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: 1   Last Post: Feb 21, 2013 11:24 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View  

Posts: 102
Registered: 11/5/05
Re: Happy (Late) 90th Birthday, George Spencer Brown!
Posted: Feb 21, 2013 11:24 AM
  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 04:57:02PM -0800, M Purcell wrote:
>> On Feb 20, 3:39Â pm, 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. Â Positing a
>>> link between mind and a homostatic effect in relation to duality is
>>> equivalent to pulling a theory out of your ass. Â For instance the
>>> idea of 'yin' and 'yang' is a religious concept, and says nothing
>>> about physical, or real processes.

>> Do you believe the mind is independent of the body?

>>>>>>>> "...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.

>> And you believe you know what other people should believe?

>>>>>>>> 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.

>> To the exclusion of everybody else of course.

> In my case I would mostly prefer to avoid right-wing zealots, Nazis,
> corrupt government employees, serial killers, and Khmer Rouge fanboiz,
> heroin addicts, and losers who believe the crap fed to them through
> the boob-toob.

>>>>>>> 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. Â Do whatever you want to do, but keep your grubby hands away
>>> from my thought processes.

>> Wouldn't dream of it.

> I'm not concerned with your dreaming.
> Regards,
> Uncle Steve

yes you are

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.