East Meets West Logic...

[Graybeard]

G = åf/f * Õf = åUF

Here is a formula for form follows function__this is the universal formula for a theory of genericity, of interpreting all parts and the whole, without losing any meaning, or creating undue complexity…

It reads; ‘Genericity’ equals the sum of all functions, divided by all functions(differentiation), times the product of all functions(integrality), equals the sum of the Universal Form(Totality)…

This formula applies to everything in A Universe__It is ‘The Genericity Law of Form Follows Function’, expressed universally mathematically…

Lloyd ..... may I ask where the formula came from ??

greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Greg, let me see if I can remember... Really, it was a compilation of ideas I and just about everyone posting back and forth with me over the last few weeks, self-others-achieved. It really started forming in my mind nearly forty years ago. I always asked myself, over and over, how would one represent the world of communication, first as a general question, then as a mathematical formula/equation? So, the more I think about where it came from, the more I realize it's truly been a long time forming. To make a long story short, and as you know, I'm always thinking about fundamental conceptual logic, and the other night, after all the foolish debate with Pat anf Fredrick, my mind just drifted into those old areas of investigation, and it just fell into place. Of course as usual, it came in small bits, but I was able to assemble the pieces, at about three in the morning. I actually jumped out of bed and wrote it down, before my mind lost track of the ideas. It's really just the end result of forty years of study and thought...

A lot of it's to do with C.S. Peirce's logics and maths, as he was the first to extend functions and products of Boolean logic. It's basically the 'pragmatic maxim' in math, or at least another perspectival view of pragmatism, which should actually be defined thus: “[Pragmatism] is not a system of philosophy. It is only a method of thinking; and your correspondent, Giuliano il Sofista [the pseudonym of his opponent Giuseppe Prezzolini in Leonardo], is quite right in saying that it is not a new way of thinking”. C.P. I've been working on fully understanding all Peirce's logics and maths for years...

That's really it, the formula is mine... The word 'genericity' is from Peirce...

Lloyd ..... may I ask where the formula came from ??

greg

[Graybeard]

G = åf/f * Õf = åUF

Thanks Lloyd.

I know that both yourself and Leskey support the axiom that form follows function.

And .... generally speaking in day to day human events where conscious decision is at work ... then it makes absolute sense.

But in Evolution (my interpretation) function follows form. What I mean is that as mutations are random, then a purpose or 'fit' for them is only found afterwards. Feathers were not meant for flying as an example. (No need to shout here ... just my opinion)

But thats not my point ..... my real question is: Can the formula be algebraically manipulated to show this ... I have been trying but so far no luck .... if , a big IF, it is possible that the one formula , by manipulation, can show both .... form follows function & function follows form .... then perhaps we have a connection between animate and inanimate ??? just perhaps only ??

I am taking tha 'a' and the 'O' to be the sigma function ??

cool bananas ... greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

You know, it's really funny you should bring up the dichotomy between logic and reason's seeming contradictions, as I just happened to look up antinomies for about the tenth time today. This is the old problem of there being a seeming contradiction between areas of logical and reasoning thoughts in differing fields. To further discuss this I think it best to read this:

Antinomy (Greek αντι-, against, plus νομος, law) literally means the mutual incompatibility, real or apparent, of two laws. It is a term used in logic and epistemology.
The term acquired a special significance in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who used it to describe the equally rational but contradictory results of applying to the universe of pure thought the categories or criteria of reason proper to the universe of sensible perception or experience (phenomena). Empirical reason cannot here play the role of establishing rational truths because it goes beyond possible experience and is applied to the sphere of that which transcends it.


For Kant there are four antinomies connected with

1. the limitation of the universe in respect of space and time,
2. the theory that the whole consists of indivisible atoms (whereas, in fact, none such exist),
3. the problem of free will in relation to universal causality
4. the existence of a necessary being

about each of which pure reason contradicts the empirical, as thesis and antithesis. This was part of Kant's critical program of determining limits to science and philosophical inquiry. Kant claimed to solve these contradictions by saying, that in no case is the contradiction real, however really it has been intended by the opposing partisans, or must appear to the mind without critical enlightenment. It is wrong, therefore, to impute to Kant, as is often done, the view that human reason is, on ultimate subjects, at war with itself, in the sense of being impelled by equally strong arguments towards alternatives contradictory of each other. The difficulty arises from a confusion between the spheres of phenomena and noumena. In fact no rational cosmology is possible.
It can also be argued that antinomies do not highlight limitations in the power of logical reasoning. This is because the conclusion that there is a limitation is (supposedly) derived from the antinomy by logical reasoning; therefore any limitation in the validity of logical reasoning imposes a limitation on the conclusion that there is a limitation on logical reasoning. (This is an argument by self-reference.) In short, in terms of the validity of logical reasoning as a whole, antinomies are self-isolating: they are like scattered discontinuities within the field of logic, incapable of casting doubt on anything else but themselves.
This carefree position is incompatible with the principle of explosion. In mathematical logic, antinomies are patently not self-isolating, and are usually seen as disasters for the formal system in which they arise (as Russell's paradox in Frege's work).

I'll deal with the rest of the question on next reply, as this gets complex...

Thanks Lloyd.

I know that both yourself and Leskey support the axiom that form follows function.

And .... generally speaking in day to day human events where conscious decision is at work ... then it makes absolute sense.

But in Evolution (my interpretation) function follows form[But, does it__or is this a difference of our interpretations of the facts and ideas related to the facts...?]. What I mean is that as mutations are random, then a purpose or 'fit' for them is only found afterwards[Imo and reading of the facts, this would be a conflation of fundamental function, and practical function. Two functions can't be discussed simultaneously, only separately, then united, as the formula shows_differentiation, then integrality. I think this is where your definitional problem with the facts lie...]. Feathers were not meant for flying as an example. (No need to shout here ... just my opinion)[You see, this is what I mean, you've made an empirical assumption here, which you can't know_fur sure, due to the fact you can't define nature's function and purpose evolutions, at the first state of initiation. So, the above antinomies come into play.]

But thats not my point ..... my real question is: Can the formula be algebraically manipulated to show this[The fundamental interpretations must be converted to mathematical logic first, before the formula is even used, then all is fine...] ... I have been trying but so far no luck .... if , a big IF, it is possible that the one formula , by manipulation, can show both .... form follows function & function follows form .... then perhaps we have a connection between animate and inanimate ??? just perhaps only ??[This, I'd certainly like to explore, as I've had trouble with my own logic and reason being at odds many times, and the possibility of two opposing truths, or truth systems, has always intrigued me__I do think it's a high possibility...]

I am taking tha 'a' and the 'O' to be the sigma function ??[Not sure what you mean here...?]

cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

Have not fully appreciated your above post yet ... will take me many re-reads ... so patience.

However ... I do admit the apparent paradox between form follows function and function follows form .... may not be a paradox at all .... as you say it depends on interpretation.

Referring to the statement 'Faethers were not meant for flying'

In evolution, nothing that originates randomly has a purpose ...... as well in its 'first phase' can not have its final purpose. I understand what your saying ....

[You see, this is what I mean, you've made an empirical assumption here, which you can't know_fur sure, due to the fact you can't define nature's function and purpose evolutions, at the first state of initiation. So, the above antinomies come into play.]

Does it make sense, (and I believe you agree with the theory of Evolution) for a creature without feathers to suddenly produce a mutation that bestows fully fledged feathers so that it can immediately fly ?

Of course not ..... many fossils of dinosaurs have now been found with feathers yet they could not have flown. What these particular Dinosaurs have in common was that they were small, and extremely aggressive predators ..... and their predatory action was a scissor/bulk cutter function in their claw or big toe.

They would attack, in numbers, huge dinosaurs, even predatory ones, and jump, strike with their foreclaw which would close and gash the victims side ..... and as it moved on loss of blood bought it to a stop ... and they feasted.

The first stirrings of what would become feathers were small protrusions that increased surface area allowing the agile predator to better balance while he struck with his claws. Flying was not

I may not have explained this well ..... but you can research it to your own satisfaction. it is how feathers originated ..... and ... depending on how you view it ..... function follows form or vice versa ....

This is the 'norm' in evolutionary functionality

cool bananas ... greg

[leskey]

GRAYBEARD QUOTE:
However ... I do admit the apparent paradox between form follows function and function follows form .... may not be a paradox at all .... as you say it depends on interpretation.

IMO, form and function are binary/alternating cycling in a progressive continuum.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I'll answer within your post, Greg.............................................. ...............................

Have not fully appreciated your above post yet ... will take me many re-reads ... so patience.

However ... I do admit the apparent paradox between form follows function and function follows form .... may not be a paradox at all .... as you say it depends on interpretation.

Referring to the statement 'Faethers were not meant for flying'

In evolution, nothing that originates randomly has a purpose[Greg, where do you get such philosophy...? I originated randomly, and I have a purpose__To break you neck, if ya can't be smarter than that...] ...... as well in its 'first phase' can not have its final purpose[Why not...? This is what the mathematical pragmatic maxim was all about. It's the old interpretation demon again. The hardest thing to see is that the answer is always in the question... We can see the future, in generality, if we but ask the proper questions... But, this position is counter-intuitive to all those who've studied under the prevailing academic schools of thought, unless you were lucky enough to have a truly good logic teacher__I had many... There have been many mathematical logicians who could figure the future__Most work for insurance companies, predicting the future averages of payouts on ins. contracts. Others work on Wall St. and for the many private billionaires. Premonition logic, or pre-cognitive logics and maths is big business, so here too the form follows the function... First, figure the function, then the firm takes form, and makes money...]. I understand what your saying ....



Does it make sense, (and I believe you agree with the theory of Evolution)[Yes...] for a creature without feathers to suddenly produce a mutation that bestows fully fledged feathers so that it can immediately fly ?[What if it was just something it accidentally ate, and it sprouted feathers...? This is what I mean about interpretations of empiricism__They're tricky, and often faulty...]

Of course not ..... many fossils of dinosaurs have now been found with feathers yet they could not have flown. What these particular Dinosaurs have in common was that they were small, and extremely aggressive predators ..... and their predatory action was a scissor/bulk cutter function in their claw or big toe.

They would attack, in numbers, huge dinosaurs, even predatory ones, and jump, strike with their foreclaw which would close and gash the victims side ..... and as it moved on loss of blood bought it to a stop ... and they feasted.

The first stirrings of what would become feathers were small protrusions that increased surface area allowing the agile predator to better balance while he struck with his claws. Flying was not

I may not have explained this well ..... but you can research it to your own satisfaction. it is how feathers originated ..... and ... depending on how you view it ..... function follows form or vice versa ....

This is the 'norm' in evolutionary functionality[I still say it's all in the interpretations, unless you have exact physical evidence of the pure fundamental cause of the function vs. form science__at the time it evolved. Otherwise it's empirical interpretation, which as far as I see, is more faulty than the missing logic__We weren't there, we don't know...]

cool bananas ... greg

All I know Greg, is that in my world of engineering, racing and architecture__Form follows function... Example: What's the function...? Race car...! Now, build its form__Big nitro burning engine, massive tires, and lots of nuts__and bolts... First function__Adrenaline desires...!!!

[austintorn@aol.com]

There are intended forms and unintended forms. Perhaps either man or nature can make molecules, for example.

It is necessary for an actual person to wish for an intended form in order for it to be designed and thus able to carry out its intended function? I mean, aside from just happening to find it laying around.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

True enough Austin, but chase it all the way back to the absolute fundamental field, and ask the question; Is function primary, or the form without form, primary...? In real truth, I'd say niether can exist without the other__That's why I keep repeating about the triadic nature/structure of the AFS... But, there's still the question; Does form have form, without function__so motion seems the absolutely primary function, yet then you go in circles, without the dyadic structure, for the primary to work on__So, it seems to be just as Peirce described it over 100 years ago__The Triadic Inseparability/Irreducibility__Fundamental Electro-Magnetism...???

The Riddle of The Sphinx...

In the first tablet are placed, side by side, the two primitive sources of creation,—Chaos and Ideality. They stand silent and immovable,—imperturbable meditation and inactive mass,—like the sphinx by the pyramid. There they might have remained eternally unproductive. But the tablet's next record is the birth of Motion.... the divine energy of creation.57 B. Peirce lecture 1800's(major 19th century mathematician, and father of Charles Sanders Peirce__Head Harvard and U.S. Gov, Scientist)...

There are intended forms and unintended forms. Perhaps either man or nature can make molecules, for example.

It is necessary for an actual person to wish for an intended form in order for it to be designed and thus able to carry out its intended function? I mean, aside from just happening to find it laying around.

[MJA]

To believe in the religious triadic inseperability of the Father Son and Holy Ghost, One would have to believe in ghosts.
Do you?
BOO!

=
MJA