Topics

All Process, No Paradox


 

Cf: All Process, No Paradox • 1
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/01/13/all-process-no-paradox-1/

| This thing all things devours:
| Birds, beasts, trees, flowers;
| Gnaws iron, bites steel;
| Grinds hard stones to meal;
| Slays king, ruins town,
| And beats high mountain down.
|
| Tolkien • The Hobbit

Talking about time is a waste of time. Time is merely an abstraction from process
and what is needed are better languages and better pictures for describing process
in all its variety. In the sciences the big breakthrough in describing process came
with the differential and integral calculus, that made it possible to shuttle between
quantitative measures of state and quantitative measures of change. But every inquiry
into a new phenomenon begins with the slimmest grasp of its qualitative features and
labors long and hard to reach as far as a tentative logical description. What can avail
us in the mean time, still tuning up before the first measure, to reason about change in
qualitative terms?

Et sic deinceps ... (So it begins ...)

Jon


cadoc1
 

I have found that in this context, going deeply into the phenomenology of process is "what can avail us".  Specifically the works of Eugene Gendlin (A Process Model) are helpful here. I'm curious if anyone else here has made a study of his works?  Perhaps Experiencing and the Creation of Meaning?

Best,
-Seth

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 10:00 AM Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@...> wrote:
Cf: All Process, No Paradox • 1
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/01/13/all-process-no-paradox-1/

| This thing all things devours:
| Birds, beasts, trees, flowers;
| Gnaws iron, bites steel;
| Grinds hard stones to meal;
| Slays king, ruins town,
| And beats high mountain down.
|
| Tolkien • The Hobbit

Talking about time is a waste of time.  Time is merely an abstraction from process
and what is needed are better languages and better pictures for describing process
in all its variety.  In the sciences the big breakthrough in describing process came
with the differential and integral calculus, that made it possible to shuttle between
quantitative measures of state and quantitative measures of change.  But every inquiry
into a new phenomenon begins with the slimmest grasp of its qualitative features and
labors long and hard to reach as far as a tentative logical description.  What can avail
us in the mean time, still tuning up before the first measure, to reason about change in
qualitative terms?

Et sic deinceps ... (So it begins ...)

Jon






 

Cf: All Process, No Paradox • 7
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/03/13/all-process-no-paradox-7/

| Unlike more superficial forms of expertise,
| mathematics is a way of saying less and less
| about more and more. A mathematical text is
| thus not an end in itself, but a key to a world
| beyond the compass of ordinary experience.
|
| G. Spencer Brown • Laws of Form

Re: Laws of Form
https://groups.io/g/lawsofform/topic/an_experiment_with_time_and/81129299
::: James Bowery
https://groups.io/g/lawsofform/message/160

Dear James,

Sorry for the sluggish response … but I've been slogging through
a mass of mindless link repair due to the slew of url-extinctions
and url-mutations afflicting our web of maya over the last few years.
I've been working to recover-revise my better contributions to the
old LoF list along the lines of what Spencer Brown wrote about time
and imaginary logical values and the impact it had on my own work
with logical graphs from the early days on.

There was a time when I spent a lot of time thinking about the
“phenomenology of internal time consciousness” and such but that was
a long time passing. I think I first learned the word “phenomenology”
from readings in Bachelard and Sartre but my current take on it is more
heavily influenced by subsequent experiences in physics labs and libraries.

Physicists speak of the need to reflect on the circumstance that
even our most exalted theories get their first leg up from our
“naked eye” perception of “pointer readings”, that is, from the
superposition in our visual field of a needle on a graduated dial,
or the analogous incidentals in other sensory modes. As a rule,
a working physicist would never think of taking that “observation
of obvious” truths in too reductive a sense, since that would lead
to sheer sensationalism, and even the purest experimentalist has a
better appreciation for the role of theoretical conception than that.

Well, I didn't know I was gong to write this much when I opened the page,
but I started remembering experiences and thoughts from the earliest days.
At any rate, I think I'll blog this on my series about Process and Paradox
since that is occupying my mind at present and I wouldn't want to sidetrack
the time-phenomenology line.

Regards,

Jon

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache


James Bowery
 

Jon,

Your comment:  "Time is merely an abstraction from process and what is needed are better languages and better pictures for describing process in all its variety." reminds me of something I wrote when in high school that I recently discovered among my late mother's things after she passed away from COVID-19.

-- Jim

 


James Bowery
 

More cogently, Michael Manthey's last ANPA paper contains this:

This invention rests on novel mathematics, which show that space-like computations are in principle different from traditional sequential (and parallel) computations. As a result there is no inbuilt sense of "time" in a space-like computation, although there is plenty of change. This change can either be viewed as the evolution of a complex waveform (representing the activity spectrum of the computation) or as the dynamics of a population of discrete concurrent bit-flips - the two views are EXACTLY equivalent, courtesy of another theorem, Parseval’s Identity (1799).


James Bowery
 

The difficulty I have with the notion that atemporal "change" precedes "time" is the same difficult I have with removing the observer from the phenomenon observed.  The observer, it seems to me, is inextricably woven into any notion of process.  For example, I am _conscious_ of a spatial distinction through an _act_ of crossing from one point in space to distinguishable point in space.  This action seems to be spatial rather than temporal, only if I deny my own identity as a process.


Lyle Anderson
 

Do you have trouble with atemporal sequences in counting? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ,,,, How many children around the world are learning to count?  Is your observation required tor that to happen?  Or is it just "some" observer is required?

How about atemporal sequence in space?  These letters are in a sequence. Do they stay in sequence even when they are not observed?  I am typing them on a computer that is connected to the Internet through a VPN.  These characters will be encrypted differently between my computer and the VPN server in Seattle than they will be when travelling between the VPN server and groups.org.  While time is involved in the transmission of the sequences, and in the machine cycles required to do the encryption/decryption is it really relevant to the transformation of the sequences?

Empty space appears to behave as a "froth" where "virtual" particles and their anti-particles are created and destroyed in "no time", i.e. less that the quantum of time.  This effect can only be observed indirectly as a consequence of other events.

Events, however, are markers in the space-time matrix or lattice.  When you look at the Sun you see it as it was 8 minutes ago, but from the point of view of the photons that strike your retina to form the image, no time has elapsed.  Time passes at different rates depending on you state of relative motion and the masses around you.  

The world is weird and counter-intuitive.  You just have to learn to enjoy it.  Realizing that it will go on even if the don't observe it is a good place to start.


James Bowery
 


On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 7:07 PM Lyle Anderson <LylePhone@...> wrote:
... Realizing that it will go on even if the don't observe it is a good place to start.

"the"... heh...

The concluding sentence of the Laws of Form is appropriate at this point:

"We see now that the first distinction, the mark, and the observer are not only interchangeable, but, in the form, identical."


Lyle Anderson
 

Exactly!  You all realize that this statement is George Spencer-Brown's proof for the existence of the Creator of the Universe, don't you?  There is an objective Universe that goes on without our observation because the CotU is always observing!  

"We see now that the first distinction, the mark, and the observer are not only interchangeable, but, in the form, identical."

This observer is the "unknown god" that made the first distinction and the mark, as Paul sermon to the Athenians recorded in Acts Chapter 17:

22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 “for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 “God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 “ Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 “And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 “so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 “for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’
 
Nelson, Thomas. Holy Bible, New King James Version (NKJV) (p. 1078). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.  

Heim's Extended Quantum Field Theory contains a similar sentiment to the effect that everything in the Universe has a memory of or connection to the initial three spheres which form Heim's initial three metrons a tau=0. 


 

Cf: All Process, No Paradox • 8
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/03/16/all-process-no-paradox-8/

| These are the forms of time, which imitates eternity
| and revolves according to a law of number.
|
| Plato • Timaeus 38 A
| Benjamin Jowett (trans.)

Re: Laws of Form ( https://groups.io/g/lawsofform/topic/81284216 )

Dear Seth, James, Lyle, All ...

Nothing about calling time an abstraction makes it a nullity.
I'm too much a realist about mathematical objects to ever mean
that. As a rule, on the other hand, I try to avoid letting
abstractions leave us so absent-minded as to forget the concrete
realities from which they are abstracted. Keeping time linked to
process, especially the orders of standard process we call “clocks”,
is just part and parcel of that practice.

Synchronicity being what it is, this very issue came up just last night in
a very amusing Facebook discussion about “windshield wipers slappin' time …”
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc7qmE5CiuY )

At any rate, this thread is already moving too fast for the pace
I keep these days but maybe I can resolve remaining confusions about
the game afoot by recycling a post I shared to the old Laws of Form list.
This was originally a comment on Lou Kauffman's blog back when he first
started it. Sadly, he wrote only a few more entries there in the time since.

Re: Lou Kauffman
https://homepages.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/
::: Iterants, Imaginaries, Matrices
http://kauffman2013.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/iterants-imaginaries-and-matrices/

As serendipity would have it, Lou Kauffman, who knows a lot about
the lines of inquiry Charles Sanders Peirce and George Spencer Brown
pursued into graphical syntaxes for logic, just last month opened a blog
and his very first post touched on perennial questions of logic and time —
Logos and Chronos — puzzling the wits of everyone who has thought about
them for as long as anyone can remember. Just locally and recently
these questions have arisen in the following contexts:

[Links omitted here. Please see the blog post linked above for the list.]

Kauffman's treatment of logic, paradox, time, and imaginary truth values
led me to make the following comments I think are very close to what I'd
been struggling to say before.

Let me get some notational matters out of the way before continuing.

I use B for a generic 2-point set, usually {0, 1} and typically but
not always interpreted for logic so that 0 = false and 1 = true.
I use “teletype” parentheses (...) for negation, so that (x) = ¬x
for x in B. Later on I’ll be using teletype format lists
(x_1, ..., x_k) for minimal negation operators.

[ See https://oeis.org/wiki/Minimal_negation_operator ]

As long as we’re reading x as a boolean variable x in B
the equation x = (x) is not paradoxical but simply false.
As an algebraic structure B can be extended in many ways
but it remains a separate question what sort of application,
if any, such extensions might have to the normative science
of logic.

On the other hand, the assignment statement x := (x) makes perfect sense
in computational contexts. The effect of the assignment operation on the
value of the variable x is commonly expressed in time series notation as
x' = (x) and the same change is expressed even more succinctly by defining
dx = x' − x and writing dx = 1.

Now suppose we are observing the time evolution of a system X
with a boolean state variable x : X → B and what we observe is
the following time series.

Table. Time Series 1 (also attached)
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2021/03/all-process-no-paradox-e280a2-2-e280a2-time-series-1.png

Computing the first differences we get:

Table. Time Series 2 (also attached)
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2021/03/all-process-no-paradox-e280a2-2-e280a2-time-series-2.png

Computing the second differences we get:

Table. Time Series 3 (also attached)
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2021/03/all-process-no-paradox-e280a2-2-e280a2-time-series-3.png

This leads to thinking of the system X as having an extended state
(x, dx, d²x, ...), and this additional language gives us the facility
of describing state transitions in terms of the various orders of
differences. For example, the rule x' = (x) can now be expressed
by the rule dx = 1.

The following article has a few more examples along these lines.

Differential Analytic Turing Automata (DATA)
https://oeis.org/wiki/Differential_Analytic_Turing_Automata_%E2%80%A2_Overview

Resources
=========

Differential Logic and Dynamic Systems
https://oeis.org/wiki/Differential_Logic_and_Dynamic_Systems_%E2%80%A2_Overview

Regards,

Jon


James Bowery
 

Are you saying the Creator does not precede that to which you refer to as "our observation"?  If not, then please re-read my original discussion of process and identity in relation to time and observation but do try to avoid divorcing me from God in that reading.


On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 11:56 AM Lyle Anderson <LylePhone@...> wrote:
Exactly!  You all realize that this statement is George Spencer-Brown's proof for the existence of the Creator of the Universe, don't you?  There is an objective Universe that goes on without our observation because the CotU is always observing!  

"We see now that the first distinction, the mark, and the observer are not only interchangeable, but, in the form, identical."

This observer is the "unknown god" that made the first distinction and the mark, as Paul sermon to the Athenians recorded in Acts Chapter 17:

22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 “for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 “God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 “ Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 “And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 “so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 “for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’
 
Nelson, Thomas. Holy Bible, New King James Version (NKJV) (p. 1078). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.  

Heim's Extended Quantum Field Theory contains a similar sentiment to the effect that everything in the Universe has a memory of or connection to the initial three spheres which form Heim's initial three metrons a tau=0. 


Lyle Anderson
 

I am saying what Paul said: “for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’"  As His offspring we were made in His image in that we can observe, mark, and make distinctions.
 


Lyle Anderson
 

“He became a writer. He did not have enough imagination for Mathematics.”
 
From Burkhard Heim's lecture to the rocket scientists at MBB, Ottobrunn, 11-25-1976

A nice little story, which I heard in Goettingen, was that the well known
mathematician David Hilbert had a very talented student, who
quit. When he was asked what had become of this promising young
man, he answered: “He became a writer. He did not have enough
imagination for Mathematics.”

One also needs intuition. If you want to use mathematics to describe
physical circumstances, you must first intuit the idealized
circumstances and select the basic empirical facts. Above all, you
need a lot of talent and feeling to approximate correctly. The art of
the physicist is the art of correct approximation.


 

Cf: All Process, No Paradox • 3
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/01/17/all-process-no-paradox-3/

| Consider what effects that might conceivably
| have practical bearings you conceive the
| objects of your conception to have. Then,
| your conception of those effects is the
| whole of your conception of the object.
|
| Charles S. Peirce • “Issues of Pragmaticism”
| https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2008/08/07/pragmatic-maxim/

Re: Peirce List
https://web.archive.org/web/20140122043030/http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/11432
::: Paul Eduardo
https://web.archive.org/web/20140114050002/http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/11433

A riddle is a description of something, typically in metaphorical, oblique,
and very partial terms, from which the respondent must abduce the identity
of the thing described. One of the interesting things about Gollum’s riddle
is the pragmatic way he describes the object of his conception in terms of
its effects on the contents of a whole universe of discourse. If we weren’t
at hazard for being devoured ourselves, we’d be at leisure to sit down and
work out a logical analysis of those effects. There are a few fine points
we’d have to settle, like when he says this thing devours all things —
Does it devour itself or other things only?

I meant to write more, but it’s later than I thought it would be by now …

Regards,

Jon


 

All Process, No Paradox • 4
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/01/20/all-process-no-paradox-4/

All,

While looking for something else on the web, I ran across an old note
I had written in reply to an inquiry on the Conceptual Graphs List,
and it seemed to express one of the points of the present thesis in
a fairly clear fashion, so here’s the part I found fit to revive.

Time Representation
===================
https://web.archive.org/web/20081120094818/http://stderr.org/pipermail/arisbe/2008-January/003423.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20081007070535/http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2008-January/003497.html

The point of view that develops from fundamental physical considerations
is that the concept of Process is more fundamental than the concept of Time,
since references to a time parameter are simply references to a process taken
as standard, in other words, a clock.

We can always develop another “naive physics”, natural language “tense logic”,
or implicit psychological theory of time, and maybe that’s all we need in
particular settings, but if we push for a deeper logical analysis of timed
processes themselves then we need a logical framework able to deal with
relations between systems which undergo changes in their properties,
as described by logical statements.

That is the impulse motivating Differential Logic. As it turns out,
Peirce’s way of doing logic, especially in graphical form, is naturally
adapted to dealing with change and difference in logical form.

Resources
=========

Logical Graphs • Introduction
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2008/07/29/logical-graphs-1/

Logical Graphs • Formal Development
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2008/09/19/logical-graphs-2/

Differential Propositional Calculus • Part 1
https://oeis.org/wiki/Differential_Propositional_Calculus_%E2%80%A2_Part_1


Differential Propositional Calculus • Part 2
https://oeis.org/wiki/Differential_Propositional_Calculus_%E2%80%A2_Part_2

Regards,

Jon


Lyle Anderson
 

Jon,
Both Special and General Relativity theories eliminate the possibility of discussing Time separately from Space. 
Heim's Extended Quantum Field Theory makes it even more connected by specifying that areas of space-time are quantized to form a mesh or matrix of space-time. 

Events are distinctions that occur in space-time.  A Process is a sequence of Events.  Time is measured by observing Events.  It is significant that Einstein only discussed the behavior of clocks when he talked about time.  One could say that the study of Time is the study of the Processes of Clocks and, therefore, Process is more fundamental than Time.  Or one could say that Time is a dimension used to specify an Event within a Process, and, therefore, Time is more fundamental than Process.

However, I think we are again running into the final conclusion in the Laws of Form: "We see now that the first distinction, the mark, and the observer are not only interchangeable, but, in the form, identical."

73, 
Lyle


 

Cf: All Process, No Paradox • 9
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/03/18/all-process-no-paradox-9/

Re: Peirce List
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2013-11/thrd3.html#00067
::: Helmut Raulien
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2013-11/msg00072.html

All,

Continuing my review of previous discussions concerned with various proposals
to extend bivalent logic to encompass sundry dimensions of alterity, diversity,
dynamics, imagination, indeterminacy, information, interpretation, intuitionism,
likelihood, mutability, probability, relativity, time, uncertainty, and so on.

For continuity's sake I'm recycling my replies to a comment
by Helmut Raulien on the Peirce List which raised a host of
questions about Peirce's categories, logic, and semiotics
in the light of Spencer Brown's Laws of Form.

Comment 1
=========

George Spencer Brown's Laws of Form tends to be loved
XOR ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Exclusive_disjunction ) hated
by most folks, with few coming down in between. I ran across
the book early in my undergrad years, shortly after encountering
C.S. Peirce, so I could recognize how it roughly revived Peirce's
logical graphs, emphasizing the entitative interpretation of the
abstract formal calculus immanent in Peirce's “Alpha” graphs.
It took me a solid decade to gain a modicum of clarity about
all that “imaginary truth value” and “re-entry” folderol.
I will say some things about that later on.

Comment 2
=========

I mulled the matter over for a fair spell of days and nights and
decided it wouldn't be good to jump into the middle of the muddle
about re-entry and imaginary truth values right off the bat, that
it would be better in the long run to get a solid grip on what is
going on with the propositional level of Peirce's logical graphs
and how Spencer Brown's elaborations can be seen to manifest the
same spirit of reasoning, if read the right way. Toward that end
I'll append a list of resources breaking the ice on this approach.

Resources
=========

Logic Syllabus
( https://oeis.org/wiki/Logic_Syllabus )

Semeiotic, Semiotics
( https://oeis.org/wiki/Semeiotic )

Precursors Of Category Theory
( https://oeis.org/wiki/Precursors_Of_Category_Theory )

Logical Graphs
( https://oeis.org/wiki/Logical_Graphs )

Introduction
( https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2008/07/29/logical-graphs-1/ )

Formal Development
( https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2008/09/19/logical-graphs-2/ )

Regards,

Jon


 

Cf: All Process, No Paradox • 6
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/01/22/all-process-no-paradox-6/

Re: R.J. Lipton • Anti-Social Networks
https://rjlipton.wpcomstaging.com/2014/01/22/anti-social-networks/

Re: Lou Kauffman • Iterants, Imaginaries, Matrices
https://kauffman2013.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/iterants-imaginaries-and-matrices/

All,

Comments I made elsewhere about computer science and
(anti-)social networks have a connection with the work
in progress on this thread, so it may steal a march to
append them here.

Comment 1
=========

I have been interested for a long time now in using graphs to do logic.
For that you need more than positive links — negative relations are more
generative than positive relations. The logical situation is analogous to
social networks where people can “unlike” or “¬like” other people or website
networks where the information at one node may contradict the information at
another node. In my pursuits it turns out that particular species of graph-
theoretic “cacti” are much more useful than the garden variety trees and
unsigned graphs.

Comment 2
=========

For what it’s worth, here is my exposition of “painted cacti”
and their application to propositional calculus.

Cactus Language • Overview
https://oeis.org/wiki/Cactus_Language_%E2%80%A2_Overview

Part 1 • Syntax
https://oeis.org/wiki/Cactus_Language_%E2%80%A2_Part_1

Part 2 • Generalities About Formal Grammars
https://oeis.org/wiki/Cactus_Language_%E2%80%A2_Part_2

Part 3 • Stylistics, Mechanics, Semantics
https://oeis.org/wiki/Cactus_Language_%E2%80%A2_Part_3

A “painted cactus” is a rooted cactus with any number
of symbols from a finite alphabet attached to each node.
In their ordinary logical interpretations these symbols
(“paints”) stand for boolean variables.

Triangles are interesting in computational contexts because
they arise in case-breakdown expressions. In one of the common
interpretations of cactus graphs, a rooted triangular lobe says
the values of the two non-root nodes are logically inequivalent.

Resources
=========

Futures Of Logical Graphs
https://oeis.org/wiki/Futures_Of_Logical_Graphs

Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems
https://oeis.org/wiki/Propositional_Equation_Reasoning_Systems

Regards,

Jon