Philosophy Group

Disciplines: Philosophy
Curator(s): John McIntosh, stnefan andrzej, stefan, ziomal, andy
Started: Jul 11, 2012

Nathan Coppedge
Started by: Nathan Coppedge
An Age-Old Question of Physics

There has been some debate as to whether philosophy is multi-disciplinary. Ocassionally major concerns arise in other disciplines which merit the attention of philosophers. Perhaps that is the only major way in which philosophers have seen themselves as being devoted to another subject. For example, the role of the Spanish Inquisition and Einstein's Relativity raised existential questions which penetrated ethics and theorie of utility. The need for coherency in mathematics led to Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica, and ironically, some claim, to the Godel's Incompleteness Theorems (also Tarski's Undefinability Theorem and Russell's Paradox).

Now I have found evidence, first theoretical, and then practical, for a new role for philosophy in the realm of physics. I will abbreviate it in several points:

1. Emerging technological paradigms (robots, A.I., connectivity, modularity, virtual reality) suggest that philosophy has become a form of data which has, due to exceptional thinking, a mere application value except in the sense of being selfishly 'synthesized'. The dependence on experiences to define progress is a dubious one if a large part of progress consists of computational usefulness.

2. There is a need for a union of metaphysics and physics that has been felt previously in such books as On the Union of Sense and Soul by Wilber, to say nothing of Kant's morality or the long history of ontological exploration. The combination in my mind is summarized by the expression 'metemphysics' (physics of in-betweens), which is essentially a discipline devoted to the materialism of ideas.

3. I posted a video

which captures an experiment I conducted recently, which seems to break the first law of thermodynamics. One possibility is that on certain matters physics is getting too semantic. But that is a side issue. What is more important, is that with a claim like this, the desire for abstract theories may sometimes outweigh the mere assumptions of material reality. Although there is value for a discipline devoted to the materialism of ideas, particular exceptional instances raise the prospect of a renewed interest in the abstract sciences, whether it turns out to be mathematics, or instead, metaphysics.

Does anyone wish to discuss or contribute to any of this? For example, the knowledge, dominion, or progress of philosophy?

Specifically does anyone have any technological idea of philosophy?

(I also encourage people to join my Facebook group, called That page provides more information on related topics).

No Comments posted yet.
Nathan Coppedge
Started by: Nathan Coppedge
Seeking comments on a categorical method

I have defined in my book that axiometry is the study of categories using axes, as in mathematics, on the basis of the Cartesian Coordinate System. Categories are defined to be complete and exclusive. The opposite of the category is chosen for the category opposite the axial position. However, since a category does not occupy both sides of an axis, but rather is framed devisively by multiple such axes of comparison, the result is that every category is compared only by referring to multiple axes of comparison. The center, called the 'mote' is the point of universal conjunction (Consider this a lemma. By universal I mean that every category is exclusive, and there is a premise that two exclusions which are opposite describe conceptually all intermediate territories, by some method of analysis, which is not necessarily automatic. That the mote is a universal conjunction may not be necessary). The number of axes of comparison is equal to d dimensions, and the number of categories tends to be 2 ^ d. Also, the number of unique comparisons, which I call categorical deductions is not equal to the number of categories, but actually a smaller number, probably n / 2 or perhaps n / d (it's ambiguous in the case of two dimensions, which is the standard format).

Let me describe a case which you may or may not agree with, and you can verify that it fits within the method. Let it be noted that there is no definite certainty that the terms chosen ACTUALLY ARE opposites, by such a rigorous standard as to fit into this system. Perhaps the exceptions that are found are actually exceptions to the reality of whether the terms ACTUALLY EMBODY opposites. However, I find it easy to accept that two opposite describe all intermediate territories. This has been familiar already in positive versus negation, free-will and determinism (although I argue this dichotomy is incorrect) and other comparisons.

Here is a case: Strength, Ethics, Weakness, Immorality defines four squares. It is important that opposites have a range of d-dimensions from their opposites, unless the categories are sub-divided.

Here it can be seen that the deduction involves the following: Strong ethics implies weak immorality, and weak ethics implies strong immorality. That is intuitively correct.

However, according to the same reasoning, we could also conclude less obvious things (assuming the premises are correct). We could determine that the beautiful stoic implies sensitivity to ugliness, and if determination is opposite to ambiguation, and the spiritual opposes the material, then we could state that the physical properties of determination of the sun oppose the spiritual properties of the ambiguation of the sea.

Does this seem too Pre-Socratic? Am I delusional to think this could be an advanced system of knowledge?

Does anyone agree it could have logical usefulness? My entire system depends on it's validity. What I believe to be one of the most important logical systems constructed so far in history. Notice it's exponential.

I welcome comments, although I'm not sure when I'll check back. Probably in the next few days or weeks.

I want to be very constructive, in case there is any usefulness whatsoever.

[I have also posted a method for sixteen categories that reduces to four instead of two on my blog, for those that are interested:]






No Comments posted yet.
  • Recommend Us