First Causes

Paul Victor Birke nonlinear at rogers.com
Sun Sep 12 11:18:00 EST 2004


Dear Lester

Very good!! thanks

btw  the term >>delta<< more used by engineers like myself to denote any 
kind or real (or I guess supposed) change in any kind of system geometry 
  etc.  A kind of wide ranging word for the technical people.

I should mention one of the ideas I have been working with in NNs is the 
idea of the universal set in the sense that we generally go after a 
model which if I could be simplistic here only correlates positively to 
the output.  Correctly we need to also define your >>not<< in the sense 
of finding those things that either don't correlate well or are in fact 
negative.  What you have left over is noise to complete the set diagram.
Set = Yes + Not + noise.  Many models only use so of y output = yes + 
noise.  Anyways this is a bit off topic!

  very best

Paul

Lester Zick wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:47:32 GMT, Paul Victor Birke
> <nonlinear at rogers.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
> 
> 
>>OK Lester, slowly absorbing your comments!
>>
>>thanks
>>
>>Paul
>>
>>PS  If I could just say you are arguing that a change is by definition a 
>>difference and the first change as it were must therefore be a delta or 
>>difference in its essential form.  If this too crude a summary?
>>
>>Paul
> 
> 
> Hi Paul -
> 
> It's hard to agree or disagree. Differences certainly result in change
> and all change originates in differences. But if we rely on change in
> conventional terms to define differences, we may well exclude other
> aspects of differences which do not necessarily result in change. I'm
> thinking here of apparently static differences which define space, for
> example.
> 
> The fact is that we don't actually know that all differences result in
> change, and the analysis of differences on that basis alone is too
> simplistic. What we know and can prove is that differences in the form
> of contradiction, negation, and not are the foundation of everything
> whatever they may mean in dynamic terms of change.
> 
> Part of the problem is that there are different words in the language
> that all refer to the general idea of differences but do so in various
> seemingly unrelated ways. I'm uncomfortable adding further notions to
> the mix if avoidable, and ideas like first change or delta seem to add
> unnecessary complexity. Where needed for simplicity, I just use the
> symbol "-" to denote differences in the sense of contradiction, not,
> or negation.
> 
> 
>>Lester Zick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 13:36:10 GMT, Paul Victor Birke
>>><nonlinear at rogers.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dear Alex
>>>>
>>>>Is not one of the >>theories of time<<  that in fact everything exists 
>>>>in some kind of >>now<<.  In the >>now<< mix of everything you could 
>>>>theorectically have the negation I suppose.
>>>>
>>>>Paul (Engineer)
>>>
>>>
>>>Hi Paul
>>>
>>>There seems to be something of a common misunderstanding here; so, I'm
>>>enclosing part of my reply to Alex here to see if we can clear it up.
>>>
>>>                                            ----------------
>>>
>>>There seems to be a misconception here. It sounds to me like you are
>>>considering first causes in historical terms where I intended it more
>>>in the sense of omnipresent. Evolution is certainly considered an
>>>omnipresent cause as would be a prime mover unmoved or the god of
>>>classic religions.
>>>
>>>There is no first cause in historical terms. This is the chicken and
>>>egg problem I mention in my first reply to your post. Causes and
>>>consequences are always mixed up with one another in an ongoing
>>>sequence of interactions. Religion normally and science occasionally
>>>project original causes like creation or the big bang, but these are
>>>highly speculative and largely problematic in my estimation.
>>>
>>>A first cause in the sense of omnipresence is simply a mechanical
>>>reductio used as the driving cause of everything; and differences,
>>>negation, contradicition, not, etc. certainly fill that role. It isn't
>>>that there are no antecedent things between which differences exist.
>>>It's more that without differences no interactions are possible.
>>>
>>>Now, having cleared up the issue of historical versus omnipresent
>>>causation, you can still reasonably ask whether things or differences
>>>take precedence. This problem can be resolved by demonstration and
>>>proof. There is no thing or group or collection of things which can be
>>>proven universally the cause of differences, but differences can be
>>>proven universally the cause of all things.
>>>
>>>The proof is straightforward and simple. We just consider the nature
>>>of alternatives to differences. For the simplest case, let's consider
>>>that everything is the result of P "not" in the sense of negation or
>>>differences. Then alternatives to P "not" are cast in the inherently
>>>self contradictory form of Q "not not". And self contradiction is the
>>>cause of nothing.
>>>
>>>The same is true if we consider P "differences" or P "contradiction"
>>>as the omnipresent cause of everything. In either case Q "different
>>>from differences" or Q "contradiction of contradiction" is inherently
>>>self contradictory and P "differences" or P "contradiction" is proven
>>>the universal cause of everything, and no thing or things can be
>>>proven the universal cause of differences for the simple reason that
>>>there are always non self contradictory alternatives to every thing.
>>>
>>>The reason this is important is that identifying differences in the
>>>sense of contradiction or negation as the omnipresent cause of
>>>everything allows us to identify the categories which things can be in
>>>terms of the compounding of differences in terms of one another. For
>>>example, without going into a lot of explanatory rationale, I consider
>>>things defined in terms of one level differences to be material in
>>>nature and things defined in terms of compound levels of differences
>>>to be sentient in nature.
>>>
>>>What I'd like to stress here is that I'm not dealing in mere hyperbole
>>>and supposition. If there is some demonstrably universally omnipresent
>>>or first cause for everything, it can only be demonstrable through the
>>>universally self contradictory nature of alternatives. Which means in
>>>turn that any universally demonstrable first cause of everything
>>>itself must entail contradiction and cannot just entail any thing
>>>defined in terms of contradiction or differences. 
>>>
>>>Regards - Lester
> 
> 
> 
> Regards - Lester



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list