Monday, May 20, 2013

Neoteric Philosophy and Mathematics

Neoteric Philosophy and Mathematics

L. Edgar Otto  20 May, 2013

This post relating to a link on Dennet,

By neoteric I mean philosophy moved on past the post-modern age which from it preserves elements from past or learning stages of evolving concepts, as does some architectural contributions of post modern philosophy itself.

This concerns the recurring issue of how mathematics seems to describe the physical world and does so accurately or to greater degrees of finer definition  This then is a question of foundations, moreover the foundations of foundations.  We move, following Aristotle and trying to imagine the third lost book, what comes after metaphysics that follows physics as that not hidden somewhere but in the Greek tradition is the hallmark of science that brings out or decodes nature then puts it into a communicable system and form.

The third book of Aristotle we know was called Stereonometry which certainly suggests it is concerned with matters of space as foundation.  So geometry is considered a measuring, a counting and logical pattern system by which we feel of all analogies made with such reasoning these ring true.  Logic is part of the system of philosophy, but in what sense does our perception and ability to observe or reason depend on our equations of physics as mathematics or our logic symbols system in design?

For one thing I imagine beyond the felt shared need for consistency in a theory, in the unity or multiplicity of applications and occurrences  we have this core question of uniqueness.  If a consistent set of concepts or equations are sound and on some level or depth convincing as if the unquestionable answer sought for a general system of truth, of certainty that falls out from the chaos somewhere, we can still ask what grounds the uniqueness itself of such a consistent theory- in other words, are those equations and the logic of the underlying mathematics unique?

Our saints of physics from the past and their relevance in our times is not science that can stand only on wishes or relative cultural assertions and its stance for the hidden propaganda of our assumptions.  We as sensitive humans do respond to rumors, see in the growing tree of disease that which applies all or in part to ourselves or others, to those with natural parental authority who bring us sacred books telling us how to live in fine detail- that something they see is hidden within us.  Psychology in that sense is more an observation of possible human nature than a science and we probably should take its working advice that we comprehend the physical situation first.  But the physical by itself cannot resolve our questions on our psyches nor in what language method the poetry is relevant beyond the mechanics of meter and rhyme.

A presentation, including citing certain scientists and philosophers of the past, such as Motils discussion in his last two posts describing string theory or a more historical statistical development can in the bare bones of it read to me as empty or at least still having a long way to go to come to the state of comprehension I had decades ago.  What is new there really beyond say the researches of Coxeter? Indeed, it does not include in string theory all of his insights that should apply.  Sure, where it is understood it seems an authority and is an achievement of mastery but is it original as a creative enterprise and stands out as unique?

It may regard other traditions as "crackpot" standing on a theory that will win or break even according to simple rules on the whole, some game or theory that reduces things to a relativism of debate and war of which nothing can be certain as to what is the case of science hidden in the debate as if all hidden is our sense of the mysterious- the stuff of quantum mysticism- the symmetry of such cultural propaganda (and racial also for without a better logic and theory the common sense understanding of these last century issues can potentially recur in hidden forms that blinds us to better points we miss in each other and the predictions made on sensible grounds of the world we live in.)  From a higher generality what grounds such logic is not even empty but ongoing intrinsic violence where we all lose and maybe lose all.  Is there an objective existential condition of race or do we whitewash it (no pun intended)?

Is it in fact viable to legislate morality or manipulate the appearance of truth on by our high level language that forbids some form of words or speech of which the post modernist with their hardly comprehensible strings of words as equations think it can change our hearts fundamentally?

At the stage I am in now as far as mathematics from the information viewpoint something like Motil describes as his spiral string matrix idea (or whomever he cites in this time or in the past - usually Jewish as if they are at the top of the heap or bell curve as a power house of physics since the justified pride in one's race finds again a homeland), is very much something not deep enough to describe the physics of say the vague idea of intrinsic curvature of warps especially as discrete phenomena.  It is metaphysics looking for a meaningful stereonometry.  It does not unify the dimensions when it enters what seems a fundamentally mysterious space with surprising loops arising by default.

In fact, the otherwise liberal biased Public television network such as the Nova program on Neanderthal DNA would not place the Jewish race at the top of the bell curve (a system worked out by those of that race) with the Orientals next, then whites, then blacks at the bottom of the heap.  There are wave after wave of peoples leaving land masses as they spread over the earth-  Tuscany the highest concentration of 4% or so Neanderthal genes. If the intermarriage with Neanderthal gave future generations immunity say to some diseases prevalent among today's Jewish population (Barr) the bell curve can be read quite the reverse... European whites,  Orientals, Jews, and blacks again at the bottom of the statistical heap.  Let us not fancy that such statistics in our time is not the work of true crack-pottery that is a danger to the human landscape.\
At the very least in mixed migrations races mutate and persist... intelligence in the same race such as the American indians or the Maori may vary widely to the some norm.

Interestingly, as Einstein's observed if his theory right he would be called a German, if wrong a Jew...the Spanish and Arab populations went beyond the ancient dead languages of Hebrew and Greek and stand strong in intellect.  It is not the German contribution that is to be looked down upon in the Israeli state as to one by origins- the situation is reversed. The age of German-Jewish physics is over as the dominant age of such inquiry   It may be that in the challenges to those ideas original in Einstein that we cannot look objectively at them until we get past what in common sense bothers some as mere cultural cloaking.

I, of course still feel honored that Lubos made a comment that my ideas were even worse than crackpot- but like the character in the sit com I feel a little sorry for the situation and unlike him have hope that such powerful minds may live up to their encouragement unto aspirations.  But the philosopher or perhaps scientist in me dares asks why a fellow blogger feels this way ignoring hints of human arrogance or any politics involved (yet the global warming debate from both extreme sides seems to be very important as to what the actual science of the case can be) for he does perceive something possibly different my my view to consider.  Now would he be convinced if he could or would understand the deeper mathematics of my system as to patterns and so on, the binary?

Do we heed Einsteins advice we look to foundations only so deep but not go further?  Is it not evident in the spirit of it for a neoteric or  hybrid new modern physics (as already the case seems to be anyway in the equivalent descriptions of theories seeming radically different) that the multiplicity or strength of mathematical systems as hierarchical may have different degrees of power (in the unified holofraction quasifinite view) that our mathematics and even intuitive sacred senses of religion and philosophy may convince us that reality of theory and our formulas uniquely and ultimately match at least in the complexity we observe but reject a theory over haphazard experiments toward solutions in the complexity of our biochemical and genome systems.

Of course, intuitively, I still see that at whatever foundation I may not yet have grasped something deeper yet in our search for wisdom as life seems to move forward without necessary restrictions of its parameters while unaware of dangers in new levels facing it including those involving the indignity of appearances and outright mental lies.

* * * * *

No comments:

Post a Comment