The moment Godel made the distinction of Complete from incomplete, the
moment Heisenberg made the distinction of certain from uncertain, they both
demonstrated properties of the neurologically sourced METHOD of analysis,
namely applying dichotomies recursively.
The moment you assert X/~X, and then try to 'refine' this assertion when you
discover that things seem not to be so 'black and white', you entangle the
elements of the dichotomy such that you build-in uncertainty/incompleteness
as properties of the thing under analysis.
Quantum mechanics thinking can be shown to manifest the entanglement of
recursive dichotomous analysis combined with uncertainty where this
combination will show frequency distributions suggesting wave interference
patterns -- this as property of the METHOD and is applicable at ALL scales,
not just QM.
>From a neurological angle there is ONLY the distinction of object and
relationship. All else involves metonymy, analogy, and metaphorcation to
particularise object and/or relationship in context A to object and/or
relationship in context B.
Studies of autism, when combined with studies of 'primitive' lifeforms, e.g.
chicks, suggest that at less developed levels there is only ONE object and
the emphasis is on identifying aspects, differences relating to that object.
Further development, and so the 'normal' human, seems to include the
bifurcation of the 'one' concept to allow for the identification of many
'ones', i.e. OTHERS and from that a theory of mind that takes you beyond
gene-related stimulus/response.
The above mentioned metaphorcation process utilises emotion to emphasise
highs and lows where emotional resonance is the only way each member of the
species can share the same space with any other and so, to varying degree,
share the same meanings.
It is from this pool of emotion that emerges rich qualitative
identifications from poor ones but these are identifications reflect
harmonics analysis of 'the one' and as such are subjective with social
consensus 'refining' the identifications and in doing so objectifying them
such that when one is born into these identifications the identifications
seem to have a life of their own, they belong to no-one in particular (or
else are linked to myths).
All of these identifications that have lives of their own contain the same
METHODOLOGY that the individual as well as species uses .. thus mathematics
contains 'beauty' since beauty is something contained in the method of
analysis.
mathematics etc is like an idiot-savant, very single context, extremely
specialised and socially 'inept'. It resonates with 'out there' since it has
been developed using our methods of analysis, i.e. recursion of the
object/relationship distinction seemingly sourced in our neurological
function. Mathematics and all other disciplines are external memory par
excellance and as such contain 'us' and in doing so resonate with 'us'. But
since we are adaptions to our environment (if you believe in evolutionary
theory etc) so the adaption includes the internalisation of information
processing and from that meaningless information processing has developed a
qualitative element, a feedback process that we share with all others in the
species and with this comes the resonance of mathematics with 'out there'
but also comes indeterminacy in that in the world of one/many any attempt to
precisely pinpoint 'the one' will lead to elements of incompleteness as long
as you insist on a scientific determination (science needs negation to
survive and so dichotomisation, A/~A and so indeterminacy is a property). To
go beyond that, to assert the absolute 'one' requires absolute faith :-)
best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of PzEph
> Sent: Sunday, 26 November 2000 12:03
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD Inconsistency, Incompleteness and MetaMemeMapping.
>
>
> Riff,
>
> -perfectly possible to be in over your head even if you are "educated and
> stuff". And quite necessary to, for IMO. By the way, I absolutely HATE
> formal logic with a real passion, so I think I'll go to Hofstdater too in
> the hope of understanding what I just said to you on Godel. By the way -
> you mention heisenberg: you do know that there's an interesting
> Prisig essay
> on the philosophical aspects of Quantum Mechanics at the moq.org?
>
> All the best,
>
> Elephant, P.
>
>
<snip>..
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:51 BST