Re: E Unum, Pluribus?

["Judith Rosen" <***>]

Thanks, John M., for your kind words. I often consider myself the outsider on the list, even though my name is Rosen.

 

I looked up unit in my Websters unabridged, and it says, "Derived from Latin, unitas, meaning one-ness. Which dictionary have you got? I know that the Oxford, for example,  often has different definitions than Websters so I like to make comparisons.

 

Cheers,

Judith

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "John M" <***>

To: <***>

Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 10:34 AM

Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Single atom universes, etc.

> 
Judith,
> a beautiful post you wrote!
> did it occur to you that the 
term "unit" is derived from 'more than one'?
> I wrote an "ode" about my 
naive ontology in 1991 and started with
> 'nothingness' which by its ow 
definition leads to 'somethingness' (allow me
> to skip the rest of it 
here as not anymore held applicable by myself).
> Nothingness, when 
spelled out (=considered) has a meaning, like: the 'lack
> of anything'. 
Which implies some 'anything' to consider. We know the vacuum
> only, if 
we know some non-vacuum.(Consider deep-sea fish not realizing the
> 
concept of water).
> I agree that there are no paradoxes in the (material 
or else) world, - just
> our misunderstandings do get us into 
"paradoxical" troubles.
> Mathematics is not supposed to have 'references' 
(a variant maybe to
> 'referents?) in its completely abstracted domain, 
requiring only a paper and
> pencil as its material world (~Hilbert) IF 
memory needs help... - the
> difficulties arise when the math-results are 
applied to "referents" in the
> (material?) world. The forced 
"meaning-transforms". To apply math formalism
> to restricted models and 
consider them as natural systems.
> 
> I find ALL thought 
experiments unreliable games (including the EPR) - with
> arbitrary 
conditions, believing, however, the conclusions of irreality into
> tenets 
of  reality. (Sorry, John, that pertains to the "one atom universe"
> 
as well. )
> 
> Including and concurring with the idea from JJK's 
remark below,   'western'
> (reductionist) science is a study of 
the snapshot-models (things, as JohnK
> said), excluding dialectics, "good 
only to blurr the 'clearcut' definitions"
> <G>.
> I concur 
with your next to the last par below, while I feel the last one is
> 
based
> on (the ubiquitous and natural) reductionistic views of the world 
and
> science we carry. I think "dynamical" means progressing in time and 
I have
> NO idea how to figure out "time" (the reason why I stayed out 
from Tim's
> line so far in spite of my big mouth).  The constipation 
may come from the
> static (snapshot) position in a dynamic 
situation.
> The "relation" is a qualifier - a difference- used also as 
comparison -
> APPLIED!
> (I used to call it: 'acknowleged') as the 
definition of (my) "information".
> We all think reductionisticly and it 
really takes a rape of our mind to
> abstain from the good old comfortable 
reductionism. Indeed we cannot do it
> altogether.
> 
> John 
Mikes
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 7:46 PM
> Subject: 
Re: Single atom universes, etc.
> 
> 
> > It's interesting 
to compare the observations that unity or wholeness is a
> > sum and 
nothingness is the lack of anything that makes up unity. In
> > 
mathematics, zero is a number. A singularity. An entity. A set with zero
> 
in
> > it isn't the same thing as an empty set, mathematically 
speaking. When
> > mathematicians try to divorce mathematics from any 
"referents" (as my
> father
> > referred to them), they wind up 
with weird, unresolveable paradoxes. It
> was
> > my father's 
contention that there are no such thing as paradoxes in the
> > 
material world.
> >
> > It was the lack of referents in the 
theoretical "universe with a single
> atom
> > in it" that my 
resistance was about, by the way. Anything we think we can
> > infer 
about such a universe is likely to be an "optical illusion" of the
> > 
mind's eye, much like mathematics creates under specialized and 
artificial
> > circumstances.
> >
> > Similarly, when 
studying a dynamical system,  it is common sense that any
> > 
relationship between two parts-- that has observable effects-- means 
that
> > the relationship is an integral "part" of the system. It has 
to be given
> the
> > same weight in study as the two parts 
themselves or there is little hope
> of
> > true understanding. 
Is it just because I was raised by Robert Rosen that
> all
> > 
this seems OBVIOUS to me? Why does science have such constipation over
> 
it???
> >
> > Judith
> >
> >
> > 
----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Kineman" 
<***>
> > 
Even nothing-something must include
> > > the dash, which is the 
relationship, so the most basic percept actually
> > > involves 3 
aspects; the two aspects being related, and the relationship
> > > 
itself. Western science threw the relationship out of the model and kept
> 
> > the idea of things. Then the only models you can create are 
dynamical
> > > ones, i.e., models that relate the things. But we 
need models that can
> > > relate relationships too, so they have to 
be put back into the system.
> > >
> > > JJK
> 
> >