Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...
Yes, Please make this my home page!
PLAN OF RELATIVISTIC_DIALECTIC/A_INTRODUCTION
aa introduction to rd
BACK TO SITE PLAN
Site Plan
AA INTRODUCTION TO RELATIVISTIC DIALECTIC (RD)
AAa Foreword
An unfortunate homonymy collects under the term "Philosophy"
two entirely incompatible domains and attitudes: Dogmatism
and Rationality.
Dogmatism presumes that human mind can ascertain reality by
deductive speculations and establish a priori its ruling
principles or Dogma, disdaining empiric verification and
facts. "If the facts disagree with me then so much worse for
the facts." - this Hegel's declaration may serve as motto
of Dogmatism. Whatever its shade and highbrow verbiage,
Dogmatism boils down to obscurant Naive View, also called
Naive Realism or Naive Common Sense which presumes directly
cognizable "real Things" having properties such as size,
shape, taste and colour exactly as we perceive them.
Dogmatism reposes in naive unshakable faith in aprioristic
"reality" and Dogma, which it imposes on Science as
unquestionable foundations. Dogmatism is not necessarily
religious. The Dogma of Aether and mechanistic "reality"
ruled and devastated Physics for more than a Century. Naive
Dogma of "real things" having "real properties" ruled and
devastated Logic for over two Centuries till our own days.
Unlike Dogmatism reposing in faith, Rationality reposes in
doubt. It considers perceivable "reality" as uncertain
appearance, and endeavors to map it into interpretive,
empirically controllable Models. Instead of naive "things"
it considers its Entities as observable physical or psychical
Phenomena. One may say without exaggeration that Rationality
starts by overcoming Dogmatism and its Naive View.
History resembles an obscure dogmatic ocean from which
occasionally emerge enlightened isles of Rationality rare
and far between. The astounding self-incurring and sticking
power of Dogma stems according to Kant from laziness and
cowardice. Laziness to think rather than to enjoy comfortable
platitudes of Naive View. Cowardice to stray off beaten
tracks and to follow Horace's "Sapere Aude" (Dare to Reason).
First Enlightenment was set off by the Scientific Revolution
of Galileo, Descartes and Newton. We witness the budding of
Second Enlightenment (SE) sparked by the Revolution of
Einstein's Extended Relativity. It still stays confined to
Physics, prevented by dominating Dogmatism from spreading
over other domains. Yet, as we shall see below, its new
Reason, the Relativistic Dialectic is indispensable to
represent dialectic Tension structures of our Universe and
thus to deal with critical problems menacing the survival
of mankind. It seems therefore vital to extend it over all
domains of human inquiry and praxis.
While Dogmatism pretends to command reason, science and
reality from the heights of aprioristic Olympus, Rationality,
more humbly, endeavors to generalize and to explicate its
contemporary knowledge, science, art and social problems.
Consequently, it does not deduce Ontology from aprioristic
speculations, but derives it from such raw material as it
finds in basic constructs of current Science and Know-how.
In continuation of the present chapter we shall briefly
outline some essential constructs of SE Ontology and Logic
as derived from the Second Scientific Revolution.
AAb A few Definitions
NOTE: In the present succinct introduction, definitions are
given without justifications which may be found in chapters:
OUTLINE OF FIRST AND SECOND ENLIGHTENMENT
INTRODUCTION TO RELATIVISTIC PHENOMENOLOGY
BAA. STRUCTURE OF MIND
Some of them comprise synonyms more or less appropriate in
different contexts. For instance the strict synonyms
"Polarity" and "Dialectic" sound well respectively in
Physics and Logic, but rather strange if we inverse these
contexts.
-Polarity and Dialectic: The concept of "Polar Structure"
and its principle, the "Polarity" may be simply illustrated
with magnetic dipole comprising opposite Poles, apparently
contradictory, but in fact complementary, determining each
other and never existing separately. Dipole has universal
impact by generating Field which continuousely spans the
space and carries Tension: any interval along Field lines
behaves like a subordinate dipole exerting attractive
Tension force.
"Polarity", at home in "hard sciences", admits following
strict synonyms, sounding better in soft ones:
-"Polarity" / "Dialectic",
-"Polar Structure" / "Dialectic Dichotomy" abbreviated to
"Dichotomy" in unambiguous context.
-"Pole" (of Polar Structure) / "Term" (of Dichotomy).
-Observation, Event: In the wake of the Second Scientific
Revolution, SE Ontology reduced its Universe to "Events"
synonymous of "Observations". "Observation" denotes the
Dichotomy Subject/Object or Observer/Observandum.
It may be extrospective or introspective and pertains to
physical Events as well as to emotions, desires and actions.
-Universal Tension: Polar Structures generating Field which
carries Tension and the reduction of Universe to Polar Events
depicts the Universe as superposition of competing physical
or psychical Tension Fields.
-Phenomenon, Entity, Aspect, Attribute, Property:
"Phenomenon" denotes a spacio-temporal structure of Events,
"Entity" is synonym of "Phenomenon" in logical context.
"Aspects" of Phenomenon are synonyms of its constitutive
Events. "Attribute" or "Property" of Entity are synonyms
of Aspects of Phenomenon.
-Phenomenal Equivalence (P-Equivalence): Aspects of a
Phenomenon are P-Equivalent. (In spite of their apparent
contrariety, Continuity of the Field wave and Discreteness
of photons are P-Equivalent, complementary Aspects of the
Phenomenon "Light").
Note: A single Event is already an elementary structure,
thus a full fledged, albeit elementary Phenomenon. Hence,
in Logic we shall say that Entity being a structure of
Attributes, a single Attribute is already a full fledged
elementary Entity and that Entity void of Attributes is
a nonsense.
-Noumenon: Unlike the rational Phenomenology, Noumenalism
considers its Entity or "Noumenon" as a "container" of
Attributes, existing independently and even void of them as
"Thing in itself" (Ding an sich"). Lacking observable Events
as base of Noumena, Noumenalism is essentially speculative
and thus synonymous with Dogmatism and Naive View.
AAc Noumenal Logic
Naive Common Sense guided original Humans in their struggle
for survival. It was assisted by natural languages which
came forth and developed to express Naive View and to support
human groups in their struggle. The principal linguistic
construct supporting Naive View is the Predicative Expression
"Entity is/has Attribute", e.g. "my-car" is "green" / has
"greenness". Predicative Expression is glaringly a noumenal
construct representing Entity as "container" of Attributes.
Prior to the Second Scientific Revolution noumenal Dogmatism
commanded Physics with the mechanistic Dogma of Aether and
Logic with the naive noumenal Predicative Expression
underlying the dominating Predicate Logic (PL).
At the end of the 19th century two breaches appeared in the
apparently solid pyramid of dogmatic Science setting off the
Second Scientific Revolution:
1.In Physics the Michelson-Morley experiment showing that
the speed of light is invariant with respect to the speed of
source and observer and thus refuting the mechanistic Dogma.
2.Russell's Paradoxes calling in question the foundations and
sense of PL and based on it Set Theory.
Question arose, if apparently local breaches in otherwise
solid pyramid may be patched locally, or should lead to
global reconsideration of the whole structure.
In Physics Einstein has chosen the global approach, rebuilt
entire Physics and laid the cornerstone of the Second
Enlightenment and its new Rationality.
Logicians did not notice that Russell's Paradoxes wrecked
PL beyond repair and try in vain, till our days, to patch
it, rather than to scrap the wreck and to conceive in its
place a new rational Logic.
The numbers speak for themselves: while the totally renewed
fundamental Physics covers just two basic Models, Extended
Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, the patched established
Logic counts over 150 Systems, all noumenal, ill-founded and
incapable to deal with Dialectic structures and Tension
Fields unveiled by the Second Enlightenment as the basic
fabric of the Universe.
(Details in CRISIS OF NOUMENALISTIC LOGIC).
AAd Relativistic Dialectic (RD)
AAda Structure and Faculties of Mind
As defined and justified in
BAA. STRUCTURE OF MIND,
Mind encompasses 3 Domains:
1.Sensorium, Domain of 2D sensations or Maps projected from
a Territory which we shall call "Transcendency". Sensations
evoke Plato's allegoric shadows on the wall.
2.Imagery, continuous domain of 3D Image Patterns constructed
from sensations by Morphogenetic faculty of Mind and
appearing illusorily to Awareness as "real objects" of
Transcendency. This illusion underlies Naive View which
confuses Mind's Images with "real objects". It is so strong
and persistent, that Naive View is not only the belief of
"people in the street", but underlies many philosophical
systems. Images evoke Plato's allegoric constructs of Mind,
the "Ideas".
With respect to scientific Models we shall use as synonym of
Imagery the term "Phenomenal #Space" (PS), where "#Space"
denotes an abstract topological concept, e.g. Riemann #Space,
synonymous with Domain" or "Class", sharply distinct from its
unfortunate homonym, the "space" of direct perception.
3.Symbolics, domain into which Images are mapped as discrete
Symbols organized in symbolic or Abstract structures such as
Languages, Logic and Mathematics.
With respect to scientific Models we shall use as synonym of
Symbolics the term "Abstract #Space" (AS)
This structure is processed by several Functions or Faculties
of human Reason:
-Morphogenesis, processing the interface Sensorium/Imagery.
-Imagination, processing Patterns of Imagery.
-Inference, processing Structures of Symbolics.
-Reflection, processing the interface Imagery/Symbolics
comprising:
1.Symbolizing or Mapping Image Patterns into Symbolic or
Abstract Structures.
2.Understanding, or recurring symbolic Structures to Imagery
Patterns. Recurred Image is the "Meaning" of a Symbol.
AAdaa Naive View, Solipsism and Rationality
In respect to Transcendency and Imagery we discern three
stands:
1.Naive View, denying Imagery and considering Transcendency
as directly accessible to cognition. As we have seen above,
it boils down to idle, dogmatic, unverifiable speculations,
contradicting rational reasoning.
2.Solipsism, denying Transcendency and thus reducing Imagery
to an indeterminate Map without Territory and, finally, as
incompatible with rigorous reasoning as the Naive View.
3.Rationality, considering Imagery as a cognizable Map of
an uncognizable Territory - the Transcendency. Their
relation may be illustrated by Newtons allegory comparing
a scientist to somebody playing with shells on the ocean
shore. Shells represent constructs of Mind and Ocean - the
inaccessible Transcendency from where the Shells came and
new ones will come.
It is absurd to restrict the Universe, in the manner of
Solipsism, to a Shell and to deny the Ocean.
But it is equally absurd to confine the Ocean in a Shell and
to dissect it, in the manner of Naive View, as if it were an
oyster.
Note: Whatever their names, most philosophical systems are
shady instances of Naive View or of Solipsism and their
disputes look in the rational perspective like Much Ado
About Nothing.
AAdab Locality, Causality and Implication
Two PS (Phenomenon #Space) Events are "locally related" when
they are continuously transportable to the same "location"
or point of TimeSpace. This definition clarifies the common
confusion of "locality" with a single point of TimeSpace:
a TimeSpace point defines a single Event and no other Event
can occupy it. By virtue of the continuous transportation
principle even such distant bodies as Earth and Moon are
locally related via the Continuum of Gravity Field.
Given locally related Events A,B we shall say that they
appear respectively as "Cause" and "Effect" if B has never
been observed without A, while A might have been observed
without B.
Thus force appears as Cause of acceleration as the latter
has never been observed without the former, while force
is often observed without acceleration.
Causality Relation of PS (Phenomenon #Space) transforms into
Implication Relation of AS (Abstract #Space). Thus, we
consider Causality as P-Equivalent with Implication: to say
"A is cause of B" is for us equivalent with "A implies B".
More details in CAUSALITY
AAdb Logic of Relativistic Dialectic
We have seen in preceding paragraphs that imaginary Patterns
of PS Events map into symbolic Entity structures of AS.
Patterns of Events related by Causality map into Network
structures of Entities related by Implication, which we
shall call "ER" Networks.
We shall define "Logic" as Mind's dynamic construct, a system
involving symbolic ER Networks processed by the Faculty of
Inference.
Thus defined Logic designates a subconscious Mind's system
used instinctively as support of daily behavior. This
"instinctive" Logic is irreplaceable as pilot of simple
activities, but it may be misleading due to the vagueness of
Causality and it is incapable to handle complex cases due to
Mind's limited working memory and to its incapacity to
concentrate simultaneously on numerous issues.
Facing shortcomings of their natural faculties, humans
usually produced compensating tools: hammer to assist
striking and extrinsic "Logical Systems" to assist intrinsic
Mind's reasoning,
Logical Systems may be evaluated and justified exclusively
by their capacity to simulate Mind's intrinsic ER based Logic.
First of them, the Syllogisms, was surprisingly successful.
Lacking mathematical tools such as Boole Algebra and
algorithmic methods, it fell short of proper ER simulation
by a short margin, but it anticipated the Set Theory and was
less affected by naive Noumenalism than our currently
established Logic.
One had to wait till the 19th Century to see "modern" Logical
Systems replace the Syllogisms. However, instead of bringing
improvements, they marked a noticeable regress.
Propositional Calculus is nothing but corrupted Boole Algebra
irrelevant to Mind's intrinsic ER Logic. Predicate Logic, as
we show in CRISIS OF NOUMENALISTIC LOGIC is ill-founded
in the Naive View, incapable to deal with Dialectic and
Tension of the Universe and incompatible with Mind's
intrinsic Logic.
Our "Cognitive Network" (CN) System endeavors to truly
simulate Mind's intrinsic Logic as well as to represent and
to process Dialectic structures and Tension Fields of the
Universe.
As such, it seems to make a valuable contribution to
theoretical Epistemology, but it's main advantage resides in
its practical applicability. We have it implemented for
several Agencies as AI computing system capable to integrate
and work out millions of chained Implications in a few
seconds. Due to their proprietary character we cannot quote
their details and will only illustrate the basic principles
of CN structure with an open demo. We intend to complete the
present Project with an open version of CN in form of a Web
site available to the Public.
AAdba Demo of Cognitive Network
An example illustrating basic CN principles is presented in
CCA.COGNITIVE NETWORK
It is a simple demo of a CN application diagnosticating in
real time malfunctions in a spacecraft. It illustrates it in
an imaginary medical context more familiar to the Public.
Readers interested in details are asked to consult the link.
Here, we shall extract from it some topics of epistemological
interest.
AAdbaa Deductive Theory
First step of determining the CN structure of a particular
application consists in defining the pertinent deductive
Class structure or hypothetical "Theory", in our case:
"diagnostics" implies
("diagnosis" implies
("syndrome" implies
("symptom")))
Next step consists in instantiating the classes with their
pertinent instances, which results in the following structure
displayed as indented list:
Fig. 1 DEDUCTIVE THEORY STRUCTURE
1 diagnostics axiom
2 diagnosis_1_3 oof thrm
3 syndrome_1_acf and thrm
4 symptom_a and fact
4 symptom_c and fact
4 symptom_f and fact
3 syndrome_3_bgh and thrm
4 symptom_b and fact
4 symptom_g and fact
4 symptom_h and fact
2 diagnosis_2_4 oof thrm
3 syndrome_2_bcd and thrm
4 symptom_b and fact
4 symptom_c and fact
4 symptom_d and fact
3 syndrome_4_aeg and thrm
4 symptom_a and fact
4 symptom_g and fact
4 symptom_e and fact
2 diagnosis_3_4 oof thrm
3 syndrome_3_bgh and thrm
4 symptom_b and fact
4 symptom_g and fact
4 symptom_h and fact
3 syndrome_4_aeg and thrm
4 symptom_a and fact
4 symptom_g and fact
4 symptom_e and fact
Comments:
-A line, e.g. "2 diagnosis_1_3 oof thrm" contains:
Level "2", Name "diagnosis_1_3", Operator "oof",
Function marker "thrm".
-Level: Entities of a higher level, or "Aggregates" imply
those of the directly lower level, or "Parts". Thus, for
instance the Aggregate "3 syndrome_1_acf" implies Parts
"4 symptom_a", "4 symptom_c" and "4 symptom_f". Deduction
and Induction scan the CN top-down and bottom-up, so that
Aggregates are deductive premises of their Parts and Parts
are inductive premises of their Aggregates.
-Operator: Several Parts implied by an Aggregate are
collected in an Expression whose outcome is determined by
the Operator.
In the substructure:
3 syndrome_1_acf
4 symptom_a and
4 symptom_c and
4 symptom_f and
the operator "and" indicates that the Aggregate "syndrome"
implies its ALL "symptom" Parts.
In the substructure of levels 1,2:
1 diagnostics
2 diagnosis_1_3 oof
2 diagnosis_2_4 oof
2 diagnosis_3_4 oof
the operator "oof" (one of) indicates that the Aggregate
"diagnostics" implies only ONE OF its "diagnosis" Parts.
"Diagnosis" designating here a particular illness, we expect
indeed the Diagnostics application to determine one and only
one illness.
-Function markers:
"axiom" indicates "Axioms", or top level Entities, which,
lacking Aggregates, have nothing to be deduced from and are
arbitrarily presumed as "certain".
"thrm", short for "Theorem" indicates middle level Entities,
which are both Aggregates of its lower neighbours and Parts
of the higher. Theorems are recursively deduced from Axioms
and, consequently, also presumed as "certain".
"fact" is a bottom level Theorem, discussed below.
AAdbab Inductively Falsifiable Model
In order to truly represent the involved Phenomena, the
hypothetical, deductive Theory has to pass the inductive
verification / falsification test. Inductive scan starts at
the bottom, but, analogically to Axioms lacking Aggregates,
bottom Entities lack Parts or inductive premises. Thus,
their Certainty has to be set extrinsically by phenomenal
Events or "Facts", which is indicated by their function
marker "fact".
"Facts" of our example are observable symptoms. Their
Certainty is set by our imaginary doctor in function of
observed factors such as symptom's force. The symptom "body
temperature" measured at 36.7C will be set to 0%, at 42C -
to 100%, at 37.5 - to something like 15%.
In our example we suppose the factual Certainty distribution
as follows:
(Certainty in % is inserted between Operator ("and") and
marker ("fact").
symptom_a and 98 fact
symptom_b and 95 fact
symptom_c and 96 fact
symptom_d and 25 fact
symptom_e and 18 fact
symptom_f and 97 fact
symptom_g and 98 fact
symptom_h and 94 fact
CN computer program reads factual Certainty either as manual
input to assist some man-performed diagnostics, or as
electronic input from "symptom" sensors in some device such
as a medical emergency room or a spacecraft to detect in real
time eventual malfunctions and to trigger or to suggest
remediation.
As next step, Induction scan distributes the factual Certainty
over the whole structure, resulting in the verified Model
structure of Fig 2. It's the Theory structure of Fig 1,
completed with induced Certainty values in %.
Fig 2 INDUCTIVE MODEL STRUCTURE
1 diagnostics 74 axiom
2 diagnosis_1_3 oof 80 thrm
3 syndrome_1_acf and 93 thrm
4 symptom_a and 98 fact
4 symptom_c and 96 fact
4 symptom_f and 97 fact
3 syndrome_3_bgh and 89 thrm
4 symptom_b and 95 fact
4 symptom_g and 98 fact
4 symptom_h and 94 fact
2 diagnosis_2_4 oof 1 thrm
3 syndrome_2_bcd and 18 thrm
4 symptom_b and 95 fact
4 symptom_c and 96 fact
4 symptom_d and 25 fact
3 syndrome_4_aeg and 12 thrm
4 symptom_a and 98 fact
4 symptom_g and 98 fact
4 symptom_e and 18 fact
2 diagnosis_3_4 oof 6 thrm
3 syndrome_3_bgh and 89 thrm
4 symptom_b and 95 fact
4 symptom_g and 98 fact
4 symptom_h and 94 fact
3 syndrome_4_aeg and 12 thrm
4 symptom_a and 98 fact
4 symptom_g and 98 fact
4 symptom_e and 18 fact
CN program displays lists as downward "explosions" or upward
"implosions", "flat", over two levels or "deep", recursively,
over all involved levels.x Fig 2 is a deep explosion of the
top Entity "diagnostics".
One may be interested to follow the contribution of a Fact
throughout the Network. The flat and deep implosions of
"symptom_a" give:
1 symptom_a 98 fact
2 syndrome_1_acf and 93 thrm
2 syndrome_4_aeg and 12 thrm
1 symptom_a 98 fact
2 syndrome_1_acf and 93 thrm
3 diagnosis_1_3 and 80 thrm
4 diagnostics oof 74 axiom
2 syndrome_4_aeg and 12 thrm
3 diagnosis_2_4 and 1 thrm
4 diagnostics oof 74 axiom
3 diagnosis_3_4 and 6 thrm
4 diagnostics oof 74 axiom
AAdbac Fuzzy Operators
Flat explosion of "diagnostics" gives:
1 diagnostics 74 axiom
2 diagnosis_1_3 oof 80 thrm
2 diagnosis_2_4 oof 1 thrm
2 diagnosis_3_4 oof 6 thrm
The "oof" (One Of) Operator executed over three Operands:
80%,1%,6% results in 74%. It means that the distribution of
Operands is acceptably close to the ideal case 100,0,0,0...
which would result in 100%. Algorithm underlying the oof
Operator is rather complex and has been customised by series
of trial runs with collaboration of experts in involved
fields.
The simpler "and" Operator was also customised in order to
decrease with numbers of Operands slower than the originally
suggested multiplicative probability.
The flat explosion of syndrome_1_acf gives:
1 syndrome_1_acf 93 thrm
2 symptom_a and 98 fact
2 symptom_c and 96 fact
2 symptom_f and 97 fact
resulting in 93%, while probability would give 91%.
Particular algorithms used in the example are explained in
CCA.COGNITIVE NETWORK
AAdbad Epistemological Conclusions
Epistemological impact of Relativistic Dialectic and its
Logic concerns mainly
-foundations,
-definitions and distinction of "Theory" and "Model",
-definitions and distinction of "Axiom" and "Dogma".
Foundations.
We have postulated that Logical Systems may be evaluated and
justified exclusively by their capacity to simulate Mind's
intrinsic, ER based Logic. CN is the first Logical System
founded in Mind's intrinsic Logic, rather than in naive
linguistic expressions. It simulates it efficiently, as has
been verified by its several practical applications.
Theory and Model.
Contemporary Epistemology sees falsifiability as a necessary
quality of scientific structures. CN embodies it rigorously
in its two consecutive phases:
1.Conceptual, deductive Theory,
2.Experimental, inductively falsifiable Model.
Axiom and Dogma.
Full-fledged structure encompassing both, Theory and Model
will be" called "axiomatic" and its top arbitrary presumption
- an "Axiom". Axiom and thence deduced Theory are falsifiable
and refutable by inconclusive experiments of the Model phase.
A Theory lacking bottom factual Theorems and thus unable to
pass to the falsifiable Model phase will be called "Dogmatic"
and its top arbitrary presumption - a "Dogma". Unlike Axiom,
a Dogma is not falsifiable, cannot be refuted and reposes in
naive unshakable faith in aprioristic "Truth".
