False & True Philosophical Utopias...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Peirce's Classification of The Sciences...

Here's Peirce's complete classification list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classif...iences_(Peirce)
I'll much later have a post about his categories with 5 graphics of my own updated additions...

Wiki's giving trouble with this address, so if you chase it through this link to the others, you can find the full page of categories, after a while...

Here's what the page should look like after scrolling down_it's actually 4 more of these graphics long:

Categories of thought are actually the most important aspect of scientific method development. I'll have much more to say on this subject in later posts...

BTW, Peirce was the last person to thoroughly classify the sciences, metaphysics and experiences...

[SB_UK]

Peirce's Classification of The Sciences...

Here's Peirce's complete classification list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_the_sciences_(Peirce)
I'll much later have a post about his categories with 5 graphics of my own updated additions...

Wiki's giving trouble with this address, so if you chase it through this link to the others, you can find the full page of categories, after a while...

'enemies'

Marconi and Tesla
Newton and Leibniz
Einstein and Bohr

I wonder whether there are more competitively opposing - rather than collaboratively assisting dualities which arise in the history of philosophy, mathematics and science.

'friends'

Penrose Hawking
Bohm Krishnamurti
Bohm Pribram
Einstein Bose

[plucked out of the air]

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Let's try the collaborative ones, and as triads, instead of dyads; Ibn Sina <--> Boole <--> Peirce, etc., etc., etc....

Tis always wiser to find the collaborative attributes of all personalities(friendly elements), than the opposing(enemies) attributes__That's why inverse conflexivity is so handy...

"Do not block the path of discovery." C.S.Peirce

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Eclecticism__A Scientific Probability Method...

"“Eclecticism” is a name given to a group of ancient philosophers who, from the existing philosophical beliefs, tried to select the doctrines that seemed to them most reasonable, and out of these constructed a new system (see Diogenes Laertius, 21). The name was first generally used in the first century BCE. Stoicism and Epicureanism had made the search for pure truth subordinate to the attainment of practical virtue and happiness. Skepticism had denied that pure truth was possible to discover. Eclecticism sought to reach by selection the highest possible degree of probability, in the despair of attaining to what is absolutely true. In Greek philosophy, the best known Eclectics were the Stoics Panaetius (150 BCE.) and Posidonius (75 BCE.). The New Academic, Carnaedes (155 BCE.), and Philo of Larissa (75 BCE.). Among the Romans, Cicero, whose cast of mind made him always doubtful and uncertain of his own attitude, was thoroughly eclectic, uniting the Peripatetic, Stoic, and New Academic doctrines, and seeking the probable (illud probabile). The same general line was followed by Varro, and in the next century the Stoic Seneca propounded a philosophical system largely based on eclecticism." Author unknown

A note just to let everybody know the method of thought, I'm most often using...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Method #1. __ What’s Not Yet Known & What’s Not Knowable…

Since stating in the original post of this thread, I’d be relaying a complete philosophical system, over the next six months, I feel the first and most important method of any system should be to discuss the unknowns and unknowables, as that’s how I was taught by gramps and dad. In order to make this as simple as possible I’m using this basic graphic of ‘The Einstein Gulf’:




downloaded from Dr. John W. Oller’s paper at: http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-327.pdf

I’d also like to use the dynamics of this graphic:




From P.Bourdieu’s work.

Few probably realize Einstein deeply studied America’s major pragmatists, in the `40’s, including a great deal of C.S.Peirce’s science methods and epistemology, and also expressed the huge gaps in knowledge between what is known and knowable, and what is not__plus the fact this gulf in our knowledge capacities actually exists. He expressed it as per the first diagram above, as near as my fact finding tells. Bourdieu also studied Peirce’s work indirectly through many others of his contemporaries, and produced the above diagram of a triadic knowledge interpretation system, most identical to Peirce’s, within the brain/mind/perception/cognition system. I have several more diagrams showing similar and expanded results from others, also, but for now let’s just stick with these basics.

Many are under the false assumption that all things are, at some point in the future, knowable, if not known already. Others are under the other false assumption that things that are known and knowable, are not knowable at all_ever. Both of these positions are false and easily provably false. As I’ve already mentioned by question, “Is there an even or odd number of stars in the universe?”, is quite reasonably un-answerable by any sound mind, which is only one of 1000’s of impossible questions to answer, either by scientists or metaphysicians. “What is a photon made of?”, is one many people think they can answer, but just think about it__How can anyone truly answer this question, when we’ve really never seen a single photon, other than measuring the effects on sensor screens as light quanta hit, or absorption by other particles, x-ray photographed in accelerators, etc.? And there’s the real quandary_quanta__“How many photons are in a quantum of light?” This is really still an open question, as individual photons come in all sizes and packet quantities. The smallest photons may, I say may, be entirely beyond our measurement capacities, forever_I don’t know, and neither do any of the physicists, if they be thoroughly honest. So, ‘iff’ photons may be so small we may never be able to measure the exact smallest/shortest wavelength, or longest wavelength, as the longest may truly be the smallest, since they’re the weakest, but we can’t measure either their rest or relative mass, until they are absorbed by another matter particle, then; “How many are truly absorbed, and even theoretically measurable?”­__another open question__The zero mass knowledge gap. We haven’t even truly and fully answered either Aether, MM or EPR yet__they’re all still open questions to many of the minds of the world’s best physicists__and gravity?__many open questions still remain__and quantum to relative field mechanics? Big gaps in the maths' isomorphisms...

So what does this last paragraph have to say to the other side of the debate, our non-believers of science? Tis true, there are many things science can’t name and measure, but there are also many things science can truly name and measure__and here is where the debate centers, of this side of reality. You know, I wonder if the non-scientific-believing side would accept more science if it were possible to prove some validity of their metaphysical side of the issues? I’m willing to bet they would, so let’s try something that many have never realized before. I’ll premise this by a simple question__How does a regular or digital camera work? And, do the photons of nature, in this camera’s process, work any differently than the photons sending/receiving/storing actions of information in our brains/minds? We point a camera and snap the lense_bingo_picture on film or digital media__True enough. We point our eyes and close and open the lids_bingo_picture enters perception/conception and finally stores in permanent memory__True enough. Is this a major part of the missing gap in epistemological knowledge, as so aptly diagramed above in Einstein’s Gulf? And is this esthetic imaging/movie picture process of our brains/minds the actual bridge between the concrete and abstract world’s, delivered by our simple photons? And is it truly more in picture/visual form; more than in language form__And I do mean primarily/fundamentally? Oh, don’t get me wrong, it takes the ‘Intelligence Bridge’, manifested in language, between the undifferentiated concrete material continuum, and the articulated world of abstract representations, to fully relay this information to another, but to ourselves_it’s entirely self contained as visual images, until we start talking internally to ourselves_the internal dialectic of reason/logic in relation to set beliefs, based on our visual images, sent entirely to us by the little magic photons__No? I quite think so. Now, is that enough for the metaphysical side to possibly start realizing science may have something to offer them also? Maybe…

We all know photons exist, and carry kinetic energy, but, “What are they made of?” “Space?” “What is space made of?” “Aether?” “What is aether made of?” “Space?” And around in circles we go! The true photon’s fundamental substance is still an open mystery__I like mysteries__It adds to the real metaphysics…

Later graphics and ideas will greatly fill in many missing facts of the above. Future Idea_Convergent and divergent kinetic actions in quantum and sub-quantum chemistry/biology__The inanimate to animate life problem? In order not to make this post any longer, I’ll end here for now…

[racecar]

What do blind people see? My cousin is blind, but wasn't born blind.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

What do blind people see? My cousin is blind, but wasn't born blind.

Hi Val, and sorry to hear about your cousin, but he/she would be sensing photonic electrical chemical action with internal perception. Perception encapsules all our senses and feelings. Also since he/she wasn't born blind, and if she/he had his/her vision to remembrance age, he'd/she'd still see with his/her mind's eyes' perception, from that long ago memory. He/she also sees all his/her imaginings, epiphanies, metaphors, intuitive visions, and if I keep thinking maybe much more, unless that particular part of the perception canal(ventral, dorsal) and network were damaged, then much less...

[racecar]

Thank you, Lloyd. I'm having a terrific adventure with this thread!

[SB_UK]

~

Certainly is.

from Antonio Lao's thread axis-pole -
we can replace the bridge over the gulf in Figure 2 with a more~intuitive~structure (which does rather looky likey bridgum)



------------------
----------\---/---\
-----------\-/--\-\
------------\--\\-\
-




Hilbert's metalevel comin' through == the epistemic relation (from the other Figure 1)

~*~

The structure (Hilbert's metalevel) which holds together the duals of concrete and abstract ideas in Figures 1 and 2 above, is the same as the substrate which underlies quantum physics
- is a (pretty darned 'spooky') wave bearing orthogonal relationship to that 'founding' (first level of an abstraction layer) duality

Term abstraction layer eminently suitable -
founded upon a pretty darned 'spooky' unknowable real layer as it is

Good post.

We're left with a rather jolly simple Theory of Everything.



scr*w the bear's stole the scoop.

[SB_UK]

one~creator
one~mind
one~substrate

provably (using logical model)

as
just

o~n~e

muahahahaaaaaaaaaa!