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
