Absolute Form

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 10:06 pm
@Fido,
Fido;143773 wrote:
Logic in philosophy is limited to physics, and the application of it to all moral forms is useless... We still need to think clearly and speak clearly, so we should be logical in our thoughts and use of words, but the subject is not one given to logical method, no psychology, nor history, nor sociology, and it is not because people do not try; but because we are infinite, both complex, and individually irrational...People only bear as much reason in their lives as they need to achieve their irrational goals... And philosophers starve to death trying to define the logical man while advertizers celebrate with every dollar the many myriads of irrationals...



Here's the thing, though. Your above paragraph (arguably) violates its own notion. To speak of something only to say that one cannot speak of it is still to speak of it. But I respect what your are driving at.

I view logic as the study of the structure of thought. So logic would apply to our thoughts about such things, and also to logic itself. Logic studies what it itself is subject to, the (invariable?) structure of human thinking.

As to ethics transcending logic, I can agree. But this might be saying no more than life is as emotional as it is rational. And that emotion cannot be perfectly calculated, will not fit into a mathematically precise thinking.

You have used the word "infinites," and I think this is a great metaphor. As the infinite cannot truly be thought.
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 04:09 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;148421 wrote:
Here's the thing, though. Your above paragraph (arguably) violates its own notion. To speak of something only to say that one cannot speak of it is still to speak of it. But I respect what your are driving at.

I view logic as the study of the structure of thought. So logic would apply to our thoughts about such things, and also to logic itself. Logic studies what it itself is subject to, the (invariable?) structure of human thinking.

As to ethics transcending logic, I can agree. But this might be saying no more than life is as emotional as it is rational. And that emotion cannot be perfectly calculated, will not fit into a mathematically precise thinking.

You have used the word "infinites," and I think this is a great metaphor. As the infinite cannot truly be thought.

We still need to follow logical rules of thought and language even while our subject, the subject of philosophy as we know it, is like a pile of snakes having no visible end or beginning....

Our methods may be logical, but what is logical in our subject does not depend at all on what is logical in the physical world... We have to find the sense of moral reality, and that sense cannot be imposed upon it from our sense of the physical world... I believe there is a logic to it, but when I find that logic it is the subject which teaches me rather than I teaching it... Does that clarify???

Infinity is not a metaphore, but a condition... Every finite object, a rock, an house, a ball, and even objects as large as our moon may be said to be finite, and we can have knowledge about them that may be said to be True... Of infinites, many of which are not objects in fact, but social forms, we cannot say we Know anything no matter how much we presume....We can only have finite knowledge...The physical world presents us in the object we can sense with finite objects and our forms reflect that finite nature...That is not the world that presents us with our more intractable problems...
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 09:38 pm
@Fido,
Fido;148475 wrote:
Of infinites, many of which are not objects in fact, but social forms, we cannot say we Know anything no matter how much we presume....We can only have finite knowledge..


Does knowledge that an object is infinite count as finite or infinite knowledge?
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 09:50 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;149054 wrote:
Does knowledge that an object is infinite count as finite or infinite knowledge?

I would not call it an object, which is a judgement were it not finite, and I knew it to be finite; but in any event, all moral forms, as knowledge is, are infinites... They are not objects, and they are not finite... Knowledge is a meaning without a being, as all infinites are...Think of all the spiritual/moral forms we deal with...Are they forms at all when compared to physical forms??? Not....Yet day in and day out we give voice to our desire for liberty, of justice, or love, or happiness... Can you produce a fraction of any of these meanings as objects??? They are not real except for the fact that we make them real...We give them meaning out of the storhouse of meaning that is our own lives...
 
north
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 10:01 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;141682 wrote:
Certain modern painters, the ones who abandoned representation, offer us what I like to call "absolute form."

It's just form, brothers and sisters (I'm preaching the gospel here). Form for the sake of form. Aesthetic means sensual. Form for the senses. I can't help but relate Ellsworth Kelly to Webern, for instance, and also to Euler's identity. Absolute form is form reduced to its lowest terms. Absolute form is a cube root. That sort of thing. Does anyone relate to this?


the absolute form is that which is macro physical

not mathematical
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 10:13 pm
@Fido,
Fido;149061 wrote:
I would not call it an object, which is a judgement were it not finite, and I knew it to be finite; but in any event, all moral forms, as knowledge is, are infinites... They are not objects, and they are not finite... Knowledge is a meaning without a being, as all infinites are...Think of all the spiritual/moral forms we deal with...Are they forms at all when compared to physical forms??? Not....Yet day in and day out we give voice to our desire for liberty, of justice, or love, or happiness... Can you produce a fraction of any of these meanings as objects??? They are not real except for the fact that we make them real...We give them meaning out of the storhouse of meaning that is our own lives...



I agree with you in spirit. For me, the word object includes mental objects. I think of the infinity symbol in math. We can't think infinity except as magnitude greater than any conceivable magnitude. Which makes it a sort of anti-magnitude. Or a function and not a number. And yet the symbol has important uses.

I would say our moral forms are tied to emotion, and that emotion is not directly but only indirectly communicated. That music or painting can say at times what words cannot say. Yet sound and image also have limitations. Perhaps we can agree that ethics cannot be simply calculated. Laws should arguably be as precise and objective as possible. But the values these laws are based on seem impossible to make visible or quantify. And this is where the bright side of religious myth comes in. Marriage as a sacrament, for instance. Also literature, of course, which is perhaps the religion of the otherwise secular.

---------- Post added 04-06-2010 at 11:16 PM ----------

north;149068 wrote:
the absolute form is that which is macro physical

not mathematical


When you say macro, is that not itself a mathematical concept? It all depends on one's conception of math. For me, math deals with any sort of precise structure. You might say that precise structure as intelligible to human beings is math. Not only quantity, but shape. And beyond either of these, any rigorous and precise system of relationships.
 
north
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 11:33 pm
@Reconstructo,
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
the absolute form is that which is macro physical

not mathematical


Quote:

When you say macro, is that not itself a mathematical concept? It all depends on one's conception of math. For me, math deals with any sort of precise structure. You might say that precise structure as intelligible to human beings is math. Not only quantity, but shape. And beyond either of these, any rigorous and precise system of relationships.


what came first the object or the mathematics of the object ?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 12:20 am
@north,
north;149118 wrote:

what came first the object or the mathematics of the object ?


That's an excellent question. In my opinion, "math" and "logic" are not primal enough to make the same. But their common root is, and that for me is what Kant addressed in his transcendental analytic. What gives an object its objecthood? We must perceive qualia as unified. We must frame experience in order to sort it into objects. Objects are mind-made, but this includes the "mind." Which is why it's so hard to talk about and why Hegel has a questionable reputation.

What is the source of objects? I think this touches upon the Form of Forms.
 
north
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 12:51 am
@Reconstructo,
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
what came first the object or the mathematics of the object ?



Reconstructo;149140 wrote:
That's an excellent question. In my opinion, "math" and "logic" are not primal enough to make the same. But their common root is, and that for me is what Kant addressed in his transcendental analytic. What gives an object its objecthood? We must perceive qualia as unified. We must frame experience in order to sort it into objects. Objects are mind-made, but this includes the "mind." Which is why it's so hard to talk about and why Hegel has a questionable reputation.


for objects to be mind made , means that the mind understands that which makes up the object , do you understand the object galaxy without any pre-knowledge of it ?

no , because the mind does not make the galaxy

Quote:
What is the source of objects? I think this touches upon the Form of Forms.


energy and the matter
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 04:21 pm
@north,
north;149150 wrote:

for objects to be mind made , means that the mind understands that which makes up the object , do you understand the object galaxy without any pre-knowledge of it ?


I see what you are driving at, and I agree that we cannot explain the source of it all. But it's important, for me, to understand that both the galaxy and the mind are themselves just objects, albeit mental objects. But then all objects are mental objects, in my book. This is not to deny the usual view that stuff exists outside us, but rather to stress that sensation (qualia) is organized by concept.

I think it's deceptive to say "objects are mind-made" and leave it at that, for the "mind" is one of these "mind"-made objects. We need a negative ontology. All finite beings are contingent, which is to say that they are just one way of interpreting qualia. We should rather infer the "form of forms" or conceive of ourselves as conception itself. This is how I understand Hegel. The mind-matter duality is a confusion, no matter how useful it has been. (Confusion is relative to purpose.)
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 10 Apr, 2010 03:06 pm
@Reconstructo,
YouTube - The story of Pi - Die Geschichte von Pi

---------- Post added 04-10-2010 at 04:28 PM ----------

YouTube - The Klein Bottle

---------- Post added 04-10-2010 at 04:42 PM ----------

YouTube - 4D cube
YouTube - 5D Cube
YouTube - 4th Dimension Graph
YouTube - Fourth Spatial Dimension 101
(I don't think a two -entity could see anything at all, as nothing would have any height. but this is perhaps the transcendental prejudice of a 3-spatial-d entity?)
YouTube - Dynamics in the Quaternions
the one above is over my head, but i do hope to get there eventually
 
jack phil
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 01:46 pm
@Reconstructo,
If a man says he can picture the fourth dimension, why not 4 dimensional color-space?

Smile
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 02:18 pm
@jack phil,
jack;150573 wrote:
If a man says he can picture the fourth dimension, why not 4 dimensional color-space?

Smile


In my opinion, we can imagine the fourth dimension mathematically, but never visually. Perhaps it is the same with color space. And these videos are using to two dimensions to try and simulate four dimensional concepts. Interesting. Have you ever read Flatland? It's a great little book.
 
jack phil
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 02:54 pm
@Reconstructo,
I don't understand your claim, Recon. How is color space anything but both visual and mathematical?

Flatland is fun, but I think the metaphor is essentially one for transcendentals-- hierarchical reality.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 03:20 pm
@jack phil,
jack;150588 wrote:
I don't understand your claim, Recon. How is color space anything but both visual and mathematical?

Flatland is fun, but I think the metaphor is essentially one for transcendentals-- hierarchical reality.


Perhaps you will agree that in math terms, a seven dimensional system is child's play. It's just seven variables considered as a system. A person could easily play seven dimensional chess, although admittedly not well. We can make mathematical models that treat time spatially, etc.

But we can't visualize four spatial dimensions. That's what I was trying to say. And I was thinking of Witt argument that we can't imagine two different colors in the same place at one time. Or Kant's incongruent counterparts, etc. Nor can we imagine a round square, but obviously we can write it. We can symbolize it in one medium but still fail to visualize it in our spatial imagination. So that's all I was saying. :a-ok:
 
jack phil
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 04:27 pm
@Reconstructo,
Well, I cannot construct a heptagon, so a seven dimensional system seems a little elusive at the moment. Wink

Supposedly it is impossible. But then, there are many impossible things I would like to see overturned. Why not imagine 4 dimensional color-space?

Buckminster Fuller beautifully anticipated one of my own revelations in dealing with geometry- namely, that the tetrahedron is elementary and not the cube. He was able to construct all the platonic solids from the tetrahedron alone-- and that destroys two thousand years of platonic notions.

To Kepler, this would be the transcendental figure (that divorces the inner and outer planets). To Fuller, it would be the atomic figure. To me, however, I see a possibility for a new system that is 3D by design (unlike the Cartesian system). But it is not something I am at all interested in at the moment. Maybe I should be. I cannot tell.

But the shape is not what is key: the axis are. In a Cartesian system 3 axis are at 90* and a Tetra system 4 axis are at 60*. More fascinating is the similitude a tetrahedron has with both the cube and the circle. So, although one cannot square a circle, tetrahedrons leave this search as unimportant.

But after all that, it was Wittgenstein who wrote in the PR that whoever claims to see 4D space-time ought be able to speak of 4D color-space.

So, shall we trisect some angles?
 
north
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 10:26 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;149395 wrote:
I see what you are driving at, and I agree that we cannot explain the source of it all. But it's important, for me, to understand that both the galaxy and the mind are themselves just objects, albeit mental objects. But then all objects are mental objects, in my book.


in your book

but is your " book " after the essence of form


Quote:
This is not to deny the usual view that stuff exists outside us, but rather to stress that sensation (qualia) is organized by concept.


yet the essence of qualia is made by the very stuff from the without , though

Quote:
I think it's deceptive to say "objects are mind-made" and leave it at that, for the "mind" is one of these "mind"-made objects.


in the sense that mind invents world objects , yes

but the mind can produce , through knowledge and thought , discover , new things and places

I consider the mind as a place of the consenstration of the brain energy



Quote:
We need a negative ontology. All finite beings are contingent, which is to say that they are just one way of interpreting qualia. We should rather infer the "form of forms" or conceive of ourselves as conception itself. This is how I understand Hegel. The mind-matter duality is a confusion, no matter how useful it has been. (Confusion is relative to purpose.)


it is the seeing of ourselves as a conception which leads to confusion

hence , we don't see ourselves as real , which we actually are
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 10:45 pm
@jack phil,
jack;150615 wrote:
Well, I cannot construct a heptagon, so a seven dimensional system seems a little elusive at the moment. Wink


Well, let me stress that I can only offer mathematical dimensions, which is a lesser accomplishment by far that offering more than 3 spatial dimensions. But messing with computers and arrays got me think in terms of math-dimensions long ago, as I was lucky enough to be exposed to programming in 6th grade. (geek class)
Think of it in terms of an array. Ever messed with programming? We have a 3-d coordinate plane, right? x,y,z. We can visualize this. Now we add t, for time. So every three dimensional point also has a time coordinate. t,w,y,z. If we had a 3 dimensional hologram, we could view this four-dimensional information object, but only 3 of its dimensions could be spatially perceived at the same time. We could watch it play like a movie. To go from 3 to 4 dimensions exponentially increases the information involved.

Let's say we have 100 slots or addresses. A finite number (10) of 1 or zero values for each dimension. So one dimension of values could be imagined as a row. (1101001110) Two dimensions is like a chess board, but with 100 spaces. 3 dimensions is 10 "chess boards" stacked. And 4 dimensions would be a movie that shows the 3 dimensions change their values. 10 to the power of Dimensions would be the information involved. 5 dimensions would require 10 cubes, which change their values in time. 6 dimensions would require 100 cubes. ANd 7 dimensions would require 1000 "4" dimensional Boolean/binary cubes to present their information. And this is cheating by using animation to present the fourth dimension involved.
Looks like 7 dimensions of 10 on-off elements would be 10,000,000 bits. One could also present it completely spatially, or even without the cubes.

So to reference one of these 10,000,000 data addresses, you would need seven indexes/parameters, each of them between 1 and 10. For instance : If Array(2,3,5,7,1,9,6) = TRUE, Then print "YES."

You could print off all the data with nested loops:

For a = 1 to 10
For b = 1 to 10
For c = 1 to 10
For d = 1 to 10
For e = 1 to 10
For f = 1 to 10
For g = 1 to 10
Print "Array at ";a;b;c;d;e;f;g;" equals ";Array(a,b,c,d,e,f,g)
next g
next f
next e
next d
next c
next b
next a

this would just spit it out with a header that indicates its address.
the syntax varies from language to language, but the algorithm is sound. nested loops are the bomb.:bigsmile:

---------- Post added 04-11-2010 at 11:48 PM ----------

jack;150615 wrote:

Supposedly it is impossible. But then, there are many impossible things I would like to see overturned. Why not imagine 4 dimensional color-space?

I'm down with the attempt. And it is conceivable for me even if I can't picture it. And one could call a moving hologram 4-d colorspace if we count movement as a time dimension.

---------- Post added 04-11-2010 at 11:48 PM ----------

jack;150615 wrote:

Buckminster Fuller beautifully anticipated one of my own revelations in dealing with geometry- namely, that the tetrahedron is elementary and not the cube. He was able to construct all the platonic solids from the tetrahedron alone-- and that destroys two thousand years of platonic notions.

That sounds awesome. Tell me more. Smile

---------- Post added 04-11-2010 at 11:51 PM ----------

jack;150615 wrote:

But the shape is not what is key: the axis are. In a Cartesian system 3 axis are at 90* and a Tetra system 4 axis are at 60*. More fascinating is the similitude a tetrahedron has with both the cube and the circle. So, although one cannot square a circle, tetrahedrons leave this search as unimportant.

I like this. This is where math gets creative, and that's the best part, one might argue. I just bumped into the polar plane not long ago. I like being introduced to yet another..

I was recently designing games, extensions of chess-shogi concepts, and it became clear to me that designing games was more fun than playing them. And the game systems themselves were art objects more fun to contemplate (at least for me) than to play. And yet their beauty is related to the idea of their playability. I posted these ideas in the creative writing forum.

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 12:42 AM ----------

jack;150615 wrote:

Buckminster Fuller beautifully anticipated one of my own revelations in dealing with geometry- namely, that the tetrahedron is elementary and not the cube. He was able to construct all the platonic solids from the tetrahedron alone-- and that destroys two thousand years of platonic notions.


I just looked at the tetra, and it does indeed seem like a more basic, primal shape than a cube. After all, the tetra seems like the minimum number of sides for a three dimensional shape. I was just exposed to that famous Euler equation about edges, sides, and vertices. It does sound like an exciting thought. I know about the geodesic dome. Obviously I'm a fan of equilateral triangles. So, did Plato build his solids from the cube then? Perhaps the cube appealed because of its math analogy, its simpler area/volume equations? Good stuff. I'm going to do some more research on this.
 
jack phil
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 12:31 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;150711 wrote:
I'm down with the attempt. And it is conceivable for me even if I can't picture it. And one could call a moving hologram 4-d colorspace if we count movement as a time dimension.


But that is the thing- within a tetrahedron, there is no movement. What is movement in the cube is but another axis in the tetrahedron. But that doesn't mean we have captured something other than what the Cartesian system captures, but that it is a different form of capture. Currently, my best line of defense goes like: 4 is better than 3.

Sad

Quote:
I like this. This is where math gets creative, and that's the best part, one might argue. I just bumped into the polar plane not long ago. I like being introduced to yet another.


Index

I found this to be a fascinating read. I hope it aides your love of mathematics. It is many pages long and covers numerous subjects. I think it ends on a rather sour note (nanomachines) compared to what it begins with, but there are still some interesting bits even in regards to nanomachines.

Quote:
I was recently designing games, extensions of chess-shogi concepts, and it became clear to me that designing games was more fun than playing them. And the game systems themselves were art objects more fun to contemplate (at least for me) than to play. And yet their beauty is related to the idea of their playability. I posted these ideas in the creative writing forum.


Yes, I saw a little bit of that on your blog as well. I too have always been a fan of mods and tried making my own games. Friends and I have played board games that in which we designed the pieces; the problem is, however, is that their seems to be 2 popular methods- I prefer the one you present, which is more elementary. The other dives into the lore and fantasy of the pieces a bit too much for my tastes. (starcraft vs warcraft; strategy vs zealotry; gameplay vs roleplay)

Quote:
I just looked at the tetra, and it does indeed seem like a more basic, primal shape than a cube. After all, the tetra seems like the minimum number of sides for a three dimensional shape. I was just exposed to that famous Euler equation about edges, sides, and vertices. It does sound like an exciting thought. I know about the geodesic dome. Obviously I'm a fan of equilateral triangles. So, did Plato build his solids from the cube then? Perhaps the cube appealed because of its math analogy, its simpler area/volume equations? Good stuff. I'm going to do some more research on this.


Princeton University - Princeton pair sets world record in packing puzzle

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Close-packed_spheres.jpg/220px-Close-packed_spheres.jpg

Plato thought there were 5 basic solids, and so has everyone else until Buckminster Fuller came around (or, at least, as far as I can tell). I was hoping I had made a breakthrough, but it really isn't so bad to be anticipated by a hundred years of work-- it simply changes what I find significant in the past century. Einstein moves lower and lower on my list...
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 03:23 pm
@jack phil,
jack;150954 wrote:

I found this to be a fascinating read. I hope it aides your love of mathematics. It is many pages long and covers numerous subjects. I think it ends on a rather sour note (nanomachines) compared to what it begins with, but there are still some interesting bits even in regards to nanomachines.

That paper looks good in general. Here is a nice quote, that I'm sure you are familiar with. I'm going to get Fuller from the library, as I have seen them in the phil section.
Quote:

In a geodesic dome, no one "wall" bears the brunt of a strong wind, or carries the weight of a large load. Instead, the inter-angling of its many structural components spreads out the internal forces and balances them with external forces to maintain flexibility and strength even when using the lightest building materials. He called this principle of the equal distribution of forces "tensegrity," a word combining "tensile strength" and "structural integrity." Through applying this principle in architecture, Fuller planned to develop a new series of strong, durable structures whose strength increases with size and lightness rather than the heaviness of its components.23


---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 04:26 PM ----------

jack;150954 wrote:

Yes, I saw a little bit of that on your blog as well. I too have always been a fan of mods and tried making my own games. Friends and I have played board games that in which we designed the pieces; the problem is, however, is that their seems to be 2 popular methods- I prefer the one you present, which is more elementary. The other dives into the lore and fantasy of the pieces a bit too much for my tastes. (starcraft vs warcraft; strategy vs zealotry; gameplay vs roleplay)


Yes, I like the roleplay to be inherent in the "absolute form" of the game play. For instance, in Chess the knight is the shadow or inverse of the Queen, on the level of mathematical precision. The L-move is unique to the knight. And the Queen can do all the moves of all the pieces except the knight. That's poetry inherent in the structure.

I just found out that 666 is the sum of the first 7 prime numbers squared. This is just amusing to me. I'm not a number mystic. The beauty of form is enough.

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 04:29 PM ----------

This is also interesting, although I don't know what to make of it>
Quote:

There's a good reason why tetrahedra must be packed differently from other Platonic solids, according to the authors. Tetrahedra lack a quality known as central symmetry. To possess this quality, an object must have a center that will bisect any line drawn to connect any two points on separate planes on its surface. The researchers also found this trait absent in 12 out of 13 of an even more complex family of shapes known as the Archimedean solids.

from an article you linked.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 06/19/2019 at 04:13:37