Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...
Yes, Please make this my home page!
PLAN OF 0.FIRST AND SECOND ENLIGHTENMENT
0a outline
FIRST ENLIGHTENMENT
0b galilean relativity and newton
0c descartes
0d aether and dogmatic thinking
SECOND ENLIGHTENMENT
0e einstein and extended relativity
0f kant and einstein
Og EPR Paradox
BACK TO SITE PLAN
OA.OUTLINE OF THE SECOND ENLIGHTENMENT
Foreword: Dogmatism and Rationality
NOTE: neologies and ambiguous terms clarified in GLOSSARY
are marked "[G]".
An unfortunate homonymy collects under the term "Philosophy"
two strictly disjoined domains and conflicting attitudes:
1.Dogmatism, which is nothing else than Naive View (NV)[G],
also called Naive Realism or Naive Common Sense. NV presumes
a directly cognizable "Reality", consisting of "material"
"Objects" occupying space and having properties such as size,
shape, smell, taste and colour exactly as we perceive them.
NV is Dogmatic: it reposes in unshakable faith in "reality"
and in its "objects" being directly cognizable a priori.
NV is Noumenal: it takes its "objects" as Noumena "having"
Properties (or Attributes), as autonomous "containers" of
Attributes, absolute, existing as such (Dinge an sich),
independently from them, also in their total absence.
Reciprocally, Dogmatism and Noumenalism are synonyms of NV
often dressed-up in formidable highbrow verbiage.
2.Rationality, which, unlike Dogmatism reposing in faith,
reposes in doubt. It considers naive "reality" as uncertain
appearance, endeavors to interpret it and subjects the
interpretations to empiric verification.
It considers its Entities[G] or Phenomena as structures of
Attributes (or Aspects[G]) and nothing else: a single
Attribute is already a full-fledged Entity and Entity void
of Attributes is a nonsense.
Delivered from the phantasm of underlying absolute Ding an
sich, Entity reduced to structure of Attributes becomes
clearly relative, thus apparently circular. However, this
apparent circularity elongated along the time dimension
becomes REFLECTION SPIRAL
enriching with each tour the
Cognition with new perceptions and inferences and progressing
by successive approximations through a vague swamp towards
unreachable absolute certainty.
Rationality can be bought only at the cost of relativity and
fuzziness. It starts by overcoming naive Dogmatism.
Naive Common Sense guided original Humans in their struggle
for survival. It was assisted by natural languages which
came forth and developed to express NV and to support human
groups in their struggle against the hostile "Reality".
The principal linguistic construct supporting the NV is the
Predicative Assignment Expression "[E] & [A]", where "E"
stands for "Entity", "A" - for "Attribute" and "&", the
symbolic Assign Operator, replaces the copula "is/has" (e.g.
"my-car"[E] is "green"[A] or "my-car"[E] has "greenness"[A]).
Symbolic Operator "&" takes in object languages the value of
respective copulas or, like in Semitic languages, is implied.
It protects us also from the usual noumenalistic jumble
elevating fallacious verbal inflections of the copula "be"
to the Olympian heights of ontological "Beings".
The Assignment Expression "[E]&[A]" representing Entity and
Attribute as "container/contained" is glaringly a naive,
noumenal structure.
Entirely taken up by the struggle for survival, Humans had
originally no time, nor motivation for abstract inquiries
and were taking the hostile "Reality" of NV dogmatically, at
the face value. However, after having reached some security
and leisure, they started to reason for reasoning sake and
abstract intellection was born.
Thereafter, human history became an incessant confrontation
of enlightened Rationality and obscure, naive Dogmatism.
Kant compared it to an obscure ocean from which emerge at
times enlightened isles of Rationality, rare and far between.
The astounding self-incurring and sticking power of naive
Dogma stems according to Kant from laziness and cowardice.
Laziness to think, rather than to enjoy snug platitudes of
Naive View. Cowardice to stray off beaten tracks and to
follow Horace's "Sapere Aude" (Dare to Reason).
Rationality runs into an additional, technical, but hardly
superable difficulty, that of formulation. Natural languages
foreordained to convey naive, noumenal property containers,
are incapable to express rational contents. Fundamental
concepts can only be hinted intuitively, or illustrated by
allegories. We might say that meaning precedes its necessarily
distorted expression.
For example the concept of Awareness, the ultimate rational
foundation of Sartre-Heidegger Ontology and Popper's
Epistemology is hardly expressible in English. "I am aware"
suggests some Entity "I" having the property "awareness", but
the founding Awareness precedes any other Entity, including
"I". "I" is founded in Awareness and not the other way round.
Instead of "I am aware", one should say "aware", but that
hardly means anything. Actually, even "aware" does not
represent the concept, because Awareness is postulated
thematic and transparent: I am not aware of being aware, but
of a tree I'm aware of perceiving, so that the only way of
expressing Awareness would be "Tree", hardly useful for
formulating an Ontology in English.
Modern times start with the First Enlightenment and its
Rationality. Unfortunately, it did not entirely eradicate
its contemporary Dogmatism and soon collapsed under its
reactionary assaults. The reaction of Dogmatism went on
uninterrupted till our epoch which is dominated by dogmatic
obscurantism out of which tries timidly to emerge the Second
Enlightenment, triggered by the Fin-de-Siecle Crisis.
It is our thesis that:
-Current disasters in domains such as globalization and
ecology, calling in question the very survival of the mankind
are generated by overwhelmingly dominating Dogmatism. Even if
the dogmatic establishment turned by miracle against problems
which it deliberately creates, the established dogmatic naive
Reason and Logic would be incapable to formulate, let alone
to solve them.
-The Second Enlightenment has been sparked by the Second
Scientific Revolution of Einstein's Extended Relativity.
Its revolutionary Reason emerges from dominating Dogmatism
as unique chance of dealing with mankind's critical problems.
As it is momently restricted to Physics, its Global Extension
over all domains of human reflection and praxis seems to take
on vital importance. Our essay endeavors to make a step in
this direction.
1.Context: Heritage of First Enlightenment
Second Enlightenment emerged from the Heritage of the First,
extending its Rationality and countering its Dogmatic
Reaction.
1.1.Rational Scientific Revolution
Galileo (0B GALILEAN RELATIVITY AND NEWTON'S MODEL)
Galileo's main achievement was the Galilean Relativity
(G-Rlt) which laid the cornerstone of scientific Physics
valid till our days as support of low speed Mechanics. Its
main principles are:
-Steady state of IR (Inertial Referential[G], a body on
which act no forces) is uniform movement.
-Movements of IRs are relative to other IRs. There is no
absolute movement.
-G-Rlt Transformation (G-TR) of speed between IRs is
additive: speed of somebody walking at v within a train
moving at V appears to an outside observer as V+v. In G-Rlt
speed is covariant[G] among IR's by G-Tr.
-Speed covariance extends over totality of Mechanics whose
rules and events are covariant by G-Tr among all IRs.
-Space and Time are invariant, i.e. absolute and identical
for all IRs.
Besides Relativity Galileo propounded deductive/inductive
method laying the cornerstone of rigorous axiomatic Models
(INTRODUCTION TO RELATIVISTIC DIALECTIC) emerging from the background of
purely deductive dogmatic procedures.
He restricted inquiry to observable Aspects[G] of Phenomena,
thus propounding Phenomenology and banning noumenal
speculations about transcendental "nature".
Descartes (0C DESCARTES)
His main achievements are:
-Cogito ergo Sum, which postulated primacy of subjective
Aspect of Observation[G] over the objective, eradicated
traditional beliefs in transcendental "objective reality"
and established preponderance of subjectivity in Science.
-Permanent Doubt, as source of inquiry, completing Galileo's
axiomatization with Uncertainty.
-Arming Galilean Relativity with exact mathematical tools,
namely Referentials[G] and Analytic Geometry which founded
Calculus and all subsequent scientific Models.
Newton (0B GALILEAN RELATIVITY AND NEWTON'S MODEL)
Newton may be considered as founder of modern Physics and
one of greatest scientist of history, due to his Model of
Gravitation, which is a remarkable instance of Galilean
Relativity developed with Cartesian tools.
1.2.Contradictions
Emerging Rationality did not eradicate the Dogmatism and
First Enlightenment was marked by perverted coexistence of
rational Reason with most absurd Dogmatism.
1.2.1.Science
Mechanistic Dogma of Absolute #Space[G] and of "Reality"
having the fabric of "billiard balls" engendered Newton's
Paradoxes:
1.Gravity acts at large distances which contradicts the
dogma of "billiard balls".
2.#Space (distance) determines the Gravity Force, which does
not act in any way on #Space, thus contradicting the
action/reaction principle.
Both Paradoxes represent Facts contradicting Dogma of
absolute and mechanistic #Space. Questioned about it Newton
answered with the famous "hypotheses non fingo" clearly
implying that science coordinates events and ignores
transcendencies. He could not drop the Dogma under the
pressure of the establishment, but clearly dodged it out.
1.2.2.Philosophy
Kant enlightened Philosophy by banning Noumena from cognition
and by accordingly inducing Ontology from the state of the
art of his contemporary Science, i.e. from Newton's Model.
However, foundations of Science were afflicted at his days
by several dogmas: mechanistic fabric of "Reality", absolute
time/space and certain, absolute Science. Newton dodged
the refutal of mechanistic "Reality" by facts with his
"hypotheses non fingo", but Kant could not follow him there.
His job consisted precisely in making hypotheses and
sincerity of his Ontology could be bought only at the cost
of truly reflecting its roots: from paradoxical Science Kant
rigorously derived a paradoxical Ontology.
In spite of having banned Noumena (Dinge an Sich) from
cognition, he founded his Ontology in absolute time/space,
and other Noumena or "absolute categories of Pure Reason".
His Synthetic (we'd say "inductive") Propositions A Priori
reposed in those Noumena in order to satisfy the Dogma of
certain, absolute Science.
Although fallen prey to dogma, Kant did not play down
rational Science, but, on the contrary, overestimated and
absolutised it. Paradoxically, his dogma supported the
strongest ever argumentation against dogmatic obscurantism
and for enlightened Rationality.
He gives excellent example and guidance to those who, in our
days, seek to understand the Second Enlightenment. Example
of sincerity, rigor and respect for Science. Guidance
resumed in "Sapere Aude", "Dare to Reason!".
1.2.3.Socio-Political Domain
Socio-Political is the best known domain of the First
Enlightenment, due to its impact on subsequent revolutionary
events and changes of social and political structures.
However, chronology did not respect the foundations order:
Kant came too late for Voltaire, Diderot, Montesqieu and
Rousseau. Lacking consistent foundations, the socio-political
reflects uncritically current controversies: its apparently
rational form and declarations conceal noumenal utopianism.
It radically detached itself from the Scientific Revolution
and its phenomenal principles.
However brilliantly Voltaire ridiculed Dogmatism, his
criticism was negative, without suggesting any substitute.
Diderot and the Encyclopedia advocated rather arbitrarily
the social utility and attacked tradition without formulating
any positive remedy. Montesquieu believed dogmatically that
all consisted of perpetual rules or laws and argued, not less
dogmatically, that England's constitutional monarchy was an
ideal model of society, that women were inferior and that the
essential inequality of people justified slavery.
Noumenalistic Utopia of Rousseau had the greatest and most
direct influence on the French Revolution.
Oblivious of its rational roots, Socio-Political domain of
the First Enlightenment slipped almost entirely into dogmatic
irrationality.
1.3.Dogmatic reaction to First Enlightenment
1.3.1.Socio-Political
Failing to eradicate Dogmatism, First Enlightenment collapsed
under its reactionary assaults which went on uninterrupted
till 19th century dominated by dogmatic obscurantism.
French Revolution triggered by Enlightenment's ideology
radically denied its roots replacing Diderots with
Robespierres.
Dogmatic reaction reached its apogee in "Great German
Idealism" starting with Fichte's concept of Romanticism.
While Rationality sees Reflection as interplay of Imagination
and Inference, Romanticism ablated the latter, leaving Reason
standing on one imaginary, emotional leg.
Romanticism is known mainly as esthetic current praising
spontaneous improvisation, but in that aspect it had no
noticeable practical impact. It's true that romanticist
artists followed innovated rules, but they applied them as
meticulously as their predecessors. Chopin did not learn
his music from Fichte. He applied partially new, but not
less strict rules than Mozart or Bach and deemed that
good improvisation presupposes skill gained by years of
rigorous training. The same holds for Liszt, Tchaikovsky,
Pushkin, Mickiewicz, Byron, Delacroix, Gainsborough and all
romanticist artists.
Romanticism impacted principally the Socio-Political. Fichte,
the father of Romanticism, preached Nationalism and became
the flagship of Nazism. His famous student, Hegel, became,
with a bit of Engels' assistance, the prophet of Gulag empires.
All in all, about 200 million were romantically and idealistically
slaughtered and the underlying dogmatic fanaticism gets every
day stronger.
1.3.2.Logic
Reaction of Dogmatism in the domain of Logic, the "Predicate
Logic" stays till today the dominant system of logical
establishment, essentially inaffected by the Fin-de-Siecle
Crisis. Consequently, we discuss it below, in
4.3.2.1.Established Logic.
1.3.3.Science
Of all branches of Science Physics has been most perniciously
afflicted by the dogmatic reaction, namely by the Dogma of
Aether. Aether is discussed in some detail in
0D AETHER AND DOGMATIC THINKING.
Here we shall concentrate on its interest for Epistemology,
as illustration of the conflict of dogmatic and axiomatic
attitudes. A question indeed arises if Aether was Dogma
or Axiom. Before attempting to answer, let's recall its
context and essential features. It has been founded in
the mechanistic, "billiard ball" view of the underlying
"Reality" plus the additional postulate that light is a wave
and, by analogy with known wave phenomena such as sound, must
be supported by oscillating particles of some fluid, some
cosmic gas or liquid: the Aether.
So far so good, at the outset Aether looked like an Axiom.
True, from the very beginning it raised unusual amount of
exceptionally tough empiric problems: it had to behave like
a solid with respect to light, like no-interaction vacuum
with respect to "matter" of stellar bodies, while interacting
with "matter" which it permeates like glass or water. Yet,
for each new problem falsifying a current version of Aether
a new, pertinent version was duly created, at the expenditure
of effort and ingenuity hardly ever matched in the history of
Science. Physicists were certainly not lazy, but if they were
less busy adjusting Aether, they might have heard Ockham
whispering that its exceptional complexity called for some
simpler Postulate. Still, Aether could pass so far for a
particularly complex Axiom.
Decisive blow came with the MM (Michelson-Morley) experiment.
Galilean additive Transformation assumed CE, speed of light
measured at the earth, as the sum of speeds C of light and
V of earth both with respect to Aether: CE = C+V (similarly
to somebody walking within a moving train). Yet, MM
experiment has shown that C was invariant, independent of
the speed of source and Observer. Aether got falsified beyond
repair and from this moment the superhuman efforts to save it
at any price and at the expense of facts glaringly reveal its
dogmatic nature.
2.The Paradise
19th Century Physics and Logic were dominated by reaction of
Dogmatism against Rationality of the First Enlightenment.
Physics was founded in the dogmatic delusion of Aether.
Logical systems culminated in Predicate Logic (PL).
This noumenal, naive Logic was assumed to be the universal,
absolute foundation of transcendental "Reality" and of human
knowledge thereof. All areas of Science were assumed to be
recursively founded in PL, although Mathematics stayed for
some time unfounded. Finally, in 1873 Cantor conceived the
naive Set Theory which supplied the missing link and
completed the hierarchy of "Cantorian Paradise":
1.(naive) Logic, the universal, absolute, olympian foundation,
2.(naive) Set Theory, founded in (naive) Logic,
3.Mathematics, founded in (naive) Set Theory,
4.Physics, founded in Mathematics and in the mechanistic
Dogma, itself founded in (naive) Logic.
5.Other "hard" Sciences, founded in Physics,
6."Soft" Sciences, founded in "hard" Sciences.
This "Paradise" represented the edifice of Science solid and
stable as Cheops pyramid, bestowing upon scientists the
gratifying conviction that Logic, THEIR Logic, explains and
determines the "Real Universe".
3.Lost Paradise
At the end of the 19th century two breaches appeared in the
pyramid setting off the Fin-de-Siecle Crisis of Thought which
triggered 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 falsifying the mechanistic,
Dogma.
2.Russell's Paradoxes calling in question the foundations
and sense of naive PL and founded in it naive 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, revised
entire Physics and laid the cornerstone of the Second
Enlightenment with its new Rationality.
Logicians did not notice that Russell's Paradoxes did not
wreck Logic in general, but only the naive PL and try in vain,
till our days, to patch it rather than to scrap the wreck and
to construct in its place new rational Logic.
4.East of Eden
4.1.Science
Expelled from Paradise, deprived of reassuring certainties
of the divine, olympian "Reality" of Naive View, Science
was compelled to count on itself and to engage entirely in
the way of "Sapere Aude". As first step it divorced with
Naive View and its absolute, noumenal Time and Space.
Indeed, invariant C of Electro-Magnetic Field and its
implications were totally at odds with Naive View's concepts
and representations:
-C invariance itself: Light passing an observer at C whether
he moves at 0.99 C in its direction or against it.
-#Space[G] ceased to be a "container" of Phenomena, but became
itself a Phenomenon[G], not only directly supporting Field
and its propagation, but P(henomenally)-Equivalent[G] with
Field, both becoming inseparable Aspects[G] or manifestations
of Cosmos.
-Time and Space components of #Space cease to be absolute
and invariable, but respectively dilate and contract in a
relatively moving Referential[G] in function of its speed.
-Non-Euclidean metric[G] of #Space whose local curvature
is associated with Field density, however neither as cause,
nor as effect, but as P-Equivalence[G].
The demise of Naive View may be illustrated by comparing
the propagation of sound and light. An observer moving at V
with respect to the source of sound will find himself
displaced with respect to the surface of sound's sphere
extending in direction of V at sound speed S by S-V.
At V=S he will find himself at the surface and at Vs > S
he will "overtake" the sound and find himself supersonic,
outside of the sphere, preceding its advance. The relative
speed of sound depends of the speed of observer.
Now, light propagates at C independently of observer's speed
so that he will find himself always in the middle of the
light sphere, no matter how far he travelled from the source.
On the other hand he will find time flowing slower with respect
to the sphere than seen from the source. Thus, he will find
himself always in the center of the light sphere, getting
smaller in function of his relative speed. At the limit of V=C,
time at source will stop flowing for the moving observer and
his sphere will contract to a point, or rather to the Field
singularity called Photon. This basic construction of Extended
Relativity is of course totally at odds with the Naive View.
4.2.Ontology
Collapse of Aether Theory triggered the Second Scientific
Revolution which impacted Ontology, replacing the dominant
Noumenalism with Phenomenology.
Noumenalism postulates Transcendental "Reality" cognizable
via speculations a priori and reigned by Absolute (thus
identical with human) Logic from which it deduces dogmatic
principles of Science and Reason. It is nothing else than
Naive View[G] dressed up in highbrow verbiage.
Phenomenology, contrariwise, derives Ontology from basic
constructs of Science, mainly from fundamental Physics.
In the preceding paragraph (4.1.Science) we have briefly
presented some of these constructs pertinent to the Second
Scientific Revolution stressing their divorce from the Naive
View. One might say that the First Enlightenment tried to do
the best of the Naive View and that the second started by
transgressing it. Actually, even the First transgressed it
with Newton's Paradoxes, but refused to admit it, hidden
behind "hypotheses non fingo".
Some essential phenomenal concepts derived from Extended
Relativity:
-"Observation" or "Event" : Polar Structure or Dialectic
Dichotomy (see below) of Terms Subject/Object or
Observer/Observandum.
-"Phenomenon": particular spatio-temporal structure of Events.
-"Aspects" (of Phenomenon): Events composing it.
-"Entity": linguistic and logical synonym of Phenomenon.
-"Referential": Entity solidary with an Observer (a human or
a technical detector).
-"Reference System": A system of coordinates associated with
a Referential.
-"Polar Structure" of Phenomenon: its apparently contradictory,
but in fact complementary, P-Equivalent Aspects or Poles,
eg a plus/minus poles of magnet or wave/photon aspects of light.
-"#Space": abstract topological concept such as Riemann #Space,
sharply distinct from its homonym "space" of direct perception.
-"Phenomenal Equivalence" (P-Equivalence): Relation of Aspects
of a Phenomenon (Continuous Field wave and Discrete photon
are P-Equivalent aspects of the Phenomenon "Light").
-"P-Equivalence" of #Space and Field: In paragraph "FIELD AND
#SPACE" of
DERIVATION OF GENERAL RELATIVITY
we conclude:
"Qualitative solution (of the Second Newton Paradox) is
immediately given by the Rotating Disk:
On the one hand Field increases with r, i.e. #Space (distance)
apparently determines Field;
On the other hand the #Space curvature (indicated by
circumference getting greater than 2 pi r) increases with
Field density, i.e. Field apparently determines #Space.
Such a reciprocal apparent "determination" of two events,
each appearing in turn as cause and effect of the other,
should of course not be confused with causal, one-way
determination, but is the very essence of the P-Equivalence.
#Space and Field are two P-Equivalent Aspects through which
manifests itself the Extrinsicality and its most general
domain, the Cosmos".
-"Dialectic Dichotomy" (short "Dichotomy"): synonym of Polar
Structure, appropriate outside of Physics and "hard"
disciplines. "Terms" of Dichotomy are synonyms of Poles.
-Universe: Subject is identical with its thematic Awareness,
whose Theme, which we call "Universe" has as any Phenomenon
subjective and objective aspects, respectively "Intrinsicality" and
"Extrinsicality" mapped into two P-Equivalent Structures: Mind
and Brain. Universe is structurally homomorphic with Extrinsicality
and its P-Equivalent aspects #Space and Field
( DERIVATION OF GENERAL RELATIVITY, Steps 1, 2 ).
Consequently, Universe and all therefrom derived structures
are dynamic, i.e. encompass time in 4 dimensional #Spaces
like Galilean affine TimeSpace, Minkowski's LighttimeSpace,
etc. Due to dynamics of Universe its aspects Mind and Brain
are dynamic and may be considered as "processors" of Intrinsicality
and of the dynamic flow of Extrinsicality, which we shall call
"Information".
Our Phenomenology has some common points with Heidegger and
Sartre "H-S" Ontology which allows to some extent for
post-Crisis Thought.
-Our Subject and Object (Aspects of Event) correspond to
H-S's "Pour-soi/Dasein" and "En-soi/Wesen".
-Temporality: Subject's domain is Future (Pour-soi appears
to itself as Project). Object's domain is irreversible Past
(Wesen ist was gewesen ist).
Unfortunately, H-S is incomplete and partially noumenalistic.
-Incomplete: it lacks the fundamental concept P-Equivalence
and the implied Polarity and Dialectic.
-Noumenalistic: H-S went astray into noumenal voids through
abuse of the copula "be" illegaly inflected into meaningless
"Beings".
Let's note that the term "Phenomenology" is often misused.
Husserl's and Hegel's "Phenomenologies", for instance, are
in fact abusively misnamed dogmatic Noumenalisms.
Our essay endeavors to derive a Phenomenal Ontology from the
Scientific Revolution of the Second Enlightenment, amidst
the dominating Dogmatism, which still haunts most domains,
starting with entirely Noumenalistic established Logic.
It is not the first Inductive Ontology. Kant, for instance,
derived a bona fide Ontology from the state of the art of
Science. However, his contemporary Science was paradoxical
and Kant derived from it a paradoxical Ontology.
(KANT AND EINSTEIN).
4.3.2.Reason and Logic
We address here the main theme of the essay: the new Reason
and Logic founded in Phenomenal Ontology of the Second
Enlightenment. As both terms "Reason" and "Logic" are muddled
by innumerable unfounded and ill-defined homonymies to the
extent of becoming meaningless, we started by defining them
in the following lines of BAA. STRUCTURE OF MIND:
***
The structure of Mind encompasses three basic Referentials:
Sensorium, Imagery and Symbolics. This static structure is
processed by several dynamic Functions or Faculties of human
"Reason":
-Morphogenesis, processing the Association Sensorium/Imagery.
-Imagination, processing Imagery.
-Logic, processing Symbolics.
-Reflection, processing the Association Imagery/Symbolics.
...
Human Reason encompasses Reflection, sometimes called Lateral
Thinking, which consists of two basic faculties:
1.Symbolizing, or mapping Imagery to Symbolics.
2.Understanding, or reducing Symbolics to Imagery.
We Symbolize by mapping Images of Imagery into ER (Entity/
Relation) network structure of Symbolics which we may
express with Statements and Symbols of our languages.
(Details in REFLECTION SPIRAL).
We Understand ER network structures as well as linguistic
Statements and Symbols by imagining them, by reducing them
to Imagery, which confers on them signification and meaning.
(Morphogenesis and Imagination are discussed in the
paragraph "Membrane Analogy. Sensorium and Imagery."
Logic is discussed in the Part C. MODELING AND LOGIC).
***
4.3.2.1.Established Logic
"Having discovered the world through language,
I have over long time taken language for the world".
Sartre
The autocratic rule of Predicate Logic (PL) over the logical
establishment goes back to the 19th Century and, unaffected
by the Fin-de-Siecle Crisis continues till our own days.
Russell realized that his Paradox wrecked PL
(LOST PARADISE),
but kept on confusing PL with Logic in general and, rather
than scrap PL and conceive on its ruins some well founded
rational Logic, rushed into patching it. Other Logicians
followed in his steps, creating the extraordinary proliferation
of systems trying and failing to patch the PL.
It's impossible to inventorize the hundreds of them, all
ill-founded, naive and useless. ESTABLISHED LOGIC shows
this enormous wasted effort in some detail. Here we shall
mention a few of its most striking misconceptions.
Predicate Logic is founded in statements of natural language
predicating properties-attributes on entity-subject in form
of "[Subject] is [Property]", e.g. "my-car is green" or
"my-car has (the property of being) green" or "my-car has
greenness" or, generally "[Entity] has or encompasses
[Attribute]" ("attribute" being synonym of "property").
One would expect Logic to be founded in Epistemology and
Ontology and one discovers with surprise that the sacrosanct
Predicate Logic boils down to a naive linguistic scheme.
Details are discussed in INTRODUCTION TO PREDICATE LOGIC.
Here we shall recall that PL, forgetting that the copula is
a syntactic contrivance absent from many languages, mistakes
"is" for "existential" operator and, by its fallacious
inflection bestows on Entity and Attribute the status of
"real Beings" albeit of different ontological nature
designating them respectively as subject and predicate of
propositions, as "Container" and "Contained". Now, "real
Entity", which exists "as such", even void of Attributes,
is known as "Noumenon", Kant's "Ding an sich". PL is thus
clearly Noumenal. Now, Noumenalism is nothing else than
Naive View[G] (aka. "Naive Realism") dressed up in highbrow
verbiage and, on the other hand, natural languages express
"natural" Naive View. Thus, PL noumenal and founded in
natural languages is from both points of view glaringly
Naive.
Like all its predecessors, PL does not found nor define
"Logic", which appears as a guideline of formulating "true"
and avoiding "false" propositions, without defining "truth"
nor "falsehood" and even, with Russell, denying the latter.
PL has been promoted to "Functional Calculus" by formalizing
its Propositions with help of such devices as:
Existential and Universal Quantifier, Constant, Variable,
Function, Boolean Operators.
Quantifiers stress the Naive foundation of PL, implying that
Propositions point to "objects" of Transcendent "Reality" and
to their scope. Other devices are imported from Mathematics,
so that the alleged foundation of Mathematics in PL is in
fact an idle circle of Mathematics founded in itself.
It's remarkable that two leading Logicians disinterred for
their PL patches the dead and decaying Liars Paradox, without
noticing that it was never a paradox, but a simple sophism:
Russell for his naive Types Theory and Goedel for his most
famous and most inane Theorem (LIAR'S PARADOX).
Finally let's quote one of the most naive assertions of
Science initiating the definition of Russell's Types
Theory:
"...We may define an individual as something destitute of
complexity; it is then obviously not a proposition, since
propositions are essentially complex."
Detailed comments in ESTABLISHED LOGIC.
4.3.2.2.Phenomenal Logic of Relativistic Dialectic
To the best of our knowledge "Reason" and "Logic" are for
the first time rigorously founded in structure of Mind in
our essay.
We summarize the STRUCTURE OF MIND
in terms of following domains and faculties:
-Domain "Sensorium" comprising Sensations.
-Domain "Imagery" comprising continuous 3D space "Images",
reciprocally bounded and structured as "Patterns" ordered
by CAUSALITY .
As Images and Patterns evolve continuously in time, Imagery
is a 4D time/space affine (incommensurable) between time and
space components.
In the context of scientific Models Imagery may be called
"Phenomenon #Space[G]" (PS).
Images appear to Awareness as "real objects". Mistaking
this appearance for transcendental "Reality" underlies
the "Naive View", or "Naive Realism".
-Faculty "Morphogenesis" mapping Sensations to Imagery and
constructing of them affine 4D Images and Patterns.
-Domain "Symbolics", discrete map of continuous Imagery.
Images map to "Entities", Causality to "Implication"
and Patterns to "Entity-Relation (ER) Networks" comprising
Entities as vertices and Implication Relations as edges.
Entities may be denoted by any symbols, including expressions
of natural or symbolic languages.
-Faculty of "Reflection", aka "Lateral Thinking" consisting
of reciprocal, two-way mapping between Imagery and Symbolics:
1."Symbolizing" or Mapping Image Patterns into Symbolic,
(or "Abstract") ER Structures.
2."Understanding", or regressing symbolic Structures to
Patterns of Imagery, which represent their "Meaning".
Based on this structure, "Logic" may be defined as Mind's
Faculty of Inference processing the Implications of symbolic
ER Networks.
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 Inference.
Logical Systems may be evaluated and justified exclusively
by their capacity to simulate Mind's intrinsic ER based
Logic. Our Phenomenal Logic of Relativistic Dialectic,
the COGNITIVE NETWORK endeavors to satisfy this requirement.
