The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Happy (Late) 90th Birthday, George Spencer Brown!
Replies: 2   Last Post: Feb 20, 2013 7:57 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 102
Registered: 11/5/05
Re: Happy (Late) 90th Birthday, George Spencer Brown!
Posted: Feb 20, 2013 7:15 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Uncle Steve wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 01:48:59PM -0800, M Purcell wrote:
>> On Feb 20, 12:39Â pm, Uncle Steve <> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:47:59AM -0800, M Purcell wrote:

>>>> Uncle Steve wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 09:46:07AM -0800, M Purcell wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 20, 8:00Â am, mimus <> wrote:
>>>>>>> In 1969, George Spencer Brown (abbreviated among the
>>>>>>> cognoscenti as â?oGSBâ?) published _ Laws of Form _
>>>>>>> (abbreviated among the cognoscenti as â?oLoFâ?), the classic
>>>>>>> and exhaustive study of the simplest possible analysis,
>>>>>>> involving two indexes or indices and transition between
>>>>>>> those indices, providing an elegant and powerful calculus for
>>>>>>> such analysis; extending it to the corresponding binary
>>>>>>> arithmetic and algebra; treating questions both fundamental and
>>>>>>> advanced about such analysis, calculus, arithmetic and algebra;
>>>>>>> and applying that algebra in Appendix 2 to the binary
>>>>>>> resolution or analysis of propositional logical arguments and
>>>>>>> to set analysis.

>>>>>>> The book has gone through many editions since, and deservedly
>>>>>>> so.

>>>>>>> On the 4th of this month, GSB celebrated, possibly, his 90th
>>>>>>> birthday.

>>>>>>> Happy (Late) 90th Birthday, GSB!
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Someone had to do it.
>>>>>>> < GSB's reason for writing LoF
>>>>>> Duality might be an artifact of our consciousness.
>>>>> Might? Â How about mainly a product of wishful thinking or
>>>>> dogmatic projection.

>>>> I suspect it's a result of fluctuations in human hemeostasis.
>>> Possibly[1], but I suspect it is more due to the fact that things
>>> often seem similar to each other, from which magical mystical
>>> properties are inferred (or dogmatically imposed).

>> There are many types of relationships, it helps to clairify them.

>>> [1] If I understand the intended meaning of 'hemeostasis'.
>> A balance between extremes. It's our body's self regulation
>> (generally with a feed-back mechanism) that provides stable
>> functionality and I suspect that it extends to the mind.

> I suppose I was not understanding your intended meaning.
> Homeostasis is a general principle of control theory, describing the
> effect of negative feedback to produce equilibrium. Positing a link
> between mind and a homostatic effect in relation to duality is
> equivalent to pulling a theory out of your ass. For instance the idea
> of 'yin' and 'yang' is a religious concept, and says nothing about
> physical, or real processes.

>>>>>> "...the first distinction, the Mark and the observer are not only
>>>>>> interchangeable, but, in the form, identical."

>>>>> That delusion pays most of the bills for all the idiotic religious
>>>>> ideation that stupid kids find so attractive.

>>>> I still see scienctific articles attributing it to the act of
>>>> measurement.

>>> It is one thing to suggest that observation or measurement affects
>>> the system under study, and quite another to conflate the observed
>>> and the observer. Â The second proposition is simply dishonest, but
>>> a favorite among those who enjoy the delusion of solopsism. Â
>>> Carried to an extreme it is likely the prime mover of modern
>>> Creationism.

>> Sounds more like nihilism, the creation story comes from the bible.

> Modern creationism is in effect an imposition of the believer on how
> they wish reality to be, and God is used as the excuse.

>>>>>> However science requires objective observations.
>>>>>> "Rather than validating existing mathematical models with
>>>>>> experimental data, Bondar uses the data to derive the equations."

>>>>> Seems to be a "scientific" recapitulation of subjectivity. Â More
>>>>> than not, people confuse their subjective apprehension of reality
>>>>> with reality itself, which is necessarily quantitatively and
>>>>> qualitatively objective in and of itself.

>>>> Particularly in the social sciences.
>>> Of course. Â I've dealt with morons who assumed that I was
>>> obligated to believe their deceits since they decided that's what a
>>> normal person would do.

>> People have only theirselves as a standard.

>>> Assholes.
>> Everybody has one.

>>> The paternalistic notions of pop culture assume that people will
>>> live according to the narrow conceptual repitoire of all the
>>> mainstream propaganda produced by it's mainstream 'authorities'.

>> We generally associate with those who share our beliefs and vice
>> versa.

> If possible, and by preference.

>>>>> I suspect the real problem with a GUTOE is politics and the
>>>>> current state of physics. Â Probably some people have decided
>>>>> they want a TOE without waiting until our understanding of
>>>>> physics and cosmology is equal to the task.

>>>> Everything is a very broad catagory.
>>> Absolutely. Â What we think of as the space/time continuum may be a
>>> subset of the category of everything, which is not to say that I am
>>> supporting any notion of the supernatural.

>> They may unify QM and GR but there's a lot more to life. I believe we
>> should spend more on brain research.

> Sure. Do whatever you want to do, but keep your grubby hands away
> from my thought processes.
> Regards,
> Uncle Steve

hi putty head

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.