Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics
Lester Zick
Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics
---------------
Allow me to summarize certain lines of reasoning relating to the
definition of science, philosophy, and mysticism so as to make these
ideas explicit.
Science argues that A is C because A is B and B is C.
Philosophy argues that A is C either because A is B and "let me tell
you a little story about B and C" or because "let me tell you a little
story about A and B" and B is C.
Mysticism just postulates that A is C because X is Y and the two are
connected by "let me tell you a little story".
Art just argues that X is Y.
Mathematics just argues that A is C because they have dibs on it.
Physics aruges that A is C cuz they don't need no stinkin reasons.
~v~~
Hero
science...?
Dialectics argues, how A can be C in being a letter, and in beeing
different, as they are different letters - and further how A can change
to C ( for example when You speak about current and say AC there's a
moment where the first sound changes into the second ) ( for example in
"colour" from writing to speaking, the first o is spoken as "a" from
"atom").....
Hero
Lester Zick
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>Lester Zick wrote:
>> Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics
>> ---------------
>>
>> Allow me to summarize certain lines of reasoning relating to the
>> definition of science, philosophy, and mysticism so as to make these
>> ideas explicit.
>>
>> Science argues that A is C because A is B and B is C.
>>
>> Philosophy argues that A is C either because A is B and "let me tell
>> you a little story about B and C" or because "let me tell you a little
>> story about A and B" and B is C.
>>
>> Mysticism just postulates that A is C because X is Y and the two are
>> connected by "let me tell you a little story".
>>
>> Art just argues that X is Y.
>>
>> Mathematics just argues that A is C because they have dibs on it.
>>
>> Physics aruges that A is C cuz they don't need no stinkin reasons.
>>
>> ~v~~
>Why not start with Aristoteles famous words about the most secure in
>science...?
Perhaps you missed my collateral threads: "Aristotle and the
Assumption of Truth" (9/6/5) and "Empiricism and the Assumption of
Truth" (913/5) the latter of which became one of the most successful
threads in usenet history. It turns out Aristotle was history's first
empiricist.
>Dialectics argues, how A can be C in being a letter, and in beeing
>different, as they are different letters - and further how A can change
>to C ( for example when You speak about current and say AC there's a
>moment where the first sound changes into the second ) ( for example in
>"colour" from writing to speaking, the first o is spoken as "a" from
>"atom").....
Dialectic is story telling. Dialectics argue whatever they please
because they're allowed to assume the truth of whatever they say.
Empirics use dialectics because they're too lazy or stupid to prove
the truth of what they claim. I don't do dialectics because I'm not.
~v~~
Guido Stepken
> Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics
> ---------------
>
> Allow me to summarize certain lines of reasoning relating to the
> definition of science, philosophy, and mysticism so as to make these
> ideas explicit.
>
> Science argues that A is C because A is B and B is C.
No scientist ever would argue like this, sorry:
Apple is Cream, because Apple is Bone and Bone is Cream.
A never can be C, because the letters differ.
See
George Spencer Brown in "Laws of form", P.73: "Draw a distiction!"
Bateson: "a difference that makes the difference", 1979, P.99
and best: Niklas Luhmann in "System as difference" (defines
"information" as "a difference that makes the difference"
see also Derrida: "Writing and difference"
and De Saussure: "in language, there are only differences"
...
> Physics aruges that A is C cuz they don't need no stinkin reasons.
>
> ~v~~
regards, Guido Stepken
Lester Zick
<ste...@little-idiot.de> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>> Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics
>> ---------------
>>
>> Allow me to summarize certain lines of reasoning relating to the
>> definition of science, philosophy, and mysticism so as to make these
>> ideas explicit.
>>
>> Science argues that A is C because A is B and B is C.
>
>No scientist ever would argue like this, sorry:
Technically no empiric would ever argue like this. Empirical science
is an oxymoron. Empirics deal with anecdotal case studies. Science
deals with demonstrable truth and knowledge in general.
>Apple is Cream, because Apple is Bone and Bone is Cream.
>
>A never can be C, because the letters differ.
The letters differ in "red" and "car" yet a car can be red. Go figure.
>See
>
>George Spencer Brown in "Laws of form", P.73: "Draw a distiction!"
>
>Bateson: "a difference that makes the difference", 1979, P.99
>
>and best: Niklas Luhmann in "System as difference" (defines
>"information" as "a difference that makes the difference"
>
>see also Derrida: "Writing and difference"
>
>and De Saussure: "in language, there are only differences"
Well these are pretty much infantile approaches to differences which
like empiricism but unlike science don't prove what they discuss. If
they had they wouldn't have stopped at differences. Differences alone
are just what define material interactions. It is differences between
differences and higher levels of that principle compounded in terms of
itself which define the mechanics science deals with in general.
>> Physics aruges that A is C cuz they don't need no stinkin reasons.
>>
>> ~v~~
>
>regards, Guido Stepken
~v~~
Minus XVII
his book is not hard to parse, either.
> Well these are pretty much infantile approaches to differences which
> like empiricism but unlike science don't prove what they discuss. If
> they had they wouldn't have stopped at differences. Differences alone
> are just what define material interactions. It is differences between
> differences and higher levels of that principle compounded in terms of
> itself which define the mechanics science deals with in general.
--ils ducs d'Enron!
http://members.tripod.net/~american_almanac
Lester Zick
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Spencer-Brown is not Conglomerated BS;
>his book is not hard to parse, either.
Well empiricism isn't conglomerated BS either nor is it difficult to
parse. The problem here is that empirics are not critical thinkers.
>> Well these are pretty much infantile approaches to differences which
>> like empiricism but unlike science don't prove what they discuss. If
>> they had they wouldn't have stopped at differences. Differences alone
>> are just what define material interactions. It is differences between
>> differences and higher levels of that principle compounded in terms of
>> itself which define the mechanics science deals with in general.
>
>--ils ducs d'Enron!
ils homos bozoid!
~v~~
donsto...@hotmail.com
Empiricism seems perfectly valid to me. In fact, intuitionism seems
perfectly valid to me, too. Why not use both to generate memes with
the proviso that the scientific method must be used always to verify
them no matter how arrived at? I mean, suppose someone generates memes
during an LSD delrium which contain ideas which would advance
Humanity's cause by 1,000 years. Are we going to use the "Argument
against the Person" argument to toss them out?. No. If a meme
validates true, it goes into our keepers file. Why not utilize the
inclusive "OR"?????????
- Don
Lester Zick
I can't tell who or what this is addressed to but assuming 'tis moi:
On 19 Jan 2006 18:58:17 -0800, donsto...@hotmail.com in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Hmmmm............. you seem to have some gripe against empiricism.
Gee how did you figure that out. I'm generally opposed to guessing
disguised as science.
>Empiricism seems perfectly valid to me.
Educated guessing is preferable to uneducated guessing but it's still
guessing not science.
> In fact, intuitionism seems
>perfectly valid to me, too.
I daresay it does. That's what makes empirics empirical.
> Why not use both to generate memes
Mainly because no one seems to know what memes are.
> with
>the proviso that the scientific method must be used always to verify
>them no matter how arrived at?
This what I call experimental religion. Vastly superior to purely
speculative religion but religion nonetheless.
> I mean, suppose someone generates memes
>during an LSD delrium which contain ideas which would advance
>Humanity's cause by 1,000 years.
More to say on this Monday.
> Are we going to use the "Argument
>against the Person" argument to toss them out?.
I don't argue against the person. Only against the idea. Assumptions
of truth remain assumptions and guessing remains guessing whether
disguised as science or not.Aristotle started it and modern empiricism
and pragmatism formalized and enshrined it. But it's still guessing.
> No. If a meme
>validates true, it goes into our keepers file. Why not utilize the
>inclusive "OR"?????????
I don't mind guessing. I like to guess. In this instance I begin by
guessing what a meme is. Then we move on to guess what the inclusive
or has to do with anything. However perhaps we should start out by
grasping what true and false mean instead.
~v~~
guenther vonKnakspot
Opinion Zick, opinion, from your point of view the most important
category in the study of knowledge. Zick holds the opinion that A is C,
because it makes him look so smart and gives him an oportunity to
elaborate on his profound and unintelligible thoughts on B.
regards
Lester Zick
<apa...@gmail.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>Lester Zick wrote:
>> Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics
>> ---------------
>>
>> Allow me to summarize certain lines of reasoning relating to the
>> definition of science, philosophy, and mysticism so as to make these
>> ideas explicit.
>>
>> Science argues that A is C because A is B and B is C.
>>
>> Philosophy argues that A is C either because A is B and "let me tell
>> you a little story about B and C" or because "let me tell you a little
>> story about A and B" and B is C.
>>
>> Mysticism just postulates that A is C because X is Y and the two are
>> connected by "let me tell you a little story".
>>
>> Art just argues that X is Y.
>>
>> Mathematics just argues that A is C because they have dibs on it.
>>
>> Physics aruges that A is C cuz they don't need no stinkin reasons.
>>
>> ~v~~
>
>Opinion Zick, opinion, from your point of view the most important
>category in the study of knowledge.
What's my point of view? True or false? Exactly what problem do you
have with that point of view?
> Zick holds the opinion that A is C,
>because it makes him look so smart and gives him an oportunity to
>elaborate on his profound and unintelligible thoughts on B.
My thoughts on B may indeed be unintelligible except in relation to A
and C. What are your thoughts are on A, B, and C that gives you cause
to complain about my thoughts on A, B, and C? Or is it that you have
no thoughts on relations among A, B, and C but only prejudices with
respect to empirical assumptions of truth with respect to A, B, and C?
~v~~