… or, “What if we were totally wrong?”
To say that the Universe ‘exploded’ from a ‘thing smaller than an electron’ in what’s commonly called “The Big Bang” could be a complete misunderstanding of the data we’ve gathered from our observations of the galaxies and ‘stuff out there around us’. Let me show you the ‘other side’:
Continue reading “Honey, I Shrunk the Universe…”
George Boole’s “Laws of Thought” have been extremely useful in many disciplines, but I contend that they are nevertheless incomplete. In their dominance over most of Logic and Philosophy, they have caused a conceptual ‘blind spot’ in the many fields of research which use or emanate from such reasoning – including the Foundations of Mathematics. It’s time we set the records straight. I propose one law, which for now I call “The Law of Existence”, and show how the Laws of Thought emerge naturally from its consequences. Continue reading “The Law of Existence – a better logic?”
It may seem absurd that I see Reality (indeed, all Reality, hence the capital ‘R’) as being ‘made of’ Transformations. I am the first to admit it because this is my view almost despite myself – “I would it weren’t so”. In fact, it’s this very discomfort, this very dismay that motivates me to review each reason, carefully, once more.
While it may seem reasonable that, in seeking something which can both be ‘Sameness’ and ‘Difference’, I choose Transformation as the definitive candidate, it nevertheless seems difficult to grasp how that might come to be, in the real physical realm.
Continue reading ““ALL Reality is Transformation” – A Review”
Definition of a Thing:
If a Thing is to exist, it must be, by necessity, at the very least ‘not’ that-from-which-it-exists. This ‘not’ is what enables it to exist, and as such is the transformation by which it exists. This transformation is the defining boundary of a Thing; the Thing is fully-bounded by “not”. But the existence of a boundary gives rise to there being two sides. And so we understand that for a bounded Thing to exist, there must exist that Thing’s complement – that is, the that-from-which-it-exists. “not” is an involutory transformation in that a second “not” cancels both. However, in normal speech, this cancellation is referred to as “is” – where “is” is “not not”. So we understand that by being defined by ‘not’, an extant Thing is absolutely unique. If it was not, then it would not exist – because it would not not-be something else (it is not-not something else – thus it ‘is’ something else).
Continue reading “Set Theory 2.0 – a first attempt”
The human mind, I am convinced, operates in terms of sameness and difference*. From this conviction I have recently come to label two modes of thinking – ways which the mind ‘makes sense’ of the world:
Continue reading “Understanding Understanding: Two modes of mind”
These ideas are a work in progress.
Axiom 1: A Thing “exists” if and only if it also defines what it is “not”, which is also a Thing.
Continue reading “Adjacent Existents – A Theory”
I’m troubled by a recent realization of a fundamental error that my until-now near-idolized inspiration, George Spencer-Brown, has made ab initio and which has unravelled my deepest convictions about the soundness of mathematics…
Continue reading “Spencer-Brown is wrong: The distinction is not ‘perfect continence’!”
We intuitively describe an object’s ‘tendency’ to remain as it is, in terms of how it was before. Talking of Time and memory, we perceive the past, but in a physically objective world outside of us, if everything is transformations, then Time is bogus – illusory. We only perceive it as a ‘rate of change’, but a change-per-change is all that really exists, and so our notion of Time is relative, obtained by comparison between two rates of change.
Continue reading “The Universe as an Analog Circuit”
rotatn_is_reflected_translatns.pdf is a pdf of a little diagram I created this morning, where I muse with the ideas of transformations and how we can express Rotations (and circularity or curvature) using “not” – the ‘omni-dimensional’ Reflection (how would you describe a zero-yet-infinity-dimensional thing? “multi-“? or “trans-“?).
I don’t know why I called those vectors in the diagram ‘rays’ – they’re vectors which describe a translation transformation.
If this is right, why would we need ‘curved’ non-Euclidean spaces?