[MJA]

A quote from Bertrand Russell:

"Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty, cold and ausatere, like that of a sculpture.".

To view the supreme beauty of nature's mathematical truth, one need only look at the foundation of every equation, or simply, the beauty of equality.

Do you see the truth?

MJA

[Aresteh]

.. Kevin Kelly Professor, Philosophy Both in learning and in natural science, one faces the problem of selecting among a range of theories, all of which are compatible with the available evidence. The traditional response to this problem has been to select the simplest such theory on the authority of "Ockham's Razor''. But how can a fixed bias toward simplicity help us find the possibly complex truth?

You have some way to go yet. Do not mistake the tip of a shadow for the truth else you will stay in that spot.

for your journey --- reza

[MJA]

A GRAIN OF SAND

The simplicities and complexities of our thoughts of the universe can be best visualized in the grains of sand on a beach. The grains of sand are as infinite as the complexities that we create. The complexities of questions and doubts, that only compound themselves, ultimately taking us further from the truth, the truth of a simple grain of sand. The extent of our theories or faiths are but handfuls of sand that slowly and surely slips through our grasp. Is it best in searching for the truth, to study the complexities of our thoughts, grasping at handfuls of beliefs; or perhaps it is better to examine the simplicity of a single grain of sand? Is it possible to behold a single grain of truth, to grasp the truth of a single simple grain of sand?

Lets try!
Is it not true that a single grain of sand although some dark some light, some big some small, some look like rock, and others like pieces of shell; or wood; are truly equal to all the other grains of sand? Is not a grain of sand a grain of sand, regardless of our measure? Do they not all unite equally and in oneness, to make sand? Do the grains of sand, unite equally to make the beach? So then the equality or unity of grains of sand unite to make the beach, which unites to make the shore, which unites equally the land and the sea? And the land and sea equally unite and make up the planet we call Earth? So then the grains of nature, some light some dark, some big some small, regardless of our uncertainties and doubts, regardless of measured differences, regardless of our complexities and beliefs, make up the true unity or equality or oneness of everything, the universe.

Can the simple truth of the equality of a grain of sand, unite the universe? Is a single grain of truth equal to the universe of truth? Is that single grain of truth the beauty and wisdom of it all? Is a grain of truth all we need to make the universe one? Is equality the grain of truth that will set the universe free? Is a grain of sand and myself equal, united, and one? Is the truth more simple than thought?

=
MJA

[Aresteh]

If the greatest of ancient thinkers could not define truth. How is it that you finds it so simple?

Many times you use 'Is not' ... This is hard for us, he's does not know if you mean true or false?

for your journey --- reza

[MJA]

Originally Posted by Aresteh If the greatest of ancient thinkers could not define truth. How is it that you finds it so simple? Many times you use 'Is not' ... This is hard for us, he's does not know if you mean true or false? for your journey --- reza

Thanks for your help reza,

My writing skills are not very strong. As far as my use of the word "not" it is irrelevent and as you say confusing. I'll try not to use it in the future.
I think I use it to emphasize the simplicity of a question or thought. An example: does a dog bark? Or does a dog not bark? I think "not" for me means: hello, this is an easy one!

As far as the simplicity of truth, I heard a Greek story once, that I thought came from Democritus. Others have said it was someone else, and I have yet to find it again. It goes something like this:
A great and knowing Greek man (Democritus) walked into his house and said, "woman, come outside with me, I wish to show you the universe." She followed him out into the dark starry night, and with no lights they stumbled along as they walked. Suddenly, the man fell into a deep ditch that he did not see. The woman, suprised herself, began to laugh hysterically at him. He asked her for a hand up. She continued to laugh, and now along with his embarrassment, he grew angy at her. He asked: "what do you find so funny?" She replied, "only that you claim to know the universe, yet you do not even know what is in front of your own two feet."

That story made a huge impression on me. I believe the moral of the story is only that the truth of the universe is simply in front of our own two feet. The Greeks knew where to look, but yet looked beyond the truth, as we still do today.

Equal is in that ditch of truth.
No nots!

Thanks,

=
MJA

[Aresteh]

Originally Posted by MJA I believe the moral of the story is only that the truth of the universe is simply in front of our own two feet. The Greeks knew where to look, but yet looked beyond the truth, as we still do today MJA

Dear MJA -- where do you look today -- near or far ?

The blind man still avoids the ditch that makes the seeing stumble
the fool escapes the just-to-clever speech that makes the statesman tumble
And we, who had the finest minds, became the lowest of mankind

The truth is not always at our feets, in front of us, nor is it always far. When you find it, do not think you wills continue to find it there, you will soon have nothings more than the shadow.

for your journey -- reza

[MJA]

Originally Posted by Aresteh Dear MJA -- where do you look today -- near or far ? The blind man still avoids the ditch that makes the seeing stumble the fool escapes the just-to-clever speech that makes the statesman tumble And we, who had the finest minds, became the lowest of mankind The truth is not always at our feets, in front of us, nor is it always far. When you find it, do not think you wills continue to find it there, you will soon have nothings more than the shadow. for your journey -- reza

I have only spoken for myself, what I find, what I know, and what I see.
And what truth do you see reza, something simple I hope that is equally good for me? A gift of truth, near or far, that will unite all things, and set us free. For nature's truth would be the universe forever in your debt. What do you see?

=
MJA

[Carey]

Russell heard Peano deliver a paper on the construction of arithmetic using "a successor relation." After the conference, Russell said "Peano had the best logic." After that, Russell wrote Principles of Mathematics, using the successor relation to build up everything, and this became Principia Mathematica when Whitehead got involved.
The focus on a successor relation gave us the formalization of mathematics. For Russell and Whitehead, the next step was "eventism," which is their Theory of Everything. For them, space-time, like anything that is presumed to have order or structure, is subject to analysis by a successor relation. Whitehead characterized the physical world, so analyzed, as "temporal succession." Russell favors the term "causal succession," but both men agree that the two terminologies have but a single successor relation as the primitive referent.
The mode of thought that works exclusively with a successor relation is what helped me to find what eventism looks like when only finite structural possibilities are considered. This led me to draw arrow diagrams of time order possiblities, where I find relative frequencies formed that serve eventism as relative energies in accord with Planck's E=hf. That means that eventism, in its simplest finite form, has the structural definition of energy inherent in it, without need of any imposed metric or quantity.
I elaborated on the successor relation to produce a paper that fulfills the goals of Wittgenstein's Tractatus. He spoke of "primitive facts" without specifying what they are. That is remedied in my paper. I delivered the paper to a Whitehead Conference held in Salzburg in 2006. It is posted on their website. I will give a link to it, and a copy of its abstract, below. -- Carey

http://www2.sbg.ac.at/whiteheadconfe...20Language.pdf

The Adequacy of Language for Finite Domains of Reference
A formal system is constructed which generates a finite set of statements that correlate 1-to-1 with the facts of a finite domain. Each formal statement transcribes directly to English, so the adequacy of language in general is entailed by the adequacy of the formal system. The crux of the argument involves giving precision to the phrase "finite domain of reference." It is assumed that any such domain consists of a finite number of individuals connected to one another by a finite number of relations. A domain of three individuals is examined in detail, which serves to show that any relation is constructible from a pair-wise relation. This in turn implies that the realm of finite mathematical structure can be systematically generated by an algorithm. An important domain of reference for the formalism is obtained by interpreting the primitive relation as "time order." We then see what Russell and Whitehead's "eventism" looks like when restricted to a finite domain.