|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
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".