to the world once the duality is manifested, but not before.
IP: Logged
|
|
David Garrett
Member
Member # 759
|
posted 27. May 2003 11:28
Evan,
You make some very good comments. Russ should keep in mind that any attempt to define UBT uses logical constraints. UBT is the absense of logical constraints. This just goes to show how powerful logic really is. We can use logic to understand something that is completely pre-logical.
quote:
It is certainly true that the world manifested by the Tao contains organizing principles, just as it contains disorganizing principles - that is one of the fundamental dualities. However, I’m not sure that the phrase “self-organizing” is appropriate, as that seems to imply a coherent and comprehensive “self” for the world that I don’t think the world has. The Tao is not a “self” behind the world, and the world is not a “self” either. Organizational principles pervade the world - witness the properties of the elemental particles and forces as well as the sophisticated interplay among them. From these principles flow the world that we experience, one which is orderly and structured and I would say “intelligent” (in a sense of the word befitting this view), but there is no overarching “self” tying together all the parts of the world. The world organizes, it is true, but it doesn’t “self-organize.”
I disagree with this assessment. Since reality is all there is. There is nothing outside of reality that can be called reality, otherwise it would be a part of reality (see CTMU Reality Principle). The only thing that can account for the organizing of reality is itself, i.e. self-organizing.
As far as reality being a unified self; SCSPL, M=R, MAP, and MU all point to a common medium that can be regarded as the unification of reality by a common "thing" - info-cognition.
quote:
As the Taoists say, “the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao.” Likewise, “the UBT that needs advanced math is not the true UBT.”
Excellent turn of phrase! I love it.
Dave
[ 27. May 2003, 11:29: Message edited by: David Garrett ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 27. May 2003 16:59
After browsing through some of the CMTU literature, and through this thread, I wonder whether the discussion is even well-defined any more.
My primary concern, I suppose, is that there may be no difference between what can be expressed about whatever is primordial, be it UBT, Tao, or some other inherently apparently incomprehensible and undefined starting point.
What is the distinction between "a primordial realm of infocognitive potential free of informational constraint" and "meaningless, incomprehensible, and indescribable"? Sure, we can put the phrases down on paper, and they're made up of different words, but can we say anything about UBT other than that any statement made about it may be true, false, both, neither, and/or paradoxical, including this one? It is precisely constraint that makes language meaningful--and by saying something is unconstrained, we are indeed constraining it to not be constrained. But this is paradoxical; and suggests that we cannot say anything meaningful about UBT or whatever-it-is.
And if as I suspect we inherently can't meaningfully talk about it, why are we trying to meaningfully talk about it?
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 27. May 2003 22:57
Dave agrees with some of what I wrote and disagrees with some. That’s good - the sign of a genuine discussion.
Dave writes in response to my objections to using the phrase “self-organizing” to the world as a whole,
quote:
I disagree with this assessment. Since reality is all there is. There is nothing outside of reality that can be called reality, otherwise it would be a part of reality (see CTMU Reality Principle). The only thing that can account for the organizing of reality is itself, i.e. self-organizing.
But the Tao/UBT is potentiality, not actuality, and thus lies outside of reality. Of course one can define “reality” to mean “everything whatsoever” and circumvent this distinction, but at least in Taoism there is a distinction between being - what is, and the Tao which is the ground and source of being (as well as, of course, of non-being.) So I think it’s appropriate to say that the source of the organizing principles is the Tao, which is beyond reality, but the actual organizing takes place within reality as the principles play them selves out in the world.
David also writes, in response to my objections to applying the word “self” to the world as a whole,
quote:
As far as reality being a unified self; SCSPL, M=R, MAP, and MU all point to a common medium that can be regarded as the unification of reality by a common "thing" - info-cognition.
I don’t really know what all those acronyms mean, but I do think that even if one legitimately identifies a “common medium” that unifies all of reality that doesn’t mean that applying the word “self” to that medium is appropriate. This is hard to describe, but I take “self” to be a centralized concept implying a comprehensive and unified interest in the overall arena to which the “self” applies. “Self” seems to imply an “entity-hood” that I don’t think that world has as a whole.
One way to think of this is to distinguish local from global action. Local action is decentralized, and whatever larger structures emerge from the conglomeration of localized action are emergent properties that arise from the organizational properties of structure. On the other hand, global action is centralized and can reach out and simultaneous effect multiple events and entities for common cause. If the universe acted in this latter way, then perhaps the word “self” would apply. But the view being offered here is that the universe is maximally decentralized - the principles and potentials that arise from the Tao are pervasively present in every moment and every place, and as each infinitesimal point of space-time exercises its being, organization happens.* No “self” is involved.
* (And of course, at times disorganization happens, too - all properties manifest themselves as complementary dualities.)
===================================================
And now I would like to comment on Rex’s post.
Rex asks,
quote:
My primary concern, I suppose, is that there may be no difference between what can be expressed about whatever is primordial, be it UBT, Tao, or some other inherently apparently incomprehensible and undefined starting point.
... Can we say anything about UBT other than that any statement made about it may be true, false, both, neither, and/or paradoxical, including this one? ... But this is paradoxical; and suggests that we cannot say anything meaningful about UBT or whatever-it-is.
And if as I suspect we inherently can't meaningfully talk about it, why are we trying to meaningfully talk about it?
This is a very good question. My motivation, for what it’s worth, is partly to explore the boundary between science, on the one hand, and metaphysics (which includes theology and religion) on the other.
The Tao is not a scientific idea. It can’t be proven to exist - in fact as Rex points out, we can’t really say anything about it at all. However, in Taoism the point of reflecting on the Tao is not to come to any understanding that we would label “scientific,” but rather to transcend that part of our mind and being that wants to be scientific. The Tao is ultimately a spiritual idea which represents what direct experience of the world is like when one can free oneself of the analytical compartmentalizing that is epitomized in scientific knowledge.
I recently listened to Richard Freeman’s booktape on “The Yoga Matrix” - the word “matrix” here being used to refer to the fundamental “mother” or “nest” of ideas that runs through all of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism. I would like to have the exact quote, but I don’t, but one thing Freeman said was that the purpose of meditation (and yoga in general) is to free the mind from interpreting experience through the lens of our theories - to instead directly experience reality without categorizing or hypothesizing or any of the other things we normally associate with science in the very broadest sense of the word.
So from this point of view, science and the Tao are at opposite ends of a spectrum. Science seeks to create a knowledge of parts that can be shared and verified universally, while knowledge of the Tao is a spiritual quest to comprehend the world as a whole, just as it is; and this must be done by the individual alone.
How is this pertinent to ID?
Well, I see three different approaches to this boundary issue going on here at ISCID. The view I am espousing here (which I believe has a Christian counterpart) is that science is limited in what it can discover about reality, but that each individual has further knowledge needs which must be investigated internally in ways that fall outside of science. In this view, the “intelligence” of the world is built in - not by any “body” but rather by the nature of the Tao behind the world. This is an article of faith, no doubt, but it supports the contention that the world science can study is complete and self-consistent and not in need of any explanations external to itself.
This is is direct contradistinction to Dembski’s claim that natural processes are insufficient to account for all we see in nature, and that the activity of some external intelligence is must be included in our scientific descriptions. Dembski’s ID claims that this design is detectable, and that some things are designed in ways that other are not. The Taoist explanation would never make a claim such as this, either as to detectability or the demarcation between “intelligently designed” and not.
A third approach seems to exist in Langan’s CTMU: one in which somehow logical principles cross the boundary from the indescribable UBT to the structure of the world and somehow make the world we live logically inevitable. However, frankly, I don’t understand Langan’s theory and have yet to connect any part of it to what I consider scientific knowledge. But that’s not really very important, partially because I haven’t tried too hard and partly because I prefer writing that is more straightforward and clear.
I am open to the approach, however, of trying to find ways to explain how the organizing principles come into the world. So here’s the quick summary:
Taoism: organization happens, but its source is all pervasive and cannot be isolated from the manifestations we study in science.
Dembski ID: organization is at times imposed upon nature from an external intelligence.
CTMU: organization happens because of logical imperatives: we can theory understand logically, and thus scientifically, why organization happens.
============================
Enough rambling - too long of a post, but I’m going out of town for the week so I thought I’d have some fun before I go.
[ 27. May 2003, 22:58: Message edited by: Evan ]
IP: Logged
|
|
jasonyoung
Member
Member # 432
|
posted 28. May 2003 02:28
quote:
but at least in Taoism there is a distinction between being - what is, and the Tao which is the ground and source of being (as well as, of course, of non-being.)
There's a distinction made in Christopher Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, too, which has already been explained. We can, and in fact must, think of Unbound Telesis as the logical generality from which reality restrictively configures itself by selecting its own constraints. Reality distinguishes "that which is real" (being) from "that which is not real" (non-being) through this dynamic self-selection process.
What one has to remember is that the UBT hasn't any constraint of its own and, for this reason, cannot impose limitations upon reality. Reality, as a unified entity, actuates its own structure by selecting its constraints and limitations from this primordial realm of 'info-cognitive' potential.
quote:
So I think it’s appropriate to say that the source of the organizing principles is the Tao
The UBT is the logical generality containing ('encompassing'?) both 'that which is real' and 'that which is not real', or 'being' and 'non-being' in the parlance of Taoism. It is a pre-logical realm of undifferentiated info-cognitive potential that has absolutely no constraints and thus has no structure or organization. Reality, through (as noted above) a dynamic self-selection process, creates its own constraints, structure, and organizational principles by binding itself from the UBT. Assuming this interpretation of the CTMU is the correct one, it isn't difficult to see why Dave chose to identify the source of reality's organization as reality iself.
quote:
and as each infinitesimal point of space-time exercises its being, organization happens.* No “self” is involved.
The "infinitesimal points of space-time" need a "common-medium" or "syntax" that allows them to interact with one another so as to form a logically co-herent reality. The "common medium" of the CTMU is the SCSPL (Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language). Global unity (sameness) is maintained and local differentiation allowed by this medium. For details, consult Langan's paper directly.
Regards,
-JY
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 28. May 2003 02:48
Quote Evan:
quote:
1) “How can this pre-reality or pre-dualism exist?” This is an unanswerable question, by definition and in practice. To ask it, much less try to answer it, is to try to apply specifics to the unspecified. Can’t be done.
Then the "TAO" or some other concept such as UBT must be accepted by faith. There is no possible way to verify ..."IT"
Are you saying that since reality exists, there must be an ultimate causal factor, which cannot be defined? since TAO-UBT is everything, anything, and nothing. To say that the TAO or the UBT is *not-reality* is incorrect, since it is undefinable it could be anything. 2-valued Aristotelian logic does not apply to ..."IT"?
quote:
2) It is a mistake to say that “reality can *self organize* into a dualism.” Reality is what exists after the duality manifests itself, but the Tao that does the manifesting is not reality. Similarly, it is not correct to say that the Tao “self-organizes.” The Tao doesn’t do anything - the Tao is not an actor.
Since the TAO is undefinable, there is no way to postulate its dynamics or non-dynamics?
quote:
It is certainly true that the world manifested by the Tao contains organizing principles, just as it contains disorganizing principles - that is one of the fundamental dualities. However, I’m not sure that the phrase “self-organizing” is appropriate, as that seems to imply a coherent and comprehensive “self” for the world that I don’t think the world has. The Tao is not a “self” behind the world, and the world is not a “self” either. Organizational principles pervade the world - witness the properties of the elemental particles and forces as well as the sophisticated interplay among them. From these principles flow the world that we experience, one which is orderly and structured and I would say “intelligent” (in a sense of the word befitting this view), but there is no overarching “self” tying together all the parts of the world. The world organizes, it is true, but it doesn’t “self-organize.”
If the world has no "overarching self" or no continuous connection between all of its differentiated parts, or does not "tie together", then are you saying that the world is fundamentally disconnected from itself? Are you saying that the fundamental laws of our "organizing reality" are some type of disconnected illusion?
The fundamental laws appear to tie the differentiated parts together quite nicely.
quote:
3) Is the Tao “total chaos?” No. (Although the idea that chaos was the primordial state of the universe does have along history that goes back to Greek mythology.) The Tao (or UBT) is total undifferentiated potential, not total disorder. Disorder and order are again a fundamental duality that arises from the Tao. The Tao contains the potential for both order and disorder - if one wants to say that the Tao is total chaos one has to say that the Tao is also total order, for the Tao is both and neither.
Yes, I must agree that the TAO is both total chaos and total order, and niether of these two. A many valued logic. A realm of infinite potential. Infinite symmetry. Many valued logic = advanced mathematics.
Quote David Garrett:
quote:
You make some very good comments. Russ should keep in mind that any attempt to define UBT uses logical constraints. UBT is the absense of logical constraints. This just goes to show how powerful logic really is. We can use logic to understand something that is completely pre-logical.
Since UBT cannot be defined, then how can we know with absolute certainty, that UBT is totally without constraint? UBT could be anything and everything, or total nothingness? ...Jargonizing will not help It could be a many valued logic?
Logic that has no constriants and also has constraints. Infinite possibility. Total chaos.
quote:
Since reality is all there is. There is nothing outside of reality that can be called reality, otherwise it would be a part of reality (see CTMU Reality Principle). The only thing that can account for the organizing of reality is itself, i.e. self-organizing.
Is UBT outside of reality? If UBT is undefined then it cannot be called "not-real".
On the other hand could the ...UBT, be an infinitely symmetrical medium of containment?
The laws of physics are explained by symmetry. Thus, there would be no need to have a level of explanation disconnected from another part OF the explanation
Russ
[ 28. May 2003, 02:52: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
jasonyoung
Member
Member # 432
|
posted 28. May 2003 03:04
"2-valued Aristotelian logic does not apply to ..."IT"?"
Au contraire, Russ: two-valued logic itself is what allows us to "infer" the existence of the UBT.
The UBT is the logical generality which allows for the differentiation of "yes" and "no", or "that which is real" and "that which is not real". Without it, constraint and structure couldn't exist for reasons which I will assume are obvious.
"A many valued logic. A realm of infinite potential. Infinite symmetry. Many valued logic = advanced mathematics."
a) The basis of many-valued logic is two-valued logic. You cannot have the former without the latter and thus we should speak of the latter when discussing reality at its most general level;
b) The TAO and the UBT are NOT "total chaos" and "total order": they are pre-conceptual and thus analytically intractable.
"Since UBT cannot be defined, then how can we know with absolute certainty, that UBT is totally without constraint?"
*looks confused* Are you being facetious? If no, I'll answer it, but I want confirmation in advance.
Regards,
JY
[ 28. May 2003, 03:05: Message edited by: jasonyoung ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 28. May 2003 04:12
Jason Young:
quote:
"2-valued Aristotelian logic does not apply to ..."IT"?"
Au contraire, Russ: two-valued logic itself is what allows us to "infer" the existence of the UBT.
Interesting... So there is an ultimate explanation, the fundamental "stuff" of reality, but, this undefined *inference* is disconnected from another aspect of "ITSELF". OK, I agree that when a distinction is made, yes, the 2-valued logic of Aristotle is required. Yet, the UBT of the CTMU is not quantifiable in the Aristotelian sense. To say that UBT is *unreal* is a misnomer, because "IT" cannot be defined. All that we can "infer" is that a cause and effect relationship exists FOR our reality.
quote:
The UBT is the logical generality which allows for the differentiation of "yes" and "no", or "that which is real" and "that which is not real". Without it, constraint and structure couldn't exist for reasons which I will assume are obvious.
Then you agree that this undifferentiated potential(UBT) is a generalization. Thanks Generalizations contain the more specific levels of definition. The generalization is not separated from its more specific principles.
quote:
"A many valued logic. A realm of infinite potential. Infinite symmetry. Many valued logic = advanced mathematics."
a) The basis of many-valued logic is two-valued logic. You cannot have the former without the latter and thus we should speak of the latter when discussing reality at its most general level;
Actually the law of excluded middle is an invariance principle. A mathematical symmetry.
An infinite? valued logic, such as the UBT, would be totally independent of 2-valued logic constraints, as everyone keeps telling me. So if UBT is independent of 2-valued logic, many(higher) valued logic, is independent of 2-valued logic.
quote:
b) The TAO and the UBT are NOT "total chaos" and "total order": they are pre-conceptual and thus analytically intractable.
If what you say is true, then UBT means *nothing* as far as explanation is concerned. First you say that UBT can be logically inferred, now you say that UBT is analytically intractable???
OK...
quote:
"Since UBT cannot be defined, then how can we know with absolute certainty, that UBT is totally without constraint?"
*looks confused* Are you being facetious? If no, I'll answer it, but I want confirmation in advance.
Regards,
JY
"Cannot be defined" means no definition applies.
To define this unquanifiable medium as that which knows no constraint, is to attatch a definition.
UBT cannot be defined. = This sentence is false.
True or False ?
Russ
IP: Logged
|
|
David Garrett
Member
Member # 759
|
posted 28. May 2003 09:48
quote:
An infinite? valued logic, such as the UBT, would be totally independent of 2-valued logic constraints, as everyone keeps telling me. So if UBT is independent of 2-valued logic, many(higher) valued logic, is independent of 2-valued logic.
You got it backwards Russ. many-valued logic requires more logical constraints. If you strip away the contraints you go from: many-valued -> 2-valued -> 1-valued logic. UBT would be 1-valued logic which would be "undefinable" to itself. But we reside in actualized reality where 2-valued logic is the base. So, when we speak of UBT we "define" it based on our logical constraints. The power of logic can infer the nature of UBT.
Everyone must keep in mind that there is a distinction here between potential and actual. UBT is a realm of potential and to speak of its existence is to speak of it in terms of actualization. That is why existence is dualized from it. Once reality/non-reality are dualized from UBT they become actualized. And of course, this 2-valued logic of reality/non-reality self-actualize through telic recursion.
Dave
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 28. May 2003 12:45
quote:
You got it backwards Russ. many-valued logic requires more logical constraints. If you strip away the contraints you go from: many-valued -> 2-valued -> 1-valued logic. UBT would be 1-valued logic which would be "undefinable" to itself. But we reside in actualized reality where 2-valued logic is the base. So, when we speak of UBT we "define" it based on our logical constraints. The power of logic can infer the nature of UBT.
Everyone must keep in mind that there is a distinction here between potential and actual. UBT is a realm of potential and to speak of its existence is to speak of it in terms of actualization. That is why existence is dualized from it. Once reality/non-reality are dualized from UBT they become actualized. And of course, this 2-valued logic of reality/non-reality self-actualize through telic recursion.
Dave
I greatly admire your respect for the parsimony of 2-valued logic Dave, but alas, it appears that the world is not so simple.
Anything that is real, "exists". Anything that is not real "does not exist".
You say that the UBT is not real. Reality is distinct FROM the ...UBT.
UBT does not exist.
Yet, potential IS real. Therefore, UBT cannot be distinct from reality. Thus, we must conclude that the UBT ...DOES exist.
In other words, the 2-valued logic of Aristotle, as appealing as it may be, cannot be used to describe ..."IT".
Two statements Dave, which one is true?
UBT exists.
UBT does not exist.
This requires a many(infinite?) valued logic...
Russ
ps. One small clarification. If the general contains the "specific, and the UBT is the highest level of generalization, as Chris Langan has explained, then UBT must be an "infinite valued logic" not a 1-valued logic as Dave says, because 2-valued logic is more general i.e. it has more *freedom* than 1-valued logic. Likewise all n-valued logic, with n > 2, is more general than good ol' 2-valued logic. UBT is an infinite valued logic and this must require some type of transfinite analysis?
[ 28. May 2003, 14:09: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
David Garrett
Member
Member # 759
|
posted 28. May 2003 15:05
Russ, Russ, Russ, why is it so hard for you to grasp this?
quote:
I greatly admire your respect for the parsimony of 2-valued logic Dave, but alas, it appears that the world is not so simple.
Anything that is real, "exists". Anything that is not real "does not exist".
This is a statement of 2VL!
quote:
You say that the UBT is not real. Reality is distinct FROM the ...UBT.
UBT does not exist.
No Russ, UBT exists as potential but not as actual. You need to keep this in mind.
quote:
Yet, potential IS real. Therefore, UBT cannot be distinct from reality. Thus, we must conclude that the UBT ...DOES exist.
In other words, the 2-valued logic of Aristotle, as appealing as it may be, cannot be used to describe ..."IT".
I agree as long as you acknowledge that its existence is as potential and NOT actual.
quote:
Two statements Dave, which one is true?
UBT exists.
UBT does not exist.
You are trying to use 2VL again...
quote:
This requires a many(infinite?) valued logic...
Russ
ps. One small clarification. If the general contains the "specific, and the UBT is the highest level of generalization, as Chris Langan has explained, then UBT must be an "infinite valued logic" not a 1-valued logic as Dave says, because 2-valued logic is more general i.e. it has more *freedom* than 1-valued logic. Likewise all n-valued logic, with n > 2, is more general than good ol' 2-valued logic. UBT is an infinite valued logic and this must require some type of transfinite analysis?
No, when you strip away logical constraints you arrive at 1VL which cannot be comparative. This might as well be 0VL for all intents and purposes. Since this is potential that we are talking about there is an inverse relation between actual and potential. We are stripping away the logical constraints of the actual so the potential goes towards infinity. UBT is thus NO logical constraints and infinite potential.
Dave
P.S. If I can't help you understand then let me point you to a thread on Mega where Chris discusses this:
Topic: Heisenburg Uncertainty the Universe Must Expand
Conf: CTMU & Related Topics - Members and Subscribers
From: Chris Langan
Date: Saturday, April 20, 2002 03:59 PM
and in a related post (towards the end):
Topic: The CTMU in a nutshell- 14 key ideas and critique
Conf: CTMU & Related Topics - Members and Subscribers
From: Chris Langan
Date: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 04:35 AM
[ 28. May 2003, 15:06: Message edited by: David Garrett ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic