[Fis] LOF Friday

Sun Jan 12 11:38:17 CET 2025

Dear Plamen,
I think you need to cut out the other recipients if you want to send messages to fis.
You could do that by sending two emails. One just to fis and the other to the LOF list.

In my opinion Steiner articulated very well the concurrence of percept and concept that is at the center of our direct realities.
There is a beginning here and it is deeper than the current concepts of world and observers, objects and subjects.
A number of insights ensue from this, not the least is the analogy with observation in quantum mechanics and the possibility of a new way to handle all of that.
But we are beginners here and we do not have the answers.
We have the possibility to learn anew.
Best,
Lou

> On Jan 12, 2025, at 2:53 AM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <plamen.l.simeonov at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Yes, Kant was in the beginning of this line and certainly all thinkers later were influenced by him,, but mathematics as it was developed from Hamilton onwards  and used by the 20th century relativists, electro technicians and quantum engineers was much more than electricity and elementary particles (which were accommodated into materialism), pluses and minuses only. In its essence it were the bundle of multiple dimensions and number types reflecting them (imaginary, complex and hypercomplex); it was the search for the true human nature, the freedom and the immortality of the soul and its destiny path to perfection, which was certainly a big problem for materialist science, reductionism and the rulers of this world until today. By the way, as for the introduction of David Booth I meant in my earlier email that it is related to the first book from Lou's Steiner list "The Fourth Dimension"; it did not open properly so I was not able to see the other books. But basically I wish to hook on to the point that Steiner who knew these developments and has made his own path demanded a new mathematics invards to explain the phenomena beyond pure observational externalism and relativism. He was appealing to phenomenological mathematics involving simultaneously the subject and the object of observation, something that neither Einstein, nor the QM wizards were able to manage until now. And that's why we still stay stuck here with the old theories for about 50 years since Everett.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Plamen
>  
>  
> 
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 10:20 AM Baecker, Dirk <Dirk.Baecker at zu.de <mailto:Dirk.Baecker at zu.de>> wrote:
> one may indeed think that Kant’s „attempt to introduce the concept of negative quantities [and entities] into philosophy [or, rather, world wisdom]“ (1763) is still highly acute:
> 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Attempt*to*Introduce*the*Concept*of*Negative*Quantities*into*Philosophy__;KysrKysrKysr!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WsiJ-IcP3scBiWmR8H_8ezvbqyYnVVv_3zKCHMF-gLil2DocTCWwdW6MhVPNMKN1WL9L0N7io9IX2hlA$  <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Attempt*to*Introduce*the*Concept*of*Negative*Quantities*into*Philosophy__;KysrKysrKysr!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WsiJ-IcP3scBiWmR8H_8ezvbqyYnVVv_3zKCHMF-gLil2DocTCWwdW6MhVPNMKN1WL9L0N7io9IX2hlA$ >
> 
> 
> 
> > Am 12.01.2025 um 08:54 schrieb Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <plamen.l.simeonov at gmail.com <mailto:plamen.l.simeonov at gmail.com>>:
> > 
> > Yes, my advice is to read the introduction to this book by David Booth  first. It reveals that the foundations of Steiner's philosophy began much earlier in the mid 19th century when the development of human mind had attained a singularity point in the descent of spirit/mind into matter with focus on manufacturing products, mechanical engineering and materialistic science for the coming 20th century, and at the same time - crucial developments in mathematics, which stimulated also the emergence of the psychological disciplines; all this being demarcated by the works of such brilliant mathematicians as Willian Rowan Hamilton, then Ludwig Schlaeffii and Hermann Grassmann - both school teachers ! -- then Howard Hinton and Alicia Boole, who happened to be  supported by William James (and maybe even C.S. Peirce), and so on. We are talking here about a missing perspective on mathematics and the human spirit which becomes apparent in Steiner's anthroposophy. In this respect I would recommend another book by him, also available at z-library if you do the search: "Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and Its Attainment". 
> > 
> > All the best,
> > 
> > Plamen
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 8:38 AM Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com <mailto:loukau at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > Dear Dirk,
> > Personally, I am interested in Steiner’s philosophy and epistemology/phenomenology.
> > Feel free to explore whatever beings are available to you!
> > 
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://z-lib.gl/s/Rudolf*20Steiner__;JQ!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WsiJ-IcP3scBiWmR8H_8ezvbqyYnVVv_3zKCHMF-gLil2DocTCWwdW6MhVPNMKN1WL9L0N7io00TdFxU$  <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://z-lib.gl/s/Rudolf*20Steiner__;JQ!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WsiJ-IcP3scBiWmR8H_8ezvbqyYnVVv_3zKCHMF-gLil2DocTCWwdW6MhVPNMKN1WL9L0N7io00TdFxU$ >
> > 
> > Here are some of his books that may be relevant to this discussion.
> > Another book is Projective Geometry by Olive Whicher and books for Waldorf schools on Form Drawing.
> > Best,
> > Lou
> > 
> > 
> > <Screen Shot 2025-01-12 at 12.33.43 AM.png>
> > 
> > Best,<Screen Shot 2025-01-12 at 12.33.58 AM.png>
> > Lou
> > 
> > <Screen Shot 2025-01-12 at 12.34.18 AM.png>
> > 
> > <Screen Shot 2025-01-12 at 12.34.27 AM.png>
> > 
> >> On Jan 11, 2025, at 4:48 AM, Baecker, Dirk <Dirk.Baecker at zu.de <mailto:Dirk.Baecker at zu.de>> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Rudolf Steiner? We are not going to explore ethereal beings, aren’t we?
> >> 
> >> regards
> >> 
> >> Dirk
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> Am 11.01.2025 um 10:15 schrieb Nicola Graves-Gregory <nicolasarasvati at gmail.com <mailto:nicolasarasvati at gmail.com>>:
> >>> 
> >>> Thank you, Lou, for hosting this wonderful meeting and thank you, everybody who took part. 
> >>> Would you send me the transcription, please? There were many concepts new to me and I would like to mull them over before the next wonderful meeting. 
> >>> Love and blessings all, 
> >>> Nicola x x 
> >>> 
> >>> People with learning differences (aka learning difficulties) are the saviours of society. They can open our hearts and help us think outside the box.
> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.livingspiritmathematics.co.uk/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WsiJ-IcP3scBiWmR8H_8ezvbqyYnVVv_3zKCHMF-gLil2DocTCWwdW6MhVPNMKN1WL9L0N7io5Hlux3K$  <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.livingspiritmathematics.co.uk/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WsiJ-IcP3scBiWmR8H_8ezvbqyYnVVv_3zKCHMF-gLil2DocTCWwdW6MhVPNMKN1WL9L0N7io5Hlux3K$ > 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 at 09:04, Louis H Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com <mailto:loukau at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>> We shall next meet: 
> >>>  Friday, January 17, 2024 at noon CDT Chicago time: 
> >>> 
> >>> We’ll continue the discussion that began this week.
> >>> Along with the points of view as outlined below there were many contributions from participants.
> >>> Some of these points are:
> >>> 1. LK talked about the meaning of “=“ in terms of “Identity” A = B so that one might say that ABC = ABC but ABB is not = ABC.
> >>> Identity generalizes to equivalence and the notion of equivalence relation in standard mathematics. Jerry Swatez pointed out that 
> >>> A = B can be seen to mean that A and B represent the same value or that there is a series of steps that can be taken from A to B. 
> >>> To appreciate this point and discuss it probably involves using Laws of Form. It is also relevant to current notion of Type where A and B are said to be of the same Type if there is a pathway from A to B in some context
> >>> not here defined. We will come back to this discussion. And of course there is Spencer-Brown’s statement that “A thing is identical with what it is not.”
> >>> 2. Stuart Kauffman pointed out important papers on autocatalytic processes that he will say more about.
> >>> 3. Karl Javorszky began to talk about natural numbers in his original way.
> >>> 4. Many other threads of discussion appeared, including a number of thoughts related to Rudolf Steiner.
> >>> 5. I would discuss further the role of topology in biology and in fundamental epistemology, at the meeting of percept and concept.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> >>> 
> >>> Join Zoom Meeting
> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://uic.zoom.us/j/4809175166?pwd=SHp0amNNLzJhUHBncVRxT3lBNjIwUT09__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WsiJ-IcP3scBiWmR8H_8ezvbqyYnVVv_3zKCHMF-gLil2DocTCWwdW6MhVPNMKN1WL9L0N7io7Yhw3UW$  <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://uic.zoom.us/j/4809175166?pwd=SHp0amNNLzJhUHBncVRxT3lBNjIwUT09__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WsiJ-IcP3scBiWmR8H_8ezvbqyYnVVv_3zKCHMF-gLil2DocTCWwdW6MhVPNMKN1WL9L0N7io7Yhw3UW$ >
> >>> 
> >>> Meeting ID: 480 917 5166
> >>> Passcode: 0rw2GP
> >>> ################################
> >>> 
> >>> Biologic - at the interface between biology, topology, logic and cybernetics.
> >>> Louis H Kauffman, UIC
> >>> 
> >>> “What can be shown, cannot be said.”
> >>> “Was gezeigt werden kann, kann nicht gesagt werden.”
> >>> (Wittgenstein, Tractatus, 4.1212)
> >>> 
> >>> “We take the form of distinction for the form.”
> >>> (Spencer-Brown, Laws of Form, Chapter 1)
> >>> 
> >>> What is the form of biology?
> >>> Is there a biology of form?
> >>> In particular, this is a study of different forms and formalisms for replication. We concentrate on diagrammatic formal systems not only for the sake of showing how there may be fundamental mathematical structure in biology, but also to consider philosophical and phenomenological points of view in relation to natural science and mathematics. The relationship with phenomenology comes about in the questions that arise about the nature of the observer in relation to the observed that arise in philosophy, but also in science in the very act of determining the context and models upon which it shall be based. Our original point of departure was the idea of distinction and cybernetic epistemology. Cybernetic epistemology has much to say about the relation of the self to structures that may harbor a self. What is the interlacement of selves and organisms?
> >>> Our point of view is structural. There is a distinct difference between building up structures in terms of principles and imagining that models of the world are constructed from some sort of building-bricks. I want  to make this point as early as possible because in mathematics one naturally generates hierarchies, but that does not make the mathematician a reductionist. We think of geometry as the consequences of certain axioms for the purpose of organizing our knowledge, not to insist that these axioms are in any way other than logically prior to the theorems of the system. Just so, we look for fundamental patterns from which certain complexes of phenomena and ideas can be organized. This does not entail any assumption about ``the world'' or how the world may be built from parts. What is a part that a world might be built from it?
> >>> 
> >>> We examine the schema behind the reproduction of DNA. The pattern of the DNA reproduction is very simple. The DNA molecule consists of two interwound strands, the Watson Strand (W)  and the Crick Strand (C). The two strands are bonded to each other via a backbone of base-pairings and these bonds can be broken by certain enzymes present in the cell. In reproduction of DNA the bonds between the two strands are broken and the two strands then acquire the needed complementary base molecules from the cellular environment to reconstitute each a separate copy of the DNA. At this level the situation can be described by a symbolism like this.
> >>> DNA = <W|C> ----->  <W| E |C> ----->  <W|C> <W|C> = DNA DNA.
> >>> Here E stands for the environment of the cell. The first arrow denotes the separation of the DNA into the two strands. The second arrow denotes the action between the bare strands and the environment (the creation of new base-pairings) that leads to the production of the two DNA molecules.
> >>> 
> >>> Much is left out of this schema. Indeed the DNA molecule is a tight spiral winding of its two interlocked strands and so the new DNA's would be linked around one another if it were not for the work of toposomerase enzymes that manage to unlink the new DNA's in time for cell division to occur. Nevertheless, this is the large scale description of the replication of DNA that is fundamental to the division of cells and to the continuance of living organisms.
> >>> 
> >>> This form of replication can be compared with other forms. For example, John von Neumann suggested a “building machine” B such that when B is supplied with a “blueprint” x then 
> >>> B, x —> B,x , X,x
> >>> This means that B and the blueprint x will produce X the entity whose plan is x along with a copy of the blueprint x. The first B,x is the persistence of the original machine B.
> >>> Let b be the blueprint for B itself. Then
> >>> B,b —> B,b , B,b.
> >>> The Von Neumann Machine replicates itself. 
> >>> In the comparison, we see that The DNA contains (in its strands) the blueprint for its own replication.
> >>> 
> >>> The comparison made, what questions do you ask? The mathematical roots of von Neumann’s construction are very deep. What are the physical/biological roots of the DNA replication?
> >>> 
> >>> We invite the reader to examine the form of the science involved in this well-known description. We speak of the DNA molecules as though we could see them directly in the phenomenology of our ordinary sight. Science does involve the direct extension of sight as the experience of looking through a telescope or a light microscope. But in the case of the DNA one proceeds by logical consistency and the indirect but vivid images via the electron microscope and the patterns of gel electrophoresis. In the case of electron microscope images there is every reason to assume (it appears consistent to assume) that the objects shown can be taken to be analogous to the macroscopic objects of our perception. This means that one has the possibility of observing ``directly" that DNA molecules can be knotted. I do not say that one can observe directly the coiling of the Watson and the Crick strands, but the DNA can be observed as though it were a long rope. This rope can be seen to be coiled and knotted in electron micrographs. Even this ``showing'' requires a difficult technique beyond the usual techniques of the electron microscope. The DNA was coated with protein by the experimenters so that it became a chain of larger and more robust diameter. Then the electron microscope revealed the patterns of knotting in an apparent projection of the coated DNA from three dimensional space to the two dimensional space of the image.<unknown.jpg>
> >>> It is remarkable how consistent is the hypothesis of indirect perception on which the work is based. Most working biologists would not question the basis of their biological perceptions direct or indirect. For those who are philosophically inclined there is a lesson to be learned about experimental phenomenology. 
> >>> One wants to know how far a world-view can be extended before it disintegrates.
> >>> What we see in the electron micrograph is deeply shaped by the complex story of biological experiment that surrounds it.
> >>> Along with these forays into experimentation, there are analogous forays into the limits of logic. Here we meet the replication schema again. Replication in logic is intimately related to self-reference and to formalisms that can lead to paradox. The reasons for this are, by now, apparent. The usual mathematical formalisms for set theory assume that there is no temporal evolution in the structures. 
> >>> Temporality may look like a tragedy for the classical mathematics, but it is exactly what interests us when studying biology. 
> >>> Mathematical biology is concerned with those structures leading to recursive generation of structures from themselves and from their environments. 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Here is a paper. 
> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.04325__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WsiJ-IcP3scBiWmR8H_8ezvbqyYnVVv_3zKCHMF-gLil2DocTCWwdW6MhVPNMKN1WL9L0N7io4K9SAWO$  <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.04325__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WsiJ-IcP3scBiWmR8H_8ezvbqyYnVVv_3zKCHMF-gLil2DocTCWwdW6MhVPNMKN1WL9L0N7io4K9SAWO$ >
> >>> ###################################
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> <Circle.png>
> >>> <QuincuncialProjection.png>
> >>> <PeirceFixedPoint.png>
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> > 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20250112/2bb3cb4a/attachment-0001.html>