Gordon Pask made perfectly clear (to his seminar class at the University of Illinois, Chicago ("Circle") in 1975), that GEORGE SPENCER BROWN and DAVID SPENCER BROWN SHARED a SINGLE BODY. The electrical engineer and the logician (to say it again) were distinct individuals with one human body; they cited one another in professional publications, quite properly and informatively. Pask's epistemological ontology makes it reasonably simple to discuss non-pathological cases of multiple Psychological Individuals acting primarily through a single Mechanical Individual - a single physiological human body. For comparison, today's 4E philosophy allows for spatially-extended P-individuals. Similarly, specific interpretations of EPR-B, (i.e. as recent 'interpretations' of quantum 'Action-at-a-Distance') allow us to work productive with "entangled particles," those that exist "at spatially separate locations" but not at spatial regions "in between." Quantum Information Theory ought to be able to enhance, and maybe be enhanced by, Gordon Pask's Conversation Theory.
30 = 2*3*5, it is the mod number for the residual class made from sieving the multiples of 2, then the multiples of 3 (that aren’t multiples of 2, i.e. the 3rd multiples of the the previous res. class’s elements, leaving 2/3 of what was left from the prior sieve), then the (those) multiples of 5. Since the next thing to sieve after that would be 7*7, which is greater than 30, we’ll have sieved every # that isn’t prime (as well as 2, 3, and 5 themselves). 29 is reflected across 15 to 1, 23 to 7, 19 to 11, 17 to 13. The pattern repeats 30-60, but excluding 49. The number of elements in the nth such residual class (30 is the 3rd) = the product of the first n primes each minus 1. So under 30 (2*3*5), that’s (2-1)(3-1)(5-1) = 8.
Extraordinaire ! Je suis ému aux larmes. Il y a tant d'images, tant de lumières dans cette œuvre, j'en suis ... bouleversé ? On peut dire ça sans être pris pour un simple ?
It seems like some kind of tragedy to me that this video, put up over three years ago with only 835 views (a tragedy in itself) as of writing this, has only one cryptic comment. I mean this a veritable who's who of 60s and 70s counterculture and the consciousness expansion movement that was still flourishing even in the face of tyrannical government oppression and propaganda. It's like here is a significant tangible piece of, in part, how some aspects and facets of society have gone on to develop since, and no one cares. I mean, maybe the title doesn't get the video into the right positions in terms of RU-vid's algorithm's decision procedure or some other bull puckey, but, my gosh, what dense naming and pointing to a whole stack of avenues for exploration and investigation. It's like it's a mouth of a cave, right? It's merely sitting here, covered in moss, agape, waiting for would-be psychonau(gh)ts, cyberneticists, and other mystics, scientists, and visionaries to plumb its depths and uncover traces of the wealth of treasure contained deep therein. I appreciate and am thankful for the opportunity to have made my initial exploration of its contours. Cheers!
Great find, thanks! I've been working on foundations of math so far unaware of James Algebra, in very similar veins with some notable distinctions. I've taken the Reflection as the foundational process and (non)-distinction, and dropped out letter symbols from the formalism as foundationally unnecessary. In this approach Reflection is not a container either, but the relational operators express distinctive process, ie. the fundamental emprical experience of continuous directed movement, e.g. < 'increases' and > 'decreases'. The reflection relation of a pair of chiral symbols is not limited to Dyck-language restrictions, but also "inverse Dyck" is allowed, so we can write reflection both "outwards" < > and "inwards" > <. Both of these forms are non-distinctive in regards to reading direction, and in that sense palindromic. Written alone the symbol expresses two sided process: decreases < increases increases > decreases In the case we wish to "tallify" the operator as such, we can also write ...<<<, <<, <, <<, <<<... and ...>>>, >>, >, >>, >>>... etc. in semantically coherent manner. Cf. Louis Kauffman's concept "iterants". As the change of direction is also a Boolean NOT, it's natural to introduce affirmation and negation in some degree, potentially including also definitive Halting of a process into state. In this sense we can define <> both increases and decreases >< neither increases nor decreases In the case >< self-cancels into the void of white space, the void becomes dynamically distinctive trinity: Xa: blank character space Xb: concatenation Xc: equivalence. Equivalence is semantically defined in the following manner: If A is neither more nor less than B, then A = B. Equivalence relation thus allows e.g. copy-paste. With these distinctions we can define the fundamental generative algorithm called "concatenating mediants". In the most primitive case, the mediant of white space blanks is concatenation as such. This is the formal language analogue of Dirac's delta function, which on formal language level remains visually non-distinctive as long as character symbols are not present. When character symbos are present, we can see the distinction: <> vs < > and >< vs > <. With the trinity available, we can proceed to concatenate mediants also from characters, strings and words and also tally them in more qualitatively complex and interesting Eigenform of the generative syntropic algorithm. < > < <> > < <<> <> <>> > < <<<> <<> <<><> <> <><>> <>> <>>> > etc. Let's define the words on the second round as countable elements, < or > for numerator aspect and <> for the denominator aspect. If < and > are part of <>, they are not counted separately. Counting this way, we get from the fourth row the numbers 1/0, 2/1, 1/1, 1/2, 0/1, 1/2, 1/1, 2/1, 1/0. This reveals that there is a reflexive deep level structure of formal language behind the familiar Stern-Brocot tree. In this approach the theory of rational numbers is not a relation of two integers, but a qualitative trinity of distinctions which semantically includes also temporal aspect as <> symbolizes a duration. Philosophically interpreting, here we derive number theory (starting from the rational numbers instead of natural numbers) from the Bergson-duration. This approach has interesting implications also for the relation of mathematics and physics, perhaps best discussed in the context of Ontological interpretation by Bohm and Hiley. Applying the generative algorithm and tally operation also to the seed > <, and the combinatorics of reflexive strings, is no less interesting field of further study. The binary tree of blanks contains possibility to represent continued fractions with notational parsimony (< for L and > for R). The trinity appears also in the character count of the generated rows with both characters and word separating blanks included: 1^n+2^n+3^n.
Correction to previous post: Later in the lecture, Lyle A. Anderson does give the references. I am assuming the paper: "Introduction to Physics, Astrophysics, & Cosmology of Gravity-Like Fields" by Walter Droscher & Jochem H. Hauser (2016), is where the speculative hyperdrive for interstellar spacecraft is described. I would like to see more details about B. Heim, I. Von Ludwiger, & exotic faster-than-light space travel ideas.
I have heard that students of Burkhard Heim have said it is possible to build an actual technology of interplanetary & even interstellar flight based on the physics of Burkhard Heim. I had read several years ago that Illobrand Von Ludwiger, Walter Droscher, & somebody named Hauser had written a paper in German on this subject, but I don't have the references. These ideas may be more practical than the warp drive proposed by Alcubeire, but I would like to know more.
You followed me all the way over here to and only to say this? lol Wow Walter, you've outdone yourself. And you would also - and again - be wrong. "Look it up."
@@BlackPowerMedia. Dr. Ball, stop digging your heels in & swallow your pride. Danny Glover is ALL three. You were wrong when you said Glover is associated with the Democratic party. Read up on Glover before you speak up.
Rarely do I defend Dr. Ball. He's not wrong about Glover. I used to work with his brother. We discussed the industry and Black people often. I would slay his brother for being in The Color Purple and Beloved. If ever I wanted him to shut up; all I had to do was mention the impact of those two films. You could hear Ants whispering. That's how quiet he got. @@walter1932
