Organic

[DoronShadmi]

The organic framework is exactly a whole\part relation, where the whole(the non-local) is not "a one of many ..." thing and a part(the local) is "a one of many ..." thing.

"A thing" is both something or nothing , so the organic framework defines the common source of the empty and the non-empty, which is non-local\local relations, where the difference between the empty and the non-empty is ignored, for example:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/NX-X-L.jpg

As can be seen, Non-locality(The whole, which is not "a one of many ..." thing) and Locality(a part, which is "a one of many ..." thing) are common properties of both Fullness and Emptiness.


And?

--J.D.
As a result any given collection of infinitely many local things is incomplete because it cannot be the whole(the non-local).

"Cantor introduced into mathematics the notion of a completed set, so that the integers, for example, could be considered together as a set in themselves, and so as a completed infinite magnitude. Only by conceiving of the integers as a whole entity, (as a Ding für sich) could Cantor define the first transfinite number, which he denoted by a lower case omega (ω), in contradistinction to the familiar sideways eight infinity symbol (oo), which had only meant unbounded."
( http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1993/PSCF3-93Hedman.html ).

Cantor was very close to define the organic paradigm (The NXOR\XOR product) but his mistake was that he understood the whole in terms of a collection (a XOR product), and not in terms of a non-local atom (a NXOR product) that is not "a one of many ..." thing.

One can say: "Please show n which is not a member of N. If you can show it, then and only then N is incomplete."

My answer: If |N| is non-finite, then any given n is not its final member (order is not important). Being a non-finite collection does not depend on a particular member, but it is a property that belongs to each n in N (no n in N is its final member if N is a non-finite collection).

[crazefest456]

so, there isn't a 'not'...there must be a nothing, i mean, how could mankind conceive of this before the concept of infinity? Maybe the nothing is our need for a definite dichotomy...

[Midas]

On reading this, I am reminded of my favourite philosopher, and lively wit - Shakespeare, who would probably remark on the above - 'sounds like 'much ado about nothing.'

However, levity aside. Could you please explain to the non-mathematicians, or the scientific, terminally dim, among us (or, if everyone else is OK, just me) - 'what point is really being made' in its relation to philosophy?

Is it another way of saying - look at something with a Gestalt view, or to put it very simply, that something, especially we beings, are greater than the sum of our parts?

Or, am I way off beam? (which I accept is quite possible)

At school we had a saying, when all else fails, 'blind 'em with science'. And, not having 20/20 vision, I could so easily fall vicitim when on the receiving end.

[DoronShadmi]

On reading this, I am reminded of my favourite philosopher, and lively wit - Shakespeare, who would probably remark on the above - 'sounds like 'much ado about nothing.'

However, levity aside. Could you please explain to the non-mathematicians, or the scientific, terminally dim, among us (or, if everyone else is OK, just me) - 'what point is really being made' in its relation to philosophy?

Is it another way of saying - look at something with a Gestalt view, or to put it very simply, that something, especially we beings, are greater than the sum of our parts?

Or, am I way off beam? (which I accept is quite possible)

At school we had a saying, when all else fails, 'blind 'em with science'. And, not having 20/20 vision, I could so easily fall vicitim when on the receiving end.
Dear Midas,

Please look at http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=453875&postcount=3 .

Thank you.

[DoronShadmi]

so, there isn't a 'not'...there must be a nothing, i mean, how could mankind conceive of this before the concept of infinity? Maybe the nothing is our need for a definite dichotomy...


Hi crazefest,

The Organic framework is both complementation and prevention of its products.

As a result dichotomy has two extremes that can be transformed into each other without defining each other. These extremes that are not defined by each other (they are mutually independent like two axioms of the same framework) are called Non-locality and Locality.

The logical foundations of the organic framework can briefly be seen in http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=453875&postcount=3 .

[Midas]

I did as you suggested hoping for, and seeking, enlightenment.

I still ask, however, is what you are saying within your mathematical, and scientific analogy, that we should see man, and life, as a whole experience - in that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and not focus too much on the parts?

I am no scientist, or mathematician, though I will admit to my surname being Newton, I do not wish to engage in questioning your comments where they relate to the analogies.

Academia, I know has seen it in its infinite wisdom, to classify the disciplines of psychology and philosophy sciences. However, unlike physics and science, all conclusions are theory. Where the human mind, and behaviour
enter into an equation, out goes empirical examination and 'laws' that will hold
in all situations.

We know different persons may behave differently under the same experiences, and one person may behave differently under the same conditions at a different time.

So far, it is my belief that often, to analyse is to paralyse. There are occasions when we need to consider a part of the whole, but that the whole
should be the dominant concern. In the same way that a painting should be seen, and judged, as a whole and not on the individual brush strokes, but yet, a brush stroke, can often tell us much about an artist


In your summary of the post to which you directed me, it appears your prime
interest is a mathematics one, rather than one of philosophy.

“…The problems mentioned are merely samples of problems, yet they will suffice to show how rich, how manifold and how extensive the mathematical science of today is, and the question is urged upon us whether mathematics is doomed to the fate of those other sciences that have split up into separate branches, whose representatives scarcely understand one another and whose connection becomes ever more loose. I do not believe this nor wish it. Mathematical science is in my opinion an indivisible whole, an organism whose vitality is conditioned upon the connection of its parts.”

I am not saying that there is not a relationship. Philosophy, or our search for understanding of life, can reach into every area. I am merely trying to say there are distinct differences between what is termed the 'behavioural sciences' and pure science.

Just thoughts, I don't have the answers. All is theory.

[crazefest456]

Hi crazefest,

The Organic framework is both complementation and prevention of its products.

As a result dichotomy has two extremes that can be transformed into each other without defining each other. These extremes that are not defined by each other (they are mutually independent like two axioms of the same framework) are called Non-locality and Locality.

The logical foundations of the organic framework can briefly be seen in http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=453875&postcount=3 .

But, doesn't locality, and non locality get undermined by the uncertainty principle? It can apply in this case in the following manner: electrons, and thus the atom, have a high affinity towards the organic, but it is also probable (no matter how minute) for the atoms to be attracted to other degrees within and beyond the locality, and non locality (no matter how ridiculously far away). Even if the electron is infinitely displaced(beyond the electron shells), the same electron is, at that moment, at its preferred spot. This allows the cardinal to go beyond one and split of locality and nonlocality are no more.
I probably misunderstood you because I have never been acquainted with set theory (i'm only in highschool) so I just took a shot at it, using my limited knowledge of physics.

and the question is urged upon us whether mathematics is doomed to the fate of those other sciences that have split up into separate branches, whose representatives scarcely understand one another and whose connection becomes ever more loose.
this explains accurately our current (A mathematician, economist, and philosopher walk into a bar) situation on this thread.

[blp]

Jeez. Does this mean local is not the new organic?

[DoronShadmi]

I did as you suggested hoping for, and seeking, enlightenment.

I still ask, however, is what you are saying within your mathematical, and scientific analogy, that we should see man, and life, as a whole experience - in that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and not focus too much on the parts?

I am no scientist, or mathematician, though I will admit to my surname being Newton, I do not wish to engage in questioning your comments where they relate to the analogies.

Academia, I know has seen it in its infinite wisdom, to classify the disciplines of psychology and philosophy sciences. However, unlike physics and science, all conclusions are theory. Where the human mind, and behaviour
enter into an equation, out goes empirical examination and 'laws' that will hold
in all situations.

We know different persons may behave differently under the same experiences, and one person may behave differently under the same conditions at a different time.

So far, it is my belief that often, to analyse is to paralyse. There are occasions when we need to consider a part of the whole, but that the whole
should be the dominant concern. In the same way that a painting should be seen, and judged, as a whole and not on the individual brush strokes, but yet, a brush stroke, can often tell us much about an artist


In your summary of the post to which you directed me, it appears your prime
interest is a mathematics one, rather than one of philosophy.

“…The problems mentioned are merely samples of problems, yet they will suffice to show how rich, how manifold and how extensive the mathematical science of today is, and the question is urged upon us whether mathematics is doomed to the fate of those other sciences that have split up into separate branches, whose representatives scarcely understand one another and whose connection becomes ever more loose. I do not believe this nor wish it. Mathematical science is in my opinion an indivisible whole, an organism whose vitality is conditioned upon the connection of its parts.”

I am not saying that there is not a relationship. Philosophy, or our search for understanding of life, can reach into every area. I am merely trying to say there are distinct differences between what is termed the 'behavioural sciences' and pure science.

Just thoughts, I don't have the answers. All is theory.

By the organic paradigm any product of our realm is the result of a Whole\parts relation, where the Whole is logically not any one of the parts that are related to it.

Please open http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/Paradigm-Shift.pdf in order to understand the logic that stands in the basis of the organic paradigm.

[DoronShadmi]

But, doesn't locality, and non locality get undermined by the uncertainty principle? It can apply in this case in the following manner: electrons, and thus the atom, have a high affinity towards the organic, but it is also probable (no matter how minute) for the atoms to be attracted to other degrees within and beyond the locality, and non locality (no matter how ridiculously far away). Even if the electron is infinitely displaced(beyond the electron shells), the same electron is, at that moment, at its preferred spot. This allows the cardinal to go beyond one and split of locality and nonlocality are no more.
I probably misunderstood you because I have never been acquainted with set theory (i'm only in highschool) so I just took a shot at it, using my limited knowledge of physics.

this explains accurately our current (A mathematician, economist, and philosopher walk into a bar) situation on this thread.

I am talking about locality an non-locality from the logical point of view.

Please look at http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/Paradigm-Shift.pdf to learn more.

[Midas]

"......By the organic paradigm any product of our realm is the result of a Whole\parts relation, where the Whole is logically not any one of the parts that are related to it........"

But, of course the Whole is not ONE of its parts, the whole, by its definition, is the SUM of its parts. (even my pocket Oxford would tell me that)

In my simple but logically attuned mind, I see nothing profound in this, just common sense based on, as here it is being expressed in English, a knowledge of English word meaning, and then applied common sense.

Having said that, and accepting that you are a reasonably intelligent being with a bent towards mathematics, and science (no patronising, or cynicism intended or implied) I feel that I must still be missing something somewhere - in particular, the useful general point being made, and also, if there is one, in its relation to philosophy.

I am trying hard to understand, as I do not see you as someone who would get satisfaction from stating the obvious. And yet, that is what the quoted explanation at the heading of this post appears to express.

Perhaps another way of reaching my understanding would be for you, if you would, to tell me where my simplified offerings in my previous posts are out of sync with your mathematical science, complex to the layman, view.

I would truly be interested to learn where I am, perhaps, going wrong, as so far to me, it appears to amount to the same thing.

Thank you for your efforts, and patience so far.