First Causes

Paul Victor Birke nonlinear at rogers.com
Sun Sep 12 11:19:03 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