Equivalent Exchange

The Four Fundamental Forces of Physics

ee — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:43:20 +0000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/welcome.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/activities/3012_elegant_09.html

Thermodynamics and the Four Thermodynamic Potentials

ee — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:16:52 +0000

http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/classical-mechanics-versus-thermodynamics-part-2/

http://qed.princeton.edu/main/PlasmaWiki/Thermodynamic_Potentials

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_potential

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_relations

Philippe Descola’s Four Ontologies

ee — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:35:17 +0000

Philippe Descola / Par-delà nature et culture

Stances Towards Truth

ee — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 21:41:28 +0000

What are the different stances towards truth? I can think of four: relativism, pluralism, dogmatism, and skepticism.

In Relativism, truths are relative to the individual, and may be associated with their personal perspective. Truths are necessarily different as individuals are different and cannot be ranked as to their correctness between individuals.

In Pluralism, truths are separate and may be combined but usually cannot be unified under one overarching truth. Truths are pragmatically different and are true in principle or function.

In Dogmatism, there is one truth, whether we have access to it or not. Truth is absolute and necessarily consistent with itself.

In Skepticism, there may be no absolute truths. Truth is always in doubt and there is no certainty.

I believe that few if any of us are purists with respect to any of these stances towards truth. Each of us combines these four stances into a filter that we use to adopt and maintain our personal ensemble of truths. Some of us may be highly skeptical, with a little dogmatism about our skepticism, plus a bit of relativism and pluralism thrown in for good measure. And so on. Our filter will change depending on how we perceive the current truth of those stances.

Similarly, social organizations may also operate the same way as individuals in constructing a filter towards truth. Whether the organization’s filter arises as an average of the individual’s filters, or from some inherent property of the organization, remains open.

Whether there is one transcendent truth or possibly no absolute truths depends on your valuation of dogmatism and skepticism, respectively. And thus it doesn’t depend on what you or anyone thinks at all.

Walter Watson and David Dilworth’s Archic Matrix

ee — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 03:00:19 +0000

Throughout the history of philosophy, there have been many conflicting stances both towards claiming what exists (ontology), and how we can know our claims are valid (epistemology). There are the oppositions between idealism and realism, between rationalism and empiricism, between thinking all is change and all is changeless, between all is many and all is one, and so on. One approach to overcome these oppositions is to combine them to form their Hegelian synthesis. Another is to deconstruct them à la Derrida. Another pluralistic approach is to consider that there is a germ of truth on each side of the conflicting stance, an aspect of reality for which that stance is valid. Some might think that pluralism is the same as relativism, but it is not. Relativism and pluralism form yet another philosophical opposition like others mentioned above.

Regardless of the validity of pluralism, it can be very useful to analyze what philosophical stances are possible and how they relate to one another. The philosopher Richard McKeon created a rich schema for philosophical stances that deserves greater recognition. This schema was both simplified and elaborated on by Walter Watson and David Dilworth in their books about the Archic Matrix. There are four main stances, all exemplified by ancient philosophers: the Sophists, Democritus, Plato, and Aristotle. Everything else is a combination of these original stances, or essentially a rehashing of them. The main stances are perspective from the Sophists, reality from Democritus, method from Plato, and principle from Aristotle. These stances partition “what is”, however it is conceived, into four aspects, each of which can be interpreted in four different ways.

Considering Whitehead’s Criteria, note that perspective has consistency, method has coherency, reality has applicability, and principle has adequacy.

Walter Watson / The Architectonics of Meaning: foundations of the new pluralism

David A. Dilworth / Philosophy in World Perspective: a comparative hermeneutic of the major theories

http://nodnol.net/Watson/index.html

http://www.philosophicalprofile.org/test/index.php

http://wwwhistoricalthreads.blogspot.com/2010/07/walter-watson-architectonics-of-meaning.html

http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/bitstream/1892/9845/1/b31853754.pdf

The Cynefin Framework

ee — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 23:15:49 +0000

From Wikipedia:

The Cynefin framework is a model used to describe problems, situations and systems. The model provides a typology of contexts that guides what sort of explanations and/or solutions may apply.

There are actually five domains in the framework, with the fifth one being disorder. It is not shown here. The domains are different in how cause and effect relate to one another within them. They are in the order of light transmission through the four elements: bright, light, dim, and dark.

For each domain, there is a common approach, each containing sense and respond. Simple: Sense – Categorize – Respond. Complicated: Sense – Analyze – Respond. Complex: Probe – Sense – Respond. Chaos: Act – Sense – Respond. For Simple and Complicated, sense comes first, and for Complex and Chaos, sense comes second. Respond ends the approach for each domain. Can one say the Simple and Complicated are a priori, and Complex and Chaos are a posteriori? Or that Simple and Complicated are rational, and Complex and Chaos are empirical?

Interestingly, if we examine the element of the approach that is not sense or respond, they have a close approximation to the fourfold of the Scientific Method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin

The Scientific Method

ee — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 19:13:37 +0000

The Scientific Method (SM) is often shown as a cycle of four steps: Observation, Hypothesis, Prediction, and Experiment. This cycle is somewhat similar to Kolb’s Learning Cycle, but there are important differences. Experiment is in both, but in Kolb Experience is the result of Experiment, and in the SM, Experiment follows Prediction. I think that Prediction would ideally be a part of both, and in the SM, Experience could be included in Observation. Perhaps Kolb’s Active Experimentation is really SM’s Prediction and Kolb’s Experience is SM’s Experiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Linear Logic: the dualities

ee — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:02:45 +0000

The meaning of the logical rules is to be found in the rules themselves.

– J. Y. Girard in “On the Meaning of Logical Rules I: syntax vs. semantics”

There are two types of dualities in linear logic. Linear negation (^⊥) carries the conjunctions to the disjunctions and back again, as equivalences (≡), like De Morgan’s laws in classical logic.

Additionally, the exponentials ? and ! link the additives and the multiplicatives, as linear biconditionals (o—o).

Lucretius: On the Nature of Things

ee — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 21:33:44 +0000

But, now again to weave the tale begun,
All nature, then, as self-sustained, consists
Of twain of things: of bodies and of void
In which they’re set, and where they’re moved around.
For common instinct of our race declares
That body of itself exists: unless
This primal faith, deep-founded, fail us not,
Naught will there be whereunto to appeal
On things occult when seeking aught to prove
By reasonings of mind. Again, without
That place and room, which we do call the inane,
Nowhere could bodies then be set, nor go
Hither or thither at all- as shown before.

– From On the Nature of Things by Lucretius

A book on the rediscovery of the ancient Epicurean poem “On the Nature of Things” by Lucretius has recently been published. “The Swerve: how the world became modern” by Stephen Greenblatt looks quite interesting. The fourfold above was inspired by the previous fourfold Spacetime. A very nice NPR review can be found below.

http://www.npr.org/books/titles/140464239/the-swerve-how-the-world-became-modern

http://classics.mit.edu/Carus/nature_things.1.i.html

Spacetime

ee — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 22:10:01 +0000

What is space? Is space merely extension? What makes up extension, but a set of locations?

What is time? Is time merely duration? What makes up duration, but a series of successions?

Is space a void for things to be located in, or do things create the space between them?

Is time a continuance for events to happen in, or do events create the time that joins them?

Does space and time exist objectively, or only subjectively? Are they absolute or are they relative?

Does space and time enframe all that exists? Does anything exist outside of space or time? How could we know if it did?

What is spacetime? Is it space plus time, disjoint, or is it a reciprocal enfolding of space and time, so that neither can exist without the other?