Posted by Reilly Atkinson on September 27, 1999 at 16:45:22:

In Reply to: Salute! #1 posted by mike cahill on September 26, 1999 at 16:21:01:

Mike -- Once more, less lightly. First re your Lets get on with it posting. If point 2&3, for the sake of argument. are true, so what? What will I be able to do that I cannot already do?, how will it all help me? -- doing consumer research, or executing my duties as a corporate board member, or ...

What I'm about to say, I've tried to say before, but probably too obliquely. There is nothing new brought forth in your dialogue with (Mr.) Muncie -- who clearly has a formidable intellect. You are both covering ground that has repeatedly been discussed in both the physics and philosophy literature -- and, many scholars and researchers have gone way beyond the level of the discussion here. To be very direct, the stuff about names is pretty much a no-brainer -- tell me something new, that I don't already know; get past Perceptual and Linguistic Philosophy 101

Universes and stuff: first, not only is it possible to imagine object substitution, but scale transformations as well -- the universal time scale, or mass scale, or length scale could change as well. Far fetched as it may sound, it's possible to think up causative factors that could drive such shifts or substitutions -- one of the stranger ones might be systematic jumps out of and into parallel universes(some physicists believe that there are such beasts)Others could involve particle destruction and creation, or bizzare gravitationl shennanigans. The plain fact is that such imaginative phenomena are usually dismissed by means of Occam's razor. The suggestion that object replacement signifies a lack of causality is simply not true, but it is also not false -- could be, could not be.

The nature of reality I'll leave alone except that1. the idea of a movie of evolution is commponplace, and 2. what is the triadic representation of my knowledge of reality?

The whole idea of constancy vs change with respect to matter, space, time and energy is one that is still under active research. Pragmatics require constant or near constant artifacts in any discernment of change -- change can only be discerned against some element of constancy.

Mike, you have said there's no such thing as macroscopic steady state -- well it's not quite so simple. During our lifetime, for example, the motion of the planets around the sun is in a steady state ( technically, as seen in a non-inertial frame) There's also the non-trivial problem of empirically determining a steady state -- how long do you observe? Your notion of undoing a process is just one of many ways that people actually use to describe steady states in the face of dynamical changes.

Your notion of a transformation of particle->wave to illustrate quantum duality is, unfortunately, quite incorrect. The quantum theory does not postulate such a transformation. Rather, the wave particle duality appears to be, partly at least, an artifact of the measuring process -- objects with low frequencies and long wavelegths tend to behave like waves; short wavelengths and high frequncies tend to behave like particles --(the ascription of wavelength and frequency come from the Fourier decomposition of the wave function)Measurement procedures are often correlated with estimated wave function characteristics. But no way is there a direct wave to particle transfomation, nor vica versa

And, by the way, I've learned an enormous amount about knowledge in the last fifteen years through my study and research into neural networks, and close study of much of the experimental literature dealing with learning, memory, perception and the like. I've not learned much from trying to understand your UTK.

I have no problem with the notion that much of knowledge can be represented in triadic form, but then much of knowledge can be described with ordinary language.

I'm curious about the following examples and their triadic resolution:

the noncausal phenomena of radioactive decay

the fact that I know that I can recognize Puccini's music

the fact that I know that I know how to do calculus - as distinct from the fact that I know how to do calculus, and as distinct that I know that I can construct an arbitrary sequence of "I know that Iknow that I know..."

the fact that I know how to see.

Godel's theorem

Knowledge about Godels theorem

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle(The better you know an object's position, the less you know about its speed and vica versa)

Again, in plain talk, you are spending a lot of time in very elementary aspects of knowledge, no brainers -- you do not quote nor reference any of the thousands of books and articles concerning knowledge, epistomology, creativity, logic, causality, and so forth. Tell me things that I do not know and that are practical, and in a fashion in which I have confidence that you know what you are talking about. Enough.

Regards
Reilly

---

Follow Ups:

• Re: Salute! #1 mike cahill 17:16:13 9/27/99 (17)
  • Re: Salute! #1 Reilly Atkinson 01:29:03 9/28/99 (16)
    • Wonder C. J. Sekhar 10:43:37 9/28/99 (4)
      • Re: Wonder (and possible UTK test) Kees de Vos 16:56:01 9/28/99 (3)
        • Re: Wonder (and possible UTK test) mike cahill 20:13:20 9/28/99 (2)
          • Learning styles and UTK? L.Grohn 03:17:58 9/29/99 (1)
            • Re: Learning styles and UTK? mike cahill 15:20:41 9/29/99 (0)
    • PS mike cahill 03:18:55 9/28/99 (0)
    • Re: Salute! #1 mike cahill 03:07:25 9/28/99 (9)
      • Question on inverse use of UTK (a.k.a alternative UTK) Kees de Vos 16:41:50 9/28/99 (2)
        • Re: Question on inverse use of UTK (a.k.a alternative UTK) mike cahill 20:21:17 9/28/99 (1)
          • Re: Question on inverse use of UTK (a.k.a alternative UTK) mike cahill 20:23:10 9/28/99 (0)
      • Re: Salute! #1 rEILLY aTKINSON 12:38:32 9/28/99 (5)
        • At the heart of knowledge Denham 14:38:53 9/28/99 (4)
          • At The Heart of the Matter Martyn R Jones 11:17:11 9/30/99 (3)
            • Re: At The Heart of the Matter mike cahill 13:27:38 9/30/99 (2)
              • Re: At The Heart of the Matter Martyn R Jones 13:54:27 9/30/99 (1)
                • Re: At The Heart of the Matter mike cahill 14:32:51 9/30/99 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: