Dialectic Thinking
DIALECTIC THINKING
PRESOCRATIC AND HEGELIAN DIALECTICS
THE MEASUREMENT IN QUANTUM-MECHANICS
AND ITS PHILOSOPHICAL DIMENSION
CONTRADICTIVE MONADOLOGY
AND UNIVERSAL BIO-CARTOGRAPHY
―CONTRADICTIVE ELEMENTARY UNITE―
DIALECTICS
A Primary Notation: If man is not a creation of God, but a result of the universal evolution process, his structure must contain recorded all the moments of this universal evolution process. So the form and structure of the human, should be faces of this recording. For the same reason human cerebrum is also a codified structure of experience and know-ledge of this universal evolution process in every man. It is, nowadays somehow accepted, that all these recordings in human structure and cerebrum, are concentrated codifications in a microstructure record, which is his DNA. This recording is a specific logic-lingual syntax (a language of nature), which contains and responds to all the universal moments, from the point of view of every specific human and which has not been completely de-codified or read yet.
When experience enters in the human hereditary knowledge mechanism, (which mainly is the human cerebrum), stimulates and awakes this mechanism, reminding its ancient founding formation deposits, which travel deeply into the ancestors, the animals and the nature, decoding them. Because a new experience is not exactly the same with the responding in the hereditary mechanism, it reforms-enriching the old founding formation of this mechanism also. So the decoding process of the knowledge mechanism, by the entrance of experience, follows a new conscious codification, which reforms the cerebrum’s structure also. This course of de-codification and conscious re-codification, is Conscience and Logic, while the part of the knowledge mechanism, remaining in the old hereditary state, is Sentiment, Intuition and all the inexplicable and considered metaphysic attributes of the human nature, being the Aesthetics.
According to this ontological preposition, “knowledge is possible”, because by the experience involvement and critique, we decode the world evolution course, which is multi-dimensionally recorded in our coded knowledge mechanism and recoded again as conscious. All structures of human hereditary knowledge mechanism, compose a decoded-recoded again and again endless process in the human cerebrum constituting the human DNA. Thus, with the discovery of human DNA, as a hereditary knowledge potentiality mechanism, all the discussion about the terms of metaphysics as science and any relation of metaphysics with human intellect and mentality, collapses. Intellect and knowledge do not have any relation with metaphysics, because science forbids it. So all the literature about mechanisms concerning the psychology, the soul or the spirit, in relation to the knowledge and the human behaviour has fallen to emptiness, since nowadays these are a subject of neurobiology. Thus the “a priory knowledge potentiality”, which is considered to be the natural structures of the universal evolution process, is now accepted to be recorded in human cerebrum and because this is a hereditary experimental accumulation, that’s why human knowledge receives experience exactly as it really is. So the world is the one we come in immediate touch and has nothing to do with Ideas of any kind phenomena, which the Ideas reflect to our world and knowledge.
PROLEGOMENA FOR A FUTURE DIALECTIC THINKING:
Although Dialectics appeared first, as conscious logical practice, by Anaximander and Heracleitos, after the appearance of conscious Rationalism by Parmenides and the Formal Rationality by Aristotle, Dialectics was pushed aside. And although the dialogue about a dialectic logic continues until today, there was never a clear perception about "what is or it is not" Dialectics, because the texts of these great ancient thinkers came to us, fragmentally and scorched by the sacred Christian fire. The appearance of the Hegelian "Science of Logic", although gave a respiration and created a huge philosophical movement to all directions (materialistic and idealistic), did not give a useful dialectic, formal-logic instrument as the one of Aristotle, proposed for rationality. Moreover, though marxist dialectics opened again the way for the social vision, finally collapsed. This way, dialectics was put aside again, considered to be dead, not only to the scientific research, but to the social vision also, because though socialism accepted Dialectic Materialism as a motion and progress mechanism, in science and every-day life couldn’t avoided rationalism and formal logic. So dialectics remained dead-unburied and its ghost, goes around the philosophical and scientific cycles for centuries, because though man did not succeed to use it, did not stopped to dream by means of this. Since rationalism from antiquity, was reinforced with differential and integral mathematics for the overpassing of its static syndrome, there are thinkers who accept dynamic and differential rationalism as dialectics and others who claims that real Dialectic Logic should be avoid as a curse of thinking.
This work brings again in the surface of interest, the inquiry “if a Dialectic Logic could be an autonomous one or it is a supplementary differential-dynamic process of rationality. Though this matter concerns the logic-lingual syntax of the scientific process, it also concerns philosophy, because it holds as a matter of logic since antiquity.
There are scholars who consider philosophy as the history of philosophy and dialectics as the history of dialectics, so they should not participate in this dialogue, because they will create confusion; this work do not address to them. They must wait for the thinkers who “draw up” from the “fountain” of logic and thinking, deriving from the scientific evolving process to compose a contemporary dialectic thinking and if they succeed, their turn will come, if they understand, to inform the public what has been done. According to the majority of them though, “nothing new of these which have been said in the past, is possible to be said”. Something which seems to be true, because man dreamed for centuries and for almost everything. This although being accepted by a great part of thinkers, is the mistake of them who believe that the world is finished, being phenomenal and closed system. That system operating, from a moment and after, is obliged to repeat a predeterminate and finished series of games, which could be named “synthetic prototypes of the end”, and that is why they believe that nothing new can be said. Though these games are the result of the system’s operation, must simultaneously be at the beginning of that operative system, composing this way a world of ideas. This rational dynamic process, was named by Aristotle Entelechia (Εντελέχεια is the system, whose the terms of composition, presuppose and not fail functioning to perform its final integration and perfection). It is sure though, that differential-dynamic rationality, being reinforced with a huge armoury of mathematics, according to the majority of the scholars, has completely covered the space of dialectics. So a new inquiry is raised, “why, since we posses a so progress and perfect logical system, to change it with another one, which has not being reliable yet?”. The answer comes from the contemporary science and especially from Quantic scientific thinking, which insists that determinism and dynamic-differential rationalism cannot prescribe reality as it is any more. Moreover, “diving” in the research of pre-socratic dialectics, it seems that these thinkers of our dark past, didn’t say their last talk. They insist that our world is more democratic than our thinking, demanding that for the same philosophical and scientific inquiry, could be given more than one answers, some times opposite. So they insist, together with the finished, teleologic, phenomenal, closed, objective rationality world, would exist a world of real evolving process, which does not obey to rationality, but to dialectic logic; and from this point derives the demand and the inquire “ if and how a dialectic logic as autonomous from formal rationality could be possible”.
If rationalism is a science, we should ask our selves if dialectics could have the legal claim to be another, autonomous logic. To accomplish that claim, we should be able to propose the constituting differences of these two ways of thinking. If we fail to do so, we must bravely accept that an autonomous dialectic logic cannot exist and it could be only a supplementary instrument of formal rationality.
Notice A The distinguishted scientist D. Bohm claimed: quantum-mechanics theory of fields prescribes the motion of particles as a creation-destruction process. Looking at the description image of a moving particle, its motion mathematically appears as a destruction of this one in a position and recreation of another in other position. This also means that a moving particle do not possess continuously its formal “Identity”.
Notice B. Heracleitos claimed: In the same river, we enter and not enter, we are and we are not. We don’t touch the same material twice, because everything departs-returning, collapses-composing, exists-not existing. And Zeno claimed: The moving one, moves neither in the place it exists, nor in the place it does not exist. Thus, it moves-changing inside itself.
So we realise that quantic science, accepts the behaviour of the quantic particles, the way pre-socratics Anaximander, Heracleitos and Zeno did.
Notice C: To distinguish the meaning of “contradiction”, from inconsistency and inconsequence, which in english follows the word contradictory, i use occasionally the word “contradictive”. This because, I intend to give to the word “contradiction”, the evolutionary dimension which philosophically follows this word in dialectics.
Dialectics considers contradiction to be the birth place of evolution
DIALECTIC THINKING
Notice: The word dialectics is etymologically accepted, as originated from the dialogue. If that would be correct, this word should be dialogic. Pre-socratics though, who were undoubtedly the first and the most consequent dialectic thinkers, named dialectics “Logos” (Language, Logical Speech). [In the Liddell and Scott ancient greek dictionary, ”διάλεκτος" (dialect), is a language spoken in a particular way― being somehow a specific language in the common language]. Thus, Logos is a specific logics-lingual system, presupposing the mutual-penetration of opposite meanings, composing a contradictive unity of the related quantitive-qualitative Metron (balance). When the related Metron of the opposite “legs” of a contradiction unity is extremely disturbed, this unity collapses, transforming to another Metron of a contradictive unity. Anyway, dialogue is not a constitutional difference of dialectics and rationality, since the dialogue characterises rationality also .
Intrduction: This work about Dialectics is based on the evolving contradictive perception of the world. Thus on specific and significant “knots” during its dialogic process, steps simultaneously on affirmation and negation. Although this dialogic behaviour is legislated during the process of the tex, makes it difficult and hard to the formal and conventional reader, whose gnostic ethos has been formatted in the limits of determinism and rational objectivity. So I propose the reader to pay more attention in the part about “Pre-socratic Dialectics” and will be rewarded.
The conscious dialectic thinking is an adventure of logic, which departed from Anaximander, passed to Heracleitos and was integrated to Zeno. Because their works arrived to us in a fragmentary state, they were dressed with a cloud of doubt, so were underestimated, misapprehended or confused with sophistry and for a reason more, because they haven’t propose a formal dialectic logic instrument, like the one of Aristotle for rationalism, that is way they were abandoned. This situation thought, with the entrance of Relativity and Quantic Theories in the scene of science, changed, because determinism and rational objectivity could not any more prescribe the world precisely. So contemporary science looks for a kind of dialectic logic, but it has not find one yet, because the Hegelian “Science of Logic”, which is accepted as the more integrated and reliable, did not keep its promises and duty. Thus, the inquiry for a new dialectics and a formal logics-lingual syntax instrument, agreeing to the contemporary science, has raised.
This work, separates the journey of the dialectics to its integration in four stages: A. The pre-socratic approach of the contradictive logics-lingual syntax, not forgetting the verses of Lao-Tsu. B. The elucidation of the Hegelian Dialectic Logic. C. The philosophical dimension of measurement in quantum-mechanics. D. A contradictive monadology and a contradictive rationalism preposition. The first three stages compose a prologue for the last stage, where i expose my opinion about a contradiction unite, upon which my thoughts will step, for the creation of a contradictive logics-lingual syntax of a formal dialectics thinking instrument. This effort though, needs a revolutionary mathematical description, which will refer to the collapsing-composition nature of the world, events and things and which i am not able to accomplish. Because this work is under the pre-socratic dialectics contradiction view, being simultaneously a memorial offer to them, thought it is dialogic inelegant, i repeat, on purpose, some of their significant verses. I insist to these, because they help to understand and de-codify the contradiction of dialectics.
For the beginning of this work, I enclose some dialectic verses of Anaximander, Heracleitos, Zeno, Lao-Tsu and Einstein, which urge and stimulate the human mint toward the contradictive thinking:
―Faith leads to ignorance.
―This world, which is common to all people, is not created by God or Man, but it was, it is and it will be eternal fire, burning “up and down” in Metron (in balance).
1. The great straight course owes to be curve.
2. The great square do not have corners.
3. The cycle is a polygon of infinite corners.
4. In the same river, we enter and not enter, we are and we are not.
5. We don’t touch the same material twice, because everything changes
violently and rapidly, Departs-Returning, Scatters-Gathering,
Composes- Collapsing , Exists-NotExisting.
6. The Straightly and Normally Moving object, will return once to its
departure position.
7. The moving one, moves neither on the space it exist, nor on the
space it does not exist.
8. Something tenting to zero, tents simultaneously to infinite.
The instantaneous motion, is simultaneously immobility.
9. The light itself is dark.
10. Great and small coincide to infinite.
11. The perfect is imperfect. The finite is evolutionary infinite.
OPPOSITION AND CONTRADICTION
Although i consider dialectics a contradictive logical process, because the idealists and phenomenologists persistence for the existence of opposing dialectics, i accept that dialectics are of two kinds:
A. The antithetic dialectics, according which the world and the logico-lingual syntax describing it, is composed of ultimate, finite, unchangeable elements, which contrasting interact each-other, without violating the ultimate limits in-between them. These elements compose an differential-dynamic objective-rational logics-lingual system, which has absolute terms of operation and after a moment, it will eternally repeat a predetermined, finite, concrete series of games, which would be named: “synthetic prototypes of the end”. These games, which are the limits of that system, exist simultaneously as ideals from the beginning, waiting for their accomplishment from the operation of the system. This process was called by Aristotle “Entelechia”. That is to say, a system whose terms presuppose its absolute and perfect final integration. These final games of operation could also be named “World of Ideas”, whose the phenomenal evolving process, will be accomplished by the operation of that dynamic-differential, objective rational system and reversely.
B. The contradictive dialectics, according which: the world and the logico-lingual syntax describing it, is a Whole in a continuous evolving process and for this reason, it is not composed of ultimate-unchangeable elements, but of contradictive self-overpassing ones, which inter-acting, do not leave unviolated limits in-between them, composing contradictive unities. (Although the opposites in a contradictive unity give birth to each-other, simultaneously refuse, rejecting and fighting each-other).
According to the pre-socratics, something to exist in this contradictive world, should be in a continuous collapsing-composition process, by an under existing lever of fire-elements (energy-elements). The elements, of this under existing level, are in a collapsing-composition process also, till the ultimate level of the world (the way Zeno proposed, where the ultimate elements tending to zero size, tend simultaneously to infinite, being simultaneously, of zero and instantaneous speed). (This ultimate contradiction level is the universal potentiality level, which comprises all faces of world and simultaneously none). So object or events, consisting of energy elementary units (quanta, eternal fire elements or “pyridia”, as pre-socratics use to call them), receipt-emitting passing-antipassing in a specific position, making it a reality. These elements, departing from the object’s position, make a multi-dimensional journey to the Universe, returning back to their departure position. The course of these elements is considered multi-dimensional, because they continuously depart-returning, after the inter-axion contact with every other object they meet during their journey. The composition of an object by this multi-dimensional process, consists of an unconstrained depart-returning number of elementary unites traveling courses (from the departure position to the universal inter-acting other objects positions and oppositely). Since the universe of Heracleitos is not finite and closed but open and infinite, every course of these departure-returning inter-acting elements, do not accomplish a perfect cycle, but a thick spirally-helicoid course; so the departing elements returning to their departure position, do not verify them-selves absolutely as they were and exactly in their former position, but a little farther and a little different, being simultaneously Themselves-Others-Elsewhere, composing, this way, the straight course of the object’s motion, which coincides with its evolving process. (Motion of an object and its Identity contradicts, because they are a result of sub-elements of a sub-level departure-returning course, which verifies-falsifying both object and their changing position, during the object’s composition). Motion this way coincides with the object’s evolving process. So the removal of the objects is an illusion of determinism, because things having a continuously changing identity and being continuously others, do not deserve to move as their-selves.
A. PRESOCRATIC DIALECTICS
Pre-socratic dialectics is based on Anaximander’s contradiction aspect, that infinite evolution process (Άπειρο Γίγνεσθαι), is a result of the beings and universe collapsing-composition process. Heracleitos accepting this aspect, proposed Logos, which is the logical organised contradiction logics-lingual syntax of the evolution process. Logos is the first and rather the most reliable Dialectic Logic. Logos, as Heracleitos claimed, is Logic, Language and Essence, coinciding with living Material and therefore the Nature’s infinite evolution process, being the Dialectics of Nature. Farther-on, Zeno with his paradoxes, revealed the antinomies of rational formality and rationalism dialogic bases, at least when it manages and associates with Being, Motion, Time, Space and Speed. Zeno, this way, leads us to a kind of Negative Dialectics, which Plato developed differently in his Dialogue “Parmenides”. Hegel departing from this point and based on Platonic idealism, Parmenidian phenomenology and Kantian metaphysics, organised his “Science of Logic”; this was accepted as the Dialectic Logic of the modern world.
In this small tractatus raises the inquiry, “why pre-socratic dialectics was abandoned for the sake of the Hegelian logic”, for one more reason that Hegelian logic, as I will mention, is neither a logic, nor dialectics and thought it was a genius concept, spread confusion to dialectics.
ANAXIMANDER
―“Anaximander claimed that both, authority and element (great and small) of beings and universe is infinite. Thus he also claimed infinite not only has the quantitative character of the unfinished, but the qualitative character of the contradictive elementary unit of evolution process. The contradictive elementary unit being in an continuous evolution process, changes continuously, being infinitely other. So things and universe are, as big and small, under the authority of infinite, wherefrom skies, worlds, and all beings are born and contained. ―He claimed that time is related to the genesis and perish of the specific related materials. ―He also determined that Infinite coincides with the eternal motion, in which other beings are born and other die, having as a result the eternal universal evolution process”. ― He claimed that evolution process is not a result of the four elements of nature’s montification, but of the continuous fight of the opposites. ―“Anaximander claimed hat the first animals were born in a liquid-watery environment having scales but when the environment became drier they threw out the scales and adapted their selves to the new environment.” ―“He also claimed that human beings were born in between fishes and when they where capable got out, going to the land”.
Anaximander conceived that the contradiction of infinite and evolution process had as a result the evolution of specimens also. The Darwins “Evolution of Specimens Theory”, is an elegant achievement of rational conclusions and remarks, comparing to which the Anaximandrian aspects pale as primitive, if we do not consider that it was proposed 2500 years before. The Anaximander’s prepositions, although they came to us in a fragmental state and we do not know the way these were proposed, have something that Darwin’s theory falls short of: Anaximander with his evolutional aspect, proposed the bases of dialectic thinking also, which about Darwin did not seem to care.
HERACLEITOS
―Everything communes to Logos, and because of that, changes; and thought everyone is aware of that, don’t understand and feel it. ―The changing one, agrees to itself; it is the ambi-coursing harmony (both way harmony), like the one of the string musical instrument and the bow. ―This world which is the same for everyone, was not created by god or human; it was, it is and it will be, eternal fire, which burns-exhausting in balance (metro). —Everything transforms to fire and fire to everything, as gold to merchandises and merchandises to gold.
—We neither enter in the same river, nor we touch the same material twice, because everything changes violently and rapidly, departs-returning, collapses-composing, exists-not existing simultaneously.
— Rectilinear motion is a result of rotation.
The world, according to Heracleitos, consists of the eternal fire (energy), which burns up and down in Metro (in balance). That is, a continuous birth and death interchange of beings, which collapse-composing, because elements of eternal fire (pyridia) pass inside them and in a specific position in specific Metro (balance). Metro is the contradictive essence of Logos: Logos presupposes always a Metron (balance) of the one leg of contradiction to the other. So Metron is the specific character of the contradictive relation, composing occasionally a contradictive Identity; Thus, Metron is a dynamic balance composing an Identity in continuous modification. This way, Identity is Always Other, Else-where. Nowadays we know that everything alternates to energy and energy to everything. Indeed, Einstein expressed mathematically that conception by the equation Ε=mc².
If we compose the previous heracleitian prepositions, we will be driven to the following conclusion: Every thing or event, exists because other elementary under-events of fire (pyridia, quanta or energy) pass inside them in a specific contradictive Metron. These elements depart from the specific event and traveling toward the universe, interact with the events of the near by environment, after that to the farther ones and finally to the Far Away Universal Antilogous of the event; and returning back to their former position compose a continuously changing (collapsing-composition) reality. Because the Universe of Heracleitos is open and infinite, these elements of eternal fire (pyridia, photons or energy quanta) returning back to the event from universe, do not perform a perfect circular course, but a thick elliptic-helicoid one. This way, they do not verify absolutely the event in its former position, but they verify-falsifying it, a little farther and a little different. Thus, the event moves, being simultaneously Other-Similar to Itself and in an Other Place. According to Heracleitos events move-evolving, being simultaneously an evolving Identity.
ZENO
―Something to exist, should have a size and some distance from another. The same occurs for the margins in-between them also. I will say this once and forever: it is neither possible to exist an ultimate part of any material, nor an ultimate margin in between things. It is also not possible something to exist only by itself. So if there are many things, should simultaneously be big and small. So small to be of zero size, so big to be of infinite size. ―If many things exist, these are and are not simultaneously similar to themselves.
The rationalists, putting aside the ambiguity of the Zenonian verses, come to the conclusion that Zeno claims: that because the existence of many thinks contradict, these should not exist. I believe, this is a simplified approach to the multi-significant character of Zeno’s prepositions. Thus Zeno, in these verses, with the relativity of big and small, one and many, reveals that one and many compose an ultimate contradiction unity, where the one meaning gives birth to the other, but simultaneously fight each-other also. Zeno presents there, the ultimate contradiction level of the world, which being simultaneously immediate and immobile is the contradictive essence of universe. This is the Being, or the Material itself and the Universal Potentiality Level. That opinion turned against the atomic theory of Leukippos and Democritos, who accept the existence of ultimate, unchangeable, undivided elements, as the atoms where supposed to be and the parallel existence of empty space ultimate margin in-between them. Although science nourished with Democretian atomic aspect and did everything to discover the existence of ultimate unchangeable elements of the world, did not succeed it. Modern science concludes that everything transforms to energy and energy to everything as gold to merchandises and merchandises to gold, as Heracleitos said.
―The moving one moves neither in the space it is, nor in the space it is not.
Zeno in this verse, didn’t doubt the existence of motion as doxographes, Hegel and the majority of Zeno’s interpreters, claim. He doubts the way we accept the Existence of Beings, Motion, Speed, Time and Space upon motion occurs. Hegel, in relation to that, claimed: something moves, not because it is one moment here and another elsewhere, but because thie moving one exists simultaneously here and not here, so motion is a contradiction. This small definition of motion is not complete, because Hegel presents there he contradiction of the removal, where the identity of a moving-one doesn’t change during its motion. Oppositely according to Zeno, being the moving-one in a continuous collapsing-composition state, is continuously Other, to Another Place; so really it don’t remove upon space, but moves inside itself, changing continuously its identity. Motion according to the pre-socratics, coincides with evolution process. We also conclude that, because of the collapsing-composition process of beings, Time is the Frequency of the passing-by elements repetition rhythm, and Space is the Wave Length of their spread around. According to this option, because things collapse-composing, being continuously different, do not deserve to have speed the way we accept it. Their speed would coincide to the speed of their modification from the one form to another one.
LAO TSU
It would be a serious omission speaking about dialectics, to forget the verses of Tao by Lao Tsu; So I will remind some of them and include them with the pre-socratic thinking:
―The great straight course owes to be curve. ―The great square does not have corners. ―The absolute perfection, being in its final integration, is not-perfect. ―The absolute complete is empty.
―The very intelligent looks naive. ―The great storm will not last.
These verses of Tao reveal the “Dialectics Principal”of unity ant fight of the opposites. According to dialectics, the great augment of one leg of a contradiction unity, disturbs the Metron (balance) of the opposites, so anew Metron is created, being an other identity, some times opposite.
According to David Bohm, “in the quantum-mechanics field theory, every motion is described as a creation-destruction of the elementary particles. The motion of a free particle is described as a destruction of a particle in a position and creation of an other in other position. So motion is generally accepted as series of destruction-creation which has also the result of their change".
This way, contemporary science accepts, that in the ultimate limits of our world, the micro-particles collapse-composing continuously, loosing their stability and their formal identity. Therefore it seems that quantum-mechanics agree to pre-socratic collapsing-composition real dialectics evolution process and doesn’t to the idealistic Parmenidian, Platonic or Hegelian phenomenal evolving process.
To integrate the pre-socratic dialectics, I propose a contradictive monadology, that is, the anatomy of the contradictive elementary unit, as basis for a contradictive dialectic formality.
Primarily though, I must refer briefly to the Hegelian “Science of Logic”, reminding that because of its not-correlation to the natural reality, cannot be logic and because of its idealism cannot be dialectics. That’s why this logic could not solve the problem of a contemporary dialectic logical lack in contemporary science.
B. HEGELIAN DIALECTICS (Very briefly)
(If the reeder wishes a complete reference about Dialectics and Hegel, should refer to thodoroscavasis.blogspot.com)
The Hegelian Science of Logic is a masterpiece of sophistry. Hegel in this tractatus tries to convince us, using over-complicated definitions and designations, that the universal evolution process to which we come in natural touch, is a phenomenal reflection of a hidden unchangeable reality, which we are not able to receive as it is, but only its phenomenal reflection, of which the greater part is not real. He claimed that the elevation of that phenomenal appearance to Logic Itself, will lead us to the absolute truth which is the god and only himself.
Hegel § 1 page 53: Philosophy has the same objects of research with religion. Both have as an object the truth, in the higher meaning, which is God and only himself is the absolute truth. In addition, both of them deal the territory of the finite: the Nature and the Human Spirit, the relation between them and each-one of them with God.
Hegel § 88 page 216:...we must be surprised listening nowadays opinions like ”from nothing cannot become something and only from something could become something” and not to realise, that on this opinion, Pantheism and Atheism, are based on.
Comment: The Hegelian “Science of Logic”, using an incoherent nihilology (science concerning nothing, zero), accepts a phenomenal evolution process, concerning Logic It-Self, to depart from the Absolute-Zero and to arrive to the Absolute-Being, as the absolutely determined-one; this way Hegel “reveals” the “ex nihilo” divine creation of the world. So the deepest meaning of his Logic is theological. Hegel preferred in this case, instead of Logic to use the Old Testimony. Moreover, during the process of his dialogic coherence, he transformed the contradiction to opposition, giving a covert but clear subordination tribune to determinism. That’s why the majority of his verses, following two logico-ligual syntaxes, create so much confusion, that do not obey neither to dialectics nor to rational determinism. This confusion culminates in his intention “to equalise or to assimilate, these which he considers to be absolutely opposite and for this reason to be accepted as absolutely the same”. This assimilation thougt could exist in very special situations, in the abstract and superficial use, he practices it, demolishes logic, because this way everything could happen and be said for every case. When we pursue a Dialectic Logic and to avoid sophistry, that “equation” must be accepted only for the ultimate level of the world (the ultimate contradictive elementary unit, as Zeno has described it): Something to exist, should have a size and some distance from an other. The same is valid for the margin in between; that also must have a size. I will say that once and for ever: it is neither possible to exist an ultimate part of some object, nor of the margin in between objects. (it is not possible to exist ultimate atoms). It is not possible also something to exist by itself, (without something else). So if there are many things, these should be simultaneously big and small. So big to have infinite size, so small to have zero size.
The Hegelian “Science of Logic”, due to its denial of Logic and Things correlation, don’t deserve to be neither Science nor Logic, and because of its idealism, do not deserve to be dialectics also. Never the less it is one of the most brilliant philosophical concepts, though it harmed more than anything dialectics. Moreover, Hegel never succeed to rise it as a scientific tool.
For the reeder to understand the Hegelian dialectics, should have always in mind his fallowing verses, which reveal his philosophical intentions.
―A. § 8 page 68: There is nothing in sensation, which could not be contained in intellect. By means that mind and with its deepest term, spirit is the cause of the world.
―B. § 40 page 122: The critic philosophy considers experience as the only base of knowledge; but also considers it not to be true, but only knowledge of phenomena.
―C. § 84 page 201:..The Thing (the essence of the world) should not cary the fault of contradiction, this blames logic capacity (the essence of spirit).
Comment: A. If ”thinking and spirit is the cause of the world” or at least exists before the experimental reality and because Thinking and Being coincide, thinking could not begin from nothing (from zero), as he insists; he also could not base the intellectual process of his work on the concept that the world and the intellect departs from nothing. So his claim about the unity of the pure Being itself and the pure Zero itself in the Evolution Process collapses, even if that is considered phenomenal.
B. We conclude from these verses, that Being consist of the Ideal Things-Themselves and the experimental phenomenal contradictive-evolving process. According to him, we are able to know only the phenomenal-experimental process, but we must refuse its truth.
C. According to Hegel, because experimentally we only are in touch with the contradictive phenomenal (appearance) and not with the “reality” of the Things Themselves, Logic following the contradiction do not coincide and correlate with the reality of Things.
Parmenides, who proposed the phenomenal-appearance of the everyday world, in his poem “About Nature and Things”, did the obvious: As a main principal of logic, rejected the Not-Existance, accepting that only the Being exists; after that he rejected contradiction, because It Is-Being Not, containing partly the not-existing and embodies the fault. Thus he proposed in his rational process, to avoid contradiction as untruth and use only of the Existing-reality and things, creating with the other principals, the rational logic as a conscious practice.
―D. § 6 page 61: It is significant to point out that philosophy has as a content, this which is produced in itself and produces itself in the territory of the spiritual life, so the external and the internal world of conscience has as a content this reality... In did, that agreement with reality at least could be accepted as an external criterion of the philosophical truth. Thus we must consider that higher and final purpose of this science is the reconciliation of the self-conscious logic with the existing logic capacity, that is the reality.
―E. § 24 page 102:...thoughts could be named objective and between them the forms could be concluded, which forms at the beginning are searched in the common Logic (the formal one) and usually are conceived as forms of the conscious thinking. So Logic coincides with Metaphysics because it conceives things in thoughts, which are the essence of things.
Comment: D and E. It is so that he although intends to propose his dialectic logic, will never abandoned the basic terms of the rational formality. Thus he considers higher and final purpose of his logic, the reconciliation of the formal rationalism with his dialectics of the phenomenal contradiction of thinking. His logic departing from New York intends to go to Baltimore, but considers very significant to pass before from London. That is why he continuously reforms the dialectic contradiction to rational contrariety, giving a reference to the formal rationality. It is so, that the use of two logico-lingual syntaxes in the same thinking process to create obscurity and urgent need of continuous re-definition of the proposed meanings.
―F. § 19 page 92: Logic is the science of the Pure Idea, that is the Idea as the abstract element of thinking.
―G. § page 209: The pure Being is the pure abstraction so it is the absolutely negative; which being conceived as immediate, is Zero.
Comment: F and G. Hegel accepts the Kantian aspect about the “Logic purity” which is related to the “a priory human knowledge capacity” and coincides to Metaphysics. So the Mind, with its higher meaning, could be the cause of the world and the world of conscience to be the content of reality. That is why he wants his logic to depart from the preconscious pure Being-Itself, which as undetermined coincides with the pure zero itself. Since Logic (according to him) is developed in the abstract element of thinking, should be the abstraction of a specific experimental event or thing. But it is obvious that we cannot have any abstraction of Nothing, and this way the characters of “pure” and “itself” loose their meaning. The materialistic dialectics (of Nature) demands Logic and experience to coexist. These inter-extent deeply to each-other, without leaving any unviolated limits in-between them, being inseparable. Experience cannot be fertilised without a related logic capacity and logic capacity cannot be developed without experience. These inter-develop in the universal evolution process creating man as an existing reality.
Conclusion: The Hegelian “Science of Logic”, being idealistic, owes to refuse real contradiction, being appositive. As appositive though cannot be, by all means, dialectic, because refusing the contradiction of the existing reality, owes to accept the phenomenal evolution process and refute the real contradictive evolution process. Because of all these, Hegel owes to accept non-coherence between logic and things, thinking and reality and therefore, his “Science of Logic” could be neither science nor logic and not “dialectics”. Finally, logic in his work, gives place to faith, since Hegel claimed, that “god is the only truth”. Yet his claim that there is not any Heracleitian assertion which does not feet in his “Science of Logic” is not true.
That’s why his logic did neither offer to science the services he promised, nor a dialectic formality as the one of Aristotle for rationalism. And that is why his dialectic formal principals could not be tools for research but final conclusions, which rationalism do not refute also in many cases. I remind one of the Heracleitian verses: That world which is the same for all people, was not created by god or a human, but it was, it is and it will be, immortal fire (energy) lightening up and dawn in balance (Metron).
The faithful and the mystic climb the lather of determinism and when they reach their higher grade of arrogance, drop and forget it, creating a world of their own; and since his work is rather a theological preposition we should not forget to talk a little about that: Theology is the most arrogant activity of the human thinking, because the theologist places the “voice” of god in his moth, substituting him as anable to commune with his creations. Even more theologists overpass the teaching of Christ, the son of god, concerning that he needs help from the genius theologist. The verses of Christ are very simple and cannot offer dialogic pleasure, these are to be understood by “the poor in the mind” and so by everybody. The dialogic complexity of Hegel, did not succeed to offer nothing to faith also. The “Science of Logic” did not make the believers more faithful, on the contrary made them faithless.
Generally faith and mysticism emit a mental stench, because they nourish where dialectics goes to stool.
C. THE MEASUREMENT IN QUANTUM-MECHANICS AND ITS PHILOSOPHICAL DIMENSION
These verses of Tao reveal the “Dialectics Principal”of unity ant fight of the opposites. According to dialectics, the great augment of one leg of a contradiction unity, disturbs the Metron (balance) of the opposites, so anew Metron is created, being an other identity, some times opposite.
According to David Bohm, “in the quantum-mechanics field theory, every motion is described as a creation-destruction of the elementary particles. The motion of a free particle is described as a destruction of a particle in a position and creation of an other in other position. So motion is generally accepted as series of destruction-creation which has also the result of their change".
This way, contemporary science accepts, that in the ultimate limits of our world, the micro-particles collapse-composing continuously, loosing their stability and their formal identity. Therefore it seems that quantum-mechanics agree to pre-socratic collapsing-composition real dialectics evolution process and doesn’t to the idealistic Parmenidian, Platonic or Hegelian phenomenal evolving process.
To integrate the pre-socratic dialectics, I propose a contradictive monadology, that is, the anatomy of the contradictive elementary unit, as basis for a contradictive dialectic formality.
Primarily though, I must refer briefly to the Hegelian “Science of Logic”, reminding that because of its not-correlation to the natural reality, cannot be logic and because of its idealism cannot be dialectics. That’s why this logic could not solve the problem of a contemporary dialectic logical lack in contemporary science.
B. HEGELIAN DIALECTICS (Very briefly)
(If the reeder wishes a complete reference about Dialectics and Hegel, should refer to thodoroscavasis.blogspot.com)
The Hegelian Science of Logic is a masterpiece of sophistry. Hegel in this tractatus tries to convince us, using over-complicated definitions and designations, that the universal evolution process to which we come in natural touch, is a phenomenal reflection of a hidden unchangeable reality, which we are not able to receive as it is, but only its phenomenal reflection, of which the greater part is not real. He claimed that the elevation of that phenomenal appearance to Logic Itself, will lead us to the absolute truth which is the god and only himself.
Hegel § 1 page 53: Philosophy has the same objects of research with religion. Both have as an object the truth, in the higher meaning, which is God and only himself is the absolute truth. In addition, both of them deal the territory of the finite: the Nature and the Human Spirit, the relation between them and each-one of them with God.
Hegel § 88 page 216:...we must be surprised listening nowadays opinions like ”from nothing cannot become something and only from something could become something” and not to realise, that on this opinion, Pantheism and Atheism, are based on.
Comment: The Hegelian “Science of Logic”, using an incoherent nihilology (science concerning nothing, zero), accepts a phenomenal evolution process, concerning Logic It-Self, to depart from the Absolute-Zero and to arrive to the Absolute-Being, as the absolutely determined-one; this way Hegel “reveals” the “ex nihilo” divine creation of the world. So the deepest meaning of his Logic is theological. Hegel preferred in this case, instead of Logic to use the Old Testimony. Moreover, during the process of his dialogic coherence, he transformed the contradiction to opposition, giving a covert but clear subordination tribune to determinism. That’s why the majority of his verses, following two logico-ligual syntaxes, create so much confusion, that do not obey neither to dialectics nor to rational determinism. This confusion culminates in his intention “to equalise or to assimilate, these which he considers to be absolutely opposite and for this reason to be accepted as absolutely the same”. This assimilation thougt could exist in very special situations, in the abstract and superficial use, he practices it, demolishes logic, because this way everything could happen and be said for every case. When we pursue a Dialectic Logic and to avoid sophistry, that “equation” must be accepted only for the ultimate level of the world (the ultimate contradictive elementary unit, as Zeno has described it): Something to exist, should have a size and some distance from an other. The same is valid for the margin in between; that also must have a size. I will say that once and for ever: it is neither possible to exist an ultimate part of some object, nor of the margin in between objects. (it is not possible to exist ultimate atoms). It is not possible also something to exist by itself, (without something else). So if there are many things, these should be simultaneously big and small. So big to have infinite size, so small to have zero size.
The Hegelian “Science of Logic”, due to its denial of Logic and Things correlation, don’t deserve to be neither Science nor Logic, and because of its idealism, do not deserve to be dialectics also. Never the less it is one of the most brilliant philosophical concepts, though it harmed more than anything dialectics. Moreover, Hegel never succeed to rise it as a scientific tool.
For the reeder to understand the Hegelian dialectics, should have always in mind his fallowing verses, which reveal his philosophical intentions.
―A. § 8 page 68: There is nothing in sensation, which could not be contained in intellect. By means that mind and with its deepest term, spirit is the cause of the world.
―B. § 40 page 122: The critic philosophy considers experience as the only base of knowledge; but also considers it not to be true, but only knowledge of phenomena.
―C. § 84 page 201:..The Thing (the essence of the world) should not cary the fault of contradiction, this blames logic capacity (the essence of spirit).
Comment: A. If ”thinking and spirit is the cause of the world” or at least exists before the experimental reality and because Thinking and Being coincide, thinking could not begin from nothing (from zero), as he insists; he also could not base the intellectual process of his work on the concept that the world and the intellect departs from nothing. So his claim about the unity of the pure Being itself and the pure Zero itself in the Evolution Process collapses, even if that is considered phenomenal.
B. We conclude from these verses, that Being consist of the Ideal Things-Themselves and the experimental phenomenal contradictive-evolving process. According to him, we are able to know only the phenomenal-experimental process, but we must refuse its truth.
C. According to Hegel, because experimentally we only are in touch with the contradictive phenomenal (appearance) and not with the “reality” of the Things Themselves, Logic following the contradiction do not coincide and correlate with the reality of Things.
Parmenides, who proposed the phenomenal-appearance of the everyday world, in his poem “About Nature and Things”, did the obvious: As a main principal of logic, rejected the Not-Existance, accepting that only the Being exists; after that he rejected contradiction, because It Is-Being Not, containing partly the not-existing and embodies the fault. Thus he proposed in his rational process, to avoid contradiction as untruth and use only of the Existing-reality and things, creating with the other principals, the rational logic as a conscious practice.
―D. § 6 page 61: It is significant to point out that philosophy has as a content, this which is produced in itself and produces itself in the territory of the spiritual life, so the external and the internal world of conscience has as a content this reality... In did, that agreement with reality at least could be accepted as an external criterion of the philosophical truth. Thus we must consider that higher and final purpose of this science is the reconciliation of the self-conscious logic with the existing logic capacity, that is the reality.
―E. § 24 page 102:...thoughts could be named objective and between them the forms could be concluded, which forms at the beginning are searched in the common Logic (the formal one) and usually are conceived as forms of the conscious thinking. So Logic coincides with Metaphysics because it conceives things in thoughts, which are the essence of things.
Comment: D and E. It is so that he although intends to propose his dialectic logic, will never abandoned the basic terms of the rational formality. Thus he considers higher and final purpose of his logic, the reconciliation of the formal rationalism with his dialectics of the phenomenal contradiction of thinking. His logic departing from New York intends to go to Baltimore, but considers very significant to pass before from London. That is why he continuously reforms the dialectic contradiction to rational contrariety, giving a reference to the formal rationality. It is so, that the use of two logico-lingual syntaxes in the same thinking process to create obscurity and urgent need of continuous re-definition of the proposed meanings.
―F. § 19 page 92: Logic is the science of the Pure Idea, that is the Idea as the abstract element of thinking.
―G. § page 209: The pure Being is the pure abstraction so it is the absolutely negative; which being conceived as immediate, is Zero.
Comment: F and G. Hegel accepts the Kantian aspect about the “Logic purity” which is related to the “a priory human knowledge capacity” and coincides to Metaphysics. So the Mind, with its higher meaning, could be the cause of the world and the world of conscience to be the content of reality. That is why he wants his logic to depart from the preconscious pure Being-Itself, which as undetermined coincides with the pure zero itself. Since Logic (according to him) is developed in the abstract element of thinking, should be the abstraction of a specific experimental event or thing. But it is obvious that we cannot have any abstraction of Nothing, and this way the characters of “pure” and “itself” loose their meaning. The materialistic dialectics (of Nature) demands Logic and experience to coexist. These inter-extent deeply to each-other, without leaving any unviolated limits in-between them, being inseparable. Experience cannot be fertilised without a related logic capacity and logic capacity cannot be developed without experience. These inter-develop in the universal evolution process creating man as an existing reality.
Conclusion: The Hegelian “Science of Logic”, being idealistic, owes to refuse real contradiction, being appositive. As appositive though cannot be, by all means, dialectic, because refusing the contradiction of the existing reality, owes to accept the phenomenal evolution process and refute the real contradictive evolution process. Because of all these, Hegel owes to accept non-coherence between logic and things, thinking and reality and therefore, his “Science of Logic” could be neither science nor logic and not “dialectics”. Finally, logic in his work, gives place to faith, since Hegel claimed, that “god is the only truth”. Yet his claim that there is not any Heracleitian assertion which does not feet in his “Science of Logic” is not true.
That’s why his logic did neither offer to science the services he promised, nor a dialectic formality as the one of Aristotle for rationalism. And that is why his dialectic formal principals could not be tools for research but final conclusions, which rationalism do not refute also in many cases. I remind one of the Heracleitian verses: That world which is the same for all people, was not created by god or a human, but it was, it is and it will be, immortal fire (energy) lightening up and dawn in balance (Metron).
The faithful and the mystic climb the lather of determinism and when they reach their higher grade of arrogance, drop and forget it, creating a world of their own; and since his work is rather a theological preposition we should not forget to talk a little about that: Theology is the most arrogant activity of the human thinking, because the theologist places the “voice” of god in his moth, substituting him as anable to commune with his creations. Even more theologists overpass the teaching of Christ, the son of god, concerning that he needs help from the genius theologist. The verses of Christ are very simple and cannot offer dialogic pleasure, these are to be understood by “the poor in the mind” and so by everybody. The dialogic complexity of Hegel, did not succeed to offer nothing to faith also. The “Science of Logic” did not make the believers more faithful, on the contrary made them faithless.
Generally faith and mysticism emit a mental stench, because they nourish where dialectics goes to stool.
C. THE MEASUREMENT IN QUANTUM-MECHANICS AND ITS PHILOSOPHICAL DIMENSION
The inquire, if philosophy should have a share in science or science in philosophy, has never stopped to exist. Philosophy, as generally accepted, begun from Anaximander as a primordial science of nature, where intuition, imagination, observation and primitive experimental proceedings, composed a unity. According to Anaximander, Space, Time, Thinking and Being compose an infinite collapsing-composition evolving process. After him, Heracleitos, this social and natural evolution process, comprised in Logos, which with the Tao of Lao-Tsu were the first Dialectic Logico-Lingual Syntaxes.
Aristotle begun somehow to separate Science from philosophy, but till Newton there was not any clear separation. Neo-positivistes defined philosophy as a specific science, in the limits of “Logic of Language”, so any other philosophical thinking, was considered as an indefinite and “windy” meditation. Determinism, since then, became synonymous to logic of science, where the space of philosophy was vanished. With the enter though, of the “Relativity Theory” and the “Theory of Quanta” in the scientific scene and determinism to decline, great scientists begun an intellectual war upon developments and interpretation of their scientific achievements. Thus, although distinguished neo-positivistes philosophers were closing the door of science to philosophy, the same period, great scientists putting a side these neo-positivist theories, opened the door to philosophy, offering royal share. They indicated this way, that there is neither vanguard science without philosophical criteria, nor contemporary philosophy without scientific knowledge.
Although the content of ancient greek philosophy, concerned ontology and ethics, finally coincided with the art of thinking, which is Logic. The first great quarrel about “which Logic is the correct one”, was the one of the two great archaic thinkers Heracleitos for dialectics and Parmenides for rationalism and primordial determinism, which seems to me that never ended and continues nowadays.
Since Newton is the most integrated representative of rational objectivity, it would not be necessary to refer to Aristotle. Yet this which should be overpassed, with the coming up of Quantic Thinking and Relativity Theory, is not only the rational objectivity and science, which is defined by the newtonian thinking as determinism, but it seems that the Aristotelian rationalism and typical logic also are violently disputed.
The newtonian way of the world conception, could be accepted as a highly integrated Aristotelian. There is a great course departing from Aristotle, which finally ends to Newton. Every hurl injuring newtonian thinking, would just the same injure the Aristotelian logic also, upon which determinism is based on. Because of the fact that science disposes nothing more than rationalism and typical logic as a tool of research today, though scientists want to reject determinism, keeping its heart which is rationalism and typical logic, create confusion and bigly.
The newtonian way of accepting the world, could be consider as the one of powers and particles, which dispose attributes, as mass which is static, since does not changes during the time, and speed which is dynamic and changes during the time. According to the newtonian concept, the world process is a result of powers acting externally to the particles and this way, create combinations and collisions of particles. The universe of Newton was absolutely determined and rationalised in the limits of the pre-existing Time and Space. There, it is accepted that the attributes of the particles exist, regardless if we observe them or not. Newtonian determinism with its Aristotelian logical corpus, was generally accepted as indisputable in everyday life and in scientific community, until the moment of the “Time and Space Relativity Theory” preposition. There Einstein indicates that the meanings of Time and Space cannot be accepted anymore as separate, but as a space-time unity. Although Einstein never accepted that this preposition was straightly against the newtonian objectivity, it is obvious that changed radically the view of science about that matter.
About the same time, Planck discovered the quantic nature of the warm object energy emission. His theory shows that energy is emitted in specific ultimate quantities, whose size depends on their frequency, that is, their colour. This work doubted violently the authority of newtonian thinking about the micro and macro world.
According to the Newtonian concept, to ascertain the position of a bullet, which is accepted as a thing or an object, we light up the bullet a specific moment and this way we stabilise it ideally in a photographic film. The influence of the light on the object, do not concern the research, because it considers to be of no interest. For an electron though, due to its speed and small size, the matter gets different dimension. The photon which will hit the electron, should be of high frequency to give measurement results and this way alters the existence-state of the element for research.
There is the classic experiment for understanding the description of quantic elements, which comprises the launching: A. of small balls, B. of water waves and C. of electrons. After the launch of these “objects”, they move to a curtain where there are two holes. Behind the curtain there are detectors, which record the behaviour of the launched objects.
A. If we launch black balls from one hole and white balls from the other hole, we have the expected result of objects.
B. If we launch water waves, we have the expected result of water waves.
C. If we launch electrons from one hole we have the expected result of particles, but when we open both holes the result is not the expected one. The electrons depart as particles, but arriving to the detectors behave as waves. Therefrom derives the inquire: “how electrons could dispose simultaneously particle and wave attributes”. Thus, a problem of description in the micro-world raised, where the Newtonian concept about the world was doubted and disputed.
For the description of a phenomenon in contemporary science, we must propose a model, which by a mathematic process should consider all the modifications of the event and the state of the attributes that follow the phenomenon. So in case of an electron as a quantic event, a mathematic structure is necessary, which could comprise all the static attributes of the event, like energy loading and mass, but the dynamic attributes as position, impulse, and direction of spin, also. This mathematic structure should reflect the wave-particle behaviour of the event. That description problem was solved from Dirac, Heizenberg and Srentinger. It is regarded that all solutions are of equal mathematic worth, but the one of Srentinger, was accepted, as more efficient. Srentinger conceived an equation which describes all the modifications of the quantic event, in every possible position in time and space. This description differs from the newtonian one. According to the newtonian concept, the attributes of the bullet are presupposed to be in relation to that object and they just exist. The description of Srentinger though, which concerns the quantic object, counts the possibility which the value of the electron attributes will take during measurement. This prescription do not concern the innateness of the electron attributes before its measurement. The Newtonian concept considering the electron as a bullet, (as a particle), accepts its position and impulse to be absolutely exact and real, something which agrees with common logic. The wave-function of Srentinger though, which is the quantic concept, is simply a wave of possibilities, which forme during the measurement. Yet, this is the only way to describe the scientific results in quantum mechanics, being tested for years and being accepted as efficient and according to the experimental reality. The great scientists though, are not just satisfied with the results of their research, but they proceed to ontological and philosophical interpretations. There is where the interpretation problem of the experimental data in the quantic world arises. The quantic event, before measurement, is described from a wave-function, which, according to some scientists, represents ideally the attributes of this quantic event, let say the position of an electron. I must point out though, that there are equally significant scientists, who consider this wave-function as real. That wave-function represents the possibility of an attribute existence, determining this way, the values which potentially it will take during the measurement. The instrument of measurement, in common logic, is a device which records reliably the result of the experimental process. The opinion of many great scientists, though, about measurement in the quantic world is very different. They sustain that the instrument of measurement and the object to be measured interact so much, being impossible to be considered as separate, composing a quantic unity. Even more there are great scientists as Noymann, insisting that human conscience participates so much in that measurement, being inseparable to thais quantic unity.
An other matter which divides the scientific community is, “what attributes has or not a quantic event before measurement”. The basic concepts are two: A. The concept of Copenhagen which refuses the objectivity of the quantic events, followed by Bohr, Heizenberg, Srentinger, Noymann e,t,c, and B. The concept of objectivity followed by Eintein, De Broglie, Bohm etc.
According to Heizenberg the quantic reality consist of two situations: The potential one and the actual one, which are connected with the act of measurement: The actual world (the world of phenomena) really exists, but under that, there is a clear potentiality, which is the predisposition to be realised when it will be measured, that is, when it will be observed. Against that opinion, Bohm proposed the existence of hidden parameters. According to that, if these parameters would be known, the objectivity will somehow be restored.
Einstein accused the Copenhagen School, that this potentiality world, silently accepted, immediate inter-actions, which go against Relativity Theory. To prove that, and with the assistance of Rosen and Podolsky, proposed the mental experiment “of the tween electrons producing machine”. According to Einstein, if these tween electrons potentially dispose opposite spin and they are in a distance of many years of light, when the one of them presents its spin, the other should react simultaneously, presenting opposite spin. This, according to Einstein, is against the relativity theory. [It is said that this experiment was realised efficiently and the instantaneous reaction were verified].
Finally the objectivists not being able to reject quantum mechanics reality, compromised to a different approach to that mater. That indicates the following preposition of Bohm: Every movement, in the quantum mechanic theory of fields, is described as a creation-destruction of the moving elementary unite. . . . . the movement of an elementary unite, is accepted as a destruction in one position and creation of an other element in other position. That reminds the Heracleitian Dialectics: in the same river we enter and not enter, we are and we are not. The same material, we do not touch twice, because everything changes violently and rapidly, departs-returning, composes-collapsing, exists-not existing.
It seems that the Aristotelian formal logic and Newtonian determinism objectivity do not match with the quantic world. Quantic world needs another logic, where everything should be accepted in a continuous collapsing-composition evolving process. In that collapsing-composition world, neither Time is duration, nor Space is a place upon which everything exists and moves. Time in quantic world, is the frequency of the collapsing-composition Metron and Space is its relating wave-length; for that reason speed really does not exist, the way we accept it. Also, because the Identity of the quantic events is in a continuous collapsing-composition process, having contradictive nature, the Principal of Identity and the Principal of Not-Contradiction of the Formal Logic are canceled and should be modified to a Contradictive Identity Principal and to the Amphi-Dromic Rationality (both-way activity logic). So the quantic process needs another logic. That situation though, has not been considered neither by Einstein in his relativity theory, nor by the Srentinger’s equation. They use both newtonian Time and Space, with the quantic Frequency and Wave Length in the same mental process. This activity perhaps is the cause of the observed paradoxes and antinomies.
D. CONTRADICTIVE MONADOLOGY
NOTATION: A. This work is an elaboration and recapitulation of my earliest works: “Contradiction is Motion and Materiality” published at 1983 and “Logic, Action and Language” published at 1994, both by Dodoni.
B. This work is an effort to answer to the following inquiries:
1. How a contradictive elementary unite, a contradictive identity and a
contradictive rationalism, are logically possible.
2. How universe, as an open system, is logically possible.
3. How motion and change as real and not phenomenal, are logically possible.
4. How universal unity of great and small, (mega and micro), is logically possible.
5. How intellect, intuition, conscience and aesthetics are logically possible.
6. How universe as an intercommunication “plot”, where everythιng in it, would be and behave as a message, is logically possible.
7. How this communication plot would exist, as a contradictive ontological logico-lingual syntax and Contradictive Bio-geometry, is logically possible.
INTRODUCTION:
1. The world (material reality) exists in two ways, which though stand against, they do not refute each-other, but integrate to a contradictive unity.
2. This reality exists as many separate specific finite events and as a unity of all these (as a whole), simultaneously.
3. From the point of view of the specific finite events, to which we only can be in touch, the world is always a finite event.
4. Every finite event has as limits the other specific finite events, to which inter-act every moment, inter-form and inter-determine, in a narrow or broad relation.
5. There is a quantitive scale expressing this inter-termination and inter-formation. This departs from the deeply inside self-determination of the specific One, passes to the inter-formation and inter-determination with the events of the nearby environment, gradually to the farther and faraway ones and finally with the whole (the universe), which is the Other-self, that forces the specific-one continuously to change. That is, its Universal antilogous, which represents the far away decentralised part of an event, while the specific event it self, is the concentric part. For the above reasons the specific and finite One, being in a continuous changing process, comprises potentially a unique face of infinite. (The continuously changing and finite one, being in an evolution process, do not have absolutely determined limits, being infinite).
6. The world, as a Whole, is a Unity of all these inter-terminations and inter-actions, which every moment is Unique and Always Different. So, the world itself, as a Whole, exists overpassing continuously and instantaneously itself. That is, to be Always Itself-Being continuously Other, being the Contradiction as Essence Itself, the Potentiality (the dynamic base of the evolving world), the Evolution as essence itself and finally the Materiality itself. The world as a Whole, is a continuous explosion of changing, which simultaneously-instantaneously returns palpitating back and forth, from infinite to its former situation and position.
7. So, from the point of view of the specific continuously changing events, but also from the point of view of the whole, Past and Future do not really exist, only Present exists. Present (Now) ExistsAlways-NotExisting because in its every moment Is-NotBeing Other (different). This is the zero edge of the fading (perishing) present, which tending to zero, tends simultaneously to infinite Being-NotBeing-Always-Other. So Time, being always “Now”, do not exist as duration. Duration as Time Itself is a deterministic illusion. Time really is the repetition frequency of specific elementary under-level unites in a position, in a specific quantitive-qualitative Metron (balance) and Space is their wave-length,
accomplishing this way a specific thing or situation.
8. The whole (the material universality) as a continuity of the specific separate events, is the abstract expression of their interaction generality. This situation in its higher grade, though, over-passes the abstract generality to a higher specification, which is the Eternal Motion Itself (Motion as a specific essence). The world consists of unlimited separate evens, which the more constant are considered, the more specific they are, but in their supreme constancy and in their minimum time duration, constancy is overpassed to the eternal motion, which needs another calculation and logical approach.
9. There are two ways of logical approach to the material reality, which inter-extend each-other, so that the specific enters inside the abstract and oppositely. This way, the abstract and the specific compose a unity to a higher specification, which responds to the Eternal Evolution –the Motion itself as a specific essence–.
10. Our world is so continuous as its stability permits, is so concrete and specific as abstraction permits, is so finite as infinite is. The specific, stable and finite event, extends to the continuous, abstract and infinite one, composing the universe and the universe, return its depth diving into the specific one. It is so that: the more we dive into the small and specific, the more away we travel into the universe and oppositely.
event and position
12. There is a scale of the specific events “perception” for the world, which scale emits-receiving flow-antiflow of messages, which depart from the confrontation, (interreaction-intertermination) deeply inside the event itself (self-termination), passes to the confrontation to the near-by events, next to the farther ones and finally to the Universe as a Whole itself, the Eternal-Other-Self, the Universal Antilogous (the Far Away Universal Antipode), which forces the event continuously to change. This interacting-perception differs with the distance of the events travel, (being so bigger as farther they travel).
13. Every confrontation is a junction of depart-returning messages. The messages traveling to the universe reform the events of the environment they meet, being simultaneously reformed by them, and finally returning back, reform the event of their departure. So after an unconstrained process of gradual departure-returning messages to all events of universe, the specific event transforms the universe being transformed also simultaneously by the universe.
14. The above means, that every message performs unconstrained “cycles” of departure-returning, composing a scale of differentiality, which transforming the universe is simultaneously transformed by that.
15. Every “cycle” of the departing-returning messages, is a junction which puts the limits of the event specification. The message though, passing by all the junctions of differentiality, terminates itself from its opposite view. The integration of the event “self-perception” is accomplished, when the event itself has been overpassed, because the transformation of its far away opposite, having gradually been absolutely similar to it, do not exist any more as itself being as Other.
16. During this process of message exchanging, (emit-receiving messages to the universe and from that), the bigger distance messages travel the more different they return, so they verify the event of the departure, but simultaneously being different, they falsify it also. That has a result, the event to be verified a little further from the position it was. It is so that the event itself to depart from the same position of itself and to return-getting away, enters to a continuous identification to itself. This identification departing from the greatest one (as the eternal departure) and gradually getting smaller, ends to the minimum identification (where exactly is the position of the eternal return). Between these extreme positions, there are unconstrained junction-positions of departure-returning, where the event is able to exist as related and similar to itself. In the two extreme positions though, the event do not exist because it has fallen in the under substance of the world, the immediate and immobile (the Potentiality Existing level of the world).
All this process could be named contradictive identity, which I will try to make a full description in the following work.
point, straight course, space and time
17. The world to evolve really and its every moment not to be repeated (to be unique), should be an open system, whose terms should be self-overpassing (being of contradictive nature). So the logico-lingual syntax to express this reality, should consist of contradictive elements being a Contradictive Geometry. To make understood how an element would be a contradictive one, it is necessary to bring in mind the elements of Euclidean Geometry, which are just opposite to the contradictive ones. These are not simply elements of geometry, but from a philosophical aspect, elements of a cosmological logico-lingual system.
18. In Euclidean Geometry point, straight line and space, are ideal meanings, being separated each other and motionless “in the state of rest”. Space is of three-dimensions, which expand to infinite; space is considered to be separated from all the others it can contain. Its existence though does not depend on these. This space could exist and conceived without all the others it could contain; thus it can be empty space, being finally an idea. Straight line expanding to infinite never meets itself; the point is ideal having no dimensions. Regardless something happens to any one of them, nothing is necessary to happen to the others. On the contrary, if we suppose the existence of a «Contradictive Geometry», this would have as basic character the innate mobility and correlation of the elements it consists. Space, time, straight line and point, altogether compose a unique event in a continuous motion, interaction and inter-formation, being everyone in a specific condition because the rest of all the others demand to.
19. Let’s see the meaning of this preposition: A point in the state of rest, can not be considered, but moving straitly and normally in space; because of that, the accomplishment of straight line is not the ideal event we imagine and sketch it on a flat paper. Straight line, in this case, is a straight and normal course of a moving point in space, and space to be real (not ideal), has the continuous rotation as a state of rest. Space, for a point moving straitly and normally, is an unconstrained series of similar points, composing a unity. These points differ each other in direction and departure point at the specific moment, and all these are considered to depart simultaneously composing this specific space. In other words, the moving rectilinearly and normally point, should do so in a space consisting by other similar but in different direction points; that’s why “the state of rest” of the space in relation to the moving-One, rectilinearly and normally point, is a rotation (there is one more reason for that which we will realise during the process of this work). So it is necessary for the moving-One, to accomplish gradually its course upon the crossing positions of the Other similar moving points, the space consists of. These crossing positions of the One’s course upon the ideal courses of the Many Others, is the way the straight and normal course of the One is recorded upon the rotating space. The rotating space falsifies the straight course of the One because it is accomplished on the Many-Others “course-plot” in a curved form. (The One “intends” to accomplish straight and normal motion, but the rotation of space transforms its course to curved).
20. To have a better comprehension of space, point and straight-motion relation process, let’s make a mental experiment: Suppose the straight and normally moving point, «intends» to accomplish an absolute straight course. The moving point to «straighten up» its course, should accelerate
to catch up the space’s rotation; so the moving-One to accomplish this task should cover any supposed distance A―B, instantaneously. Every «rectilinear» course of a point moving instantaneously, looses its course sense, because being instantaneous, is expanded to all universe and has returned back to its former position simultaneously. After this remark we have this paradox: the instantaneous acceleration of this point, does not permit acceleration and motion, because the instantaneous expands to all universe, being simultaneously everywhere, existing in the departure and arrival position simultaneously. This is an explosive change to infinite and return instantaneously back to zero point. So this point being of zero and infinite size, is at the same time, the instantaneous and motionless, One and Many, being the contradiction itself, the potentiality level of the whole.
21. This paradox could reveal the relativity of space, point, straight-course and time, where the behaviour of all these, depend on their relation to All the Others, forming this way an evolving Unity. The size of the point is every time so big, as its speed permits and due to its speed, the motion course recorded in space “straightens up”. The more its speed increases, the greater space is limited and included in the “curvedness” of the course “straightness”, and smaller the size of the point becomes, demands an appropriate rotation of the moving point around itself. This way, point is a rotating anti-space that expands-unrolling into space, as space rolls-folding and rotates reversely, diving into the point. For this reason, the crossing positions of the course of the One, upon the courses of the Many-Others, which compose the corresponding space to the course of the One-point (moving normally and rectilinearly), forms a crossing position scale. This scale departs from the position of the One crossing one-Other, gradually unfolds to positions of crossing-together two-Others, three-Others …etc, arriving to a position of the scale, where the One crosses all Many-Other courses simultaneously. The Point moves-expanding in Space and the Space rotates-diving into the point acting reversely to the point and compose together a contradictive unit.
22. The previous process is similar to the following: The rectilinearly and normally moving-One, crossing gradually the Many-Others courses, (having everyone of them separately a different direction), once will reach the position to cross the course of the One (of itself), having a reverse direction to the One of its departure, being at this moment the centre of the hypothetic rotating space; Hence from this position, it will begin to «return», crossing this way its own course and finally it will coincide reversely upon its own course. This process we described, is the space which corresponds to the moving-One, composing an open system, because the integration of this return is accomplished only to its direction, but has not return exactly to the hypothetic position of this point departure, since there is not an absolute one of this kind. (This preposition will be determined again, because it is very critical the space not be a closed system). Regarding carefully this process, we could realise that the course of the One, crossing the courses of Many-Others, is finally the same to the One crossing its own course; That is so, because the “curvedness” of the straight course, presupposes the straight course once to begin crossing its own course.
23. Space, following the curved (straight and normal) motion of the One reversely, moves-rotating, expands-constricting, departs-returning. It is so that space in relation and together with the moving-One point, behaves as a contradictive unit. The only space not obliged to have a motion course, but only to palpitate instantaneously, is the Whole, and because this palpitation is instantaneous, is not a course, existing potentially cannot be terminated as anything else other, but as the contradiction nude (the contradiction as essence). That means: to have all attributes and none, being the Instantaneous and Motionless, zero and infinite simultaneously. When space is not a whole but a conventional one, the element of instantaneous disappears from surface and hides in the underground, being indefinite and forgotten. In extreme and boundary situations though, it shows its face astonishing us. Except of the «absolute» space (the whole), appearing as the contradiction nude, any other conventional space is curved, responding to its related point and its related straight course (with its related cusvetness), having a paracentral (eccedral) oscillation. This way the point is real, having size, rotation and its straight course owes to have a curvedness, responding to the course of the point and its size. This space is constricted-rotating and limited by the curvedness of its straight course on one hand, and the rotation and size of the point on the other. Thus there is Space and Anti-Space (Time); the Space is constrained by the point course curvedness and the Anti-Space, by the rotation of the point around itself. From a contradictive point of view though, both Spaces together compose one event: “the contradictive Space” which is inseparable from the events it is related with. Time in this Time-Space event, is the fluidity of the points frequency in the specific position and Space is the expanse area of the point rotation round it self, in relation to a specific system of reference. This contradictive Space, even might be characterised as a Space-Time event, where Time would be the frequency of the points fluidity in position and Space would be their wave length.
24. The specific space departs-returning, not being able to verify absolutely itself, because, as we noticed, the moving-One-Point responding to this space, moving forward returns once to the direction of its own course, verifying the direction, but never absolutely the hypothetic position of its departure. This way, it verifies related positions to itself near by its hypothetic departure position, but not absolutely; the returning point meets its position, touching it more and more but never being exactly upon that. (The absolute departure is an ideal one and can only be conceived as the immobile and instantaneous, the absolutely vacant and simultaneously the absolutely full). Thus the moving-One collapses-composing itself a little farther from its previous position, moving forward.
25. From a contradictive point of view, motion is the course of the collapsing-composition process of the events. This depart-returning course, responds to a process of an unlimited series of denial-verifications, that departs from the absolute verification and simultaneously the absolute falsification, where the space-antispace departs-returning instantaneously as contradiction-nude, and passing by all the positions of possible verifying-falsifying relation, ends to the absolute falsification, being at the same time, the absolute verification, which is again the instantaneous and the nude contradiction. There, space is always different having potentially all forms and simultaneously no one. All intermediate departure-returning positions, verify-falsifying, collaps-composing, situation, represent a conventional-specific space, which although is constrained, has undetermined limits, because the moving-One has not an absolutely specific departing position and its limits are continuously changing. These limits, are always related to some departure of the moving-One, presenting itself as an ultimate unite at the moment. This way the specific and constrained space, is at the same time open containing potentially the infinite.
Explicative note:
26. Every rectilinearly and normally moving point has the syndrome of curvedness; henceforth a moment, it must create crossing positions upon its own course by itself. These positions exist where the moving-One repeats itself more than one time. This way a scale of positions gradualness is created, departing from the position of zero repetition, passes all possible (one, two, three…) positions of repetition and ends to the infinite one. (The first and the last repetitions of this scale, compose the contradictive unity of zero-infinite positions, responding to the contradictive-instantaneous).Now let’s see again this process from an other related view: The moving-One point performs an unconstrained number of departure-returning cycles, intending to verify itself. This way it terminates two spaces to which every time responds. (The great one, responds to the course curvature of the moving-One, and the small one responds to the perimeter of One’s rotation round itself, being its size). These cycles depart from the one which is never accomplished, because it has never departed, and ends to the one that is never accomplished, because it will never return. (Both of these cycles compose the zero-infinite unit, responding to the instantaneous). Between these two space relating positions, an unconstrained number of departure-returning relating positions exists, where the event is not verified absolutely but in relation to its falsification. At these positions the moving-One (the point) crosses its ideal course but never absolutely. (We call it ideal, because it is not there itself to be met again, but it has passed again by this spot, creating positions of departing-returning repetition). This one never passes exactly by the position once passed, but gradually touches more and more the ideal spot of passing by and verifying it gradually, creates a scale of verification-falsification relating positions. These positions depart from the greater falsification and smaller verification of this One and arrive to greater verification and smaller falsification.
27. The moving-One (point) departs-returning continuously to universe, determining the size of the space curvedness course in relation to the size of the position rotation around itself. (The smaller position self rotation, responds to a greater course curvedness, containing the adequate universal space). This relation departs from zero size position and infinite size space and passing by all position and space relations, (the bigger position, smaller the space becomes), arrives to a zero space and infinite position. (As we have noticed, at this extreme situation we have the instantaneous and immobile simultaneously, with all the consequents following this relation).
28. Accepting the existence of an unconstrained number of departing-returning points, which move rectilinearly and normally, it is necessary every-One of these to pass from the positions of all the Other points and all the Other points gradually (one by one) to pass from the position of the One. This way we have the accomplishment of Many Others by the course of the One passing through them, and simultaneously, the accomplishment of the One, by the alternating Many Others courses, through the One. Thus, on one hand, there is a position series, having a periodic repetition of different points through every one position and on the other hand, one position having a series of different frequency repetition courses of Many Other points through the same position. (These are the different crossing positions, of the course of the One by itself). They are two opposite quantity, flow-antiflow position scales: the One through Many-Others and Many-Others through the One. This has as a result the creation of a spherical order position system, with pole A, being the departure of the One and arrival of Many-Others and anti-Α, being the departure of many Others and arrival of the One. In this process (being the contradictive unit, we have noticed before), the moving-One exists exactly where it consists from the anti-coursing of Many-Others. This anti-coursing, consists from the courses of similar Many Others, having everyone a different direction, that is, a different angle of crossing, (something we accepted at the beginning of this concept, as an element of difference between the similar Many-Others). So these points arriving differently to every position of this quantity scale, compose the One as rotating and different every moment and simultaneously Many-Others exist the way they are, because the One counter-moves with a different repetition frequency (of its course-crossing by itself) through every One of Many-Others separately. We have noticed that the moving-One departing from the position A, arrives in position anti-A (being Many-Others), where the greatest crossing state of the One’s course by itself exists. At the same time, position anti-A, is the departure of Many-Others, where they exist as the anti-course and the anti-moving-One. Many-Others, as we shall see, during unfolding this model, are every moment and in every position One else, –a different Other–, having a different direction, because it arrives there having some other spot as departure in a different quantity scale, from the unlimited number our world consist of. Between positions A and anti-A, a gradual scale of flow-antiflow relating positions of the One’s course and Many-Others anti-course exists. Every position, although is an identity having its own character, is simultaneously an inseparable part of the scale of the whole. A scale of positions is a specific identity, being a different relation of the One and Many-Others, flow-antiflow process; This scale of positions, is simultaneously a partaker of the whole as a unity. Whole is a contradictive unity, being an ideal “scale board” of positions and point activity, being the matter we try to terminate in all its contradictive dimensions in this work.
29. As we noticed, this scale has an unconstrained number of point departure-returning positions. Every position is a result of different flow-antiflow relation of One and Many-Others moving points. This way every position have a different character with a definite emission-receiving of a specific event, departing for universe and returning to position. Every position is a vortex, where Many-Others dive, entering from one side and spring out by the other side, because the One contra-moves terminating, by the frequency of its repetition, the quantity and the wave-length of Many-Others. Any removal from position to position, modifies all relations. Any character of modification in the position of a receiving-emission point, changes its scale position, moving exactly to the justified position by its receiving-emission character. At the poles of the scale, there the unrepeated and the instantaneous repetition is, which reveals the infinite character of an open system, in all events of our world. Since every scale takes a specific character of emit-receiving-flow-antiflow position, its infinite character withdraws, carrying away zero element too. Then the infinite element of the scale, is modified to an infinite number of scales, changing face. Although every scale is characterised by the attributes we referred to, simultaneously has a departure reference to a different position in every other parallel scale; That is why it has an unconstrained number of faces and dimensions, containing one face of the whole, (from its evolutional point of view), until the moment of a specific research. Although there it seems that two different situations exist, both are the same event from an other point of view; it is remarkable to notice this detail, to make clear that the departure-returning of the emission-receiving of messages in position, is not a closed system but an open one.
Explicative note:
30. The moving-One, we supposed that its course crossing by itself, is “the cause of One-ManyOthers contradictive relation process” (coursing-anticoursing), is, in its complete integration, the InstantaneousMotion-Immobility potentiality. This potentially is the Whole in operation, which being instantaneous, is hidden. That operation of the whole exists in the depth of this hidden form of the world, as an instantaneous palpitation (expansion-shrinking). (This is the motionless-instantaneous crossing-distances of no size parts situation and zero-infinite unity). When we intend to distinguish specific units, moving rectilinearly and normally, the instantaneous disappears from surface, hiding in depth, and the relation of the moving-One and Many-Others counter-motion comes in surface, where the existence of the moving-One depends on the counter-motion of Many-Others and reversely.The hypothetic leaping removal of the One, from position to position,
which we could imagine as ultimate removal distance on the hypothetic axis with poles A-antiA, of the hypothetic flow-antiflow sphere, is a result of the anti-moving course of Many-Others. This anti-moving course of Many-Others, travelling to the faraway limits of the sphere (and forward to Universe) returns to meet and verify the moving One. The returning Many-Other elements, meet the moving-One in its direction from position «α» to position «β» on the axis A-antiA; The Many-Others moving reversely to position «β» passing by «γ», («next» position of moving-One course on the hypothetic A-antiA poles axis). (I insist to notice this again, because of the importance, that Many-Others contra-moving, compose the leaping removal of the One from position «α» to position «β» on the axis A-antiA. Many-Others moving reversely from the supposed next position «γ» to «β» and «α»). The speed of the moving-One on axis A-antiA, from position «α» to position «β» being considered as the smaller leaping distance, is astronomically smaller from the speed of Many-Others reversely moving to consist the moving-One. (If we imagine the moving-One as a photon-quantum and the Many-Others as sub-quantum elements of a deeper existing level, then the so called leaping removal, is the result of an almost instantaneous collapsing-composing process of the One, by the moving Many-Others. These Many-Others, though have enormously different speed from the One, moving reversely and in different levels, coincide inter-terminating, inter-composing each other). In this case, a paradoxologist would say that one system moves from past to future and the other from future to past. From a quantic point of view though, time cannot exist this way; because world is οnly Now and real time is the repetition frequency of passing elementary points in position. (Since space is the wave length of the points spread).
31. The positions should receive-emitting, a consequence of gradually alternating angle coursing-anticoursing units, having as a result a rotation. This rotation is terminated by the responding relation of receipt-emitting-coursing-anticoursing points in every position. This rotation departs as paracentral (eccentric), since its emission on the “coursing-anticoursing” scale should be singular (of one element) and its receiving is almost infinite at pole A, but after passing by all possible relating positions of emission-receiving-receipt-emitting on axis A-antiA, its paracentral character tends to be in balance until the centre of the hypothetic sphere, (having axis and poles A-antiA); after wards balance will gradually again be disordered reaching pole antiA, where it will be completely paracentral. All positions however, appear externally balanced, because the receipt-emitting of coursing elements disorder will be balanced by the responding disorder of the anticoursing elements. These positions differ its other, to the coursing-anticoursing relation frequency, having a responding angle of rotation, in relation to their position in axe A-antiA of the hypothetic sphere.
32. Micro (very small), which we could name «point», expands far away to Mega (great, universe) and Mega dives into Micro, being together One (a unit). The deepest limits of the inside coincide to the faraway limits of the outside, composing the contradictive unity. Events consist by an unconstrained number of this kind of points. Everyone of these points, departing for universe, returns verifying partially its moving self. This event referring simultaneously by a different way to all universe scales, expresses by these receipt-emitting process, its own view of all universe faces. Any position of these flow-antiflow scales, emits to universe, receiving from it messages, being a specific emit-receiving message cod. A scale consisting of this kind successive positions, begins from the position of higher receipt and lower emission, passes gradually by all possible positions of different relation emission-receiving messages and ends to position of lowest receipt and higher emission messages. Every position, responding to all these different scale point departures, even the instantaneous one, is able this way to change itself, emitting gradually to universe all possible messages, responding differently to all scales. These begin from the message which never departed, because it is always there, passes from all gradual series of departure-returning messages with a different point of flow-antiflow relation to universe, ending to the message which will never return. (We have noticed that both messages, “the one being always there and the one which never returns”, compose the contradictive unity of the “instantaneous-immobility and infinite-zero”, being the positions of A-antiA poles) This way, the event we call point in universe, sends an unconstrained number of messages, changing continuously its emitting-receiving code, to maintain its own position and simultaneously changes continuously position, to maintain its own receipt-emission code.
33. This could be expressed differently: the One and Unique consists of the anti-course of Many-Others (flowing in the position of One) and simultaneously, Many-Others consist of the course of the One (anti-flowing in Many-Others positions). Many-Others are accomplished by the One and the One by Many-Others, composing together the Whole (Unity). This way, the course of the moving-One to sequent positions, is a collapsing-composition result of Many-Others anti-coursing (in the position of the One), realising-verifying it; and the One returns its dept to Many-Others, realising-verifying gradually all of them. [Because universe is infinite and open system, every message that departs from a position to the universe, returning back, do not verify absolutely its departing position (as we have noticed), but it verifies-falsifying it. This because the returning message «steps» upon the departure position, verifying it gradually from more to less, going finally farther from the departing spot. This way the moving-One exists as a collapsing-composition even in a continuous changing position].
34. That we call «point» in universe, on one hand moves being the same continuously, (changing scale, being able to verify a similar One-Other in a different scale); on the other hand it collapses-composing, at the same scale and moves changing continuously its position by changing its emission-receiving code. This way a moving point (an event), is a distinguished and constant spot, but simultaneously an expanding cloud. We could imagine both of these situations together, as a cloudy «one stroke of the pencil line» having a solid “nose”, but moving, leaves back an elliptic and gradually expanding to the universe cloud. That «point-event», moving eternally, verifies-falsifying all the spots of its “tail”, being simultaneously verified-falsified by them.
35. Therefore that we could name «opposite» from a contradictive point of view, is the unconstrained universal plurality, formed in relation to the unity the One-event represents. The opposite to any specific-One, cannot be expressed as minus-One, but as an unconstrained series of similar and gradually differing from the One events. These depart very deeply from inside the specific-One, without leaving any independent «space» and travelling faraway out of the One, accomplish an unconstrained number of depart-returning courses, which verify-falsifying them selves, compose this an unconstrained contradictive moving relation as opposite to the One. Everyone of all these similar and unconstrained number of units, existing simultaneously in this relation, could be accepted as a distinguished scale of positions, which during this contradictive process of opposites as simultanea, must be considered as a distinguished departure position. This way we have Two, Three, Four… etc, (distinguished events and arithmetic numbers).
36. As a consequence of the previous prepositions, we could imagine our world, as a whole, consisted of such an elementary «junction plot» positions. Everyone of these positions sends specific messages of departing-returning, flow-antiflow, emission-receiving, so it would be considered as a distinguished event. The state and position of such events, consist by a distinguished «plot» of flowing-antiflowing-receipt-emission of under-events, which could be characterised as energy for these specific positions-existences (events) of that plot. So if anyone of these events receive energy (flowing of under-events), more than a necessary quantity, (it should be to another specific position of that plot); this collapses entering to the under existing energy flowing-antiflowing level (the under-event level) and it is recomposed to another position, justified by the new flowing-antiflowing-emisson-receipt, of the under-events state of the structure-plot. By this concept, the world should be a plot of an unconstrained number of messages interchanging positions. This message plotting, could be the worlds evolution process as essence and its operation would be the Dialectic Logic.
37. By means of a dialectic logic formality, “Identity” would be considered as an evolving self-overpassing event, like the contradictive unit I have presented. This way the “Identity Principal”, the so much necessary for the Comparative Process of logic, will turn to a “Contradictive Identity Principal”. This identity, which will be an evolving process (as we have described), to be functional in logic, its amplitude will be confined by the kind of research and the kind of involving units which demanded by the responding departures to the responding scales. This abstractly could be said, that every specific moment of this process would be a species of differential collapsing-compositive operation. This way the typical logic formality is overpassed, getting a living dimension.
38. For such a contradictive logic process to be possible, some ideal index recording boards must be contacted. These would be such as i tried to propose terminating the idea of contradiction scales of “emit-receiving-coursing-anticoursing messages plot” in this work. It’s necessary, these boards to be contacted with mathematic support, based on a Contradictive Geometry, i have sketched previously; this research process should also be related to the research limits of a specific event. These record-boards must define the possible flowing-antiflowing receiving-emission messages of the contradictive crossing position plot, which will represent a current and specific reality. This way, the removal from a crossing plot position to another, will be the result of a collapse-composing process, as it will be revealed by the ideal operation of the supposed record-boards (the crossing plot, flowing-antiflowing, positions system). I speak about ideal function and hypothetic recording boards, because we will never have an immediate experimental approach, at least the way we used to, because this evolving process would take place in the so called under-quantic world, which can not absolutely be investigated. We should use hypothetic models and notice if these could be verified in levels we have experimental approach.
39. The contradictive unite, I speak about, could take a specific meaning every time its hypothetic departing position in the scale of a specific reference is determined; This reference would serve the specific research. That departing position of a specific reference system, simultaneously could be related to all other unconstrained number of moving points, in other systems of reference (scales), by a different way everyone to a different scale. All these simultaneously departing points, which travel-returning to universe, are positions which emit-receiving messages, verify-falsifying all the positions of the other scales, except of the simultaneously departing positions of the other relating scales. Then every unique departure point of a specific relation systems scale, which cannot be verified from all this process, could be One, Two, Three…etc, and generally the numeral departure counting of other contradictive units. (We should not forget that all these units appearing as autonomous and independent, when they «touch» the position of Poles in a scale (A antiA), bring back to the surface the instantaneous and immobile element, which is the contradictive unity of the whole).
40. After this concept, we have spoken about, a rational and organised process could be supposed. This should be related to departure positions, of scale references specific systems, during a specific research and the way departure-returning messages, would behave. That would be Dialectics.
41. This imaginary adventure of the One point moving rectilinearly and normally, in all its development, could be the “Contradictive Elementary Unit”. Although the way I have proposed it does not look as a perfect one, the reader should have in mind, that deals about contradictive meanings, stepping many times simultaneously on the negation and the affirmation of thinking. Never the less, if science and Logic do not take under consideration the preposition about this contradictive-dialectic unit or another work of that kind, -maybe better proposed-, will never be able to overpass the dialogic impasse, it has been trapped. Having that under consideration, the logics-lingual syntax of science should coincide to Contradictive Geometry language, where world should be accepted as a Bio-cartographic recording, the way this preposition demands. There will also be a logics-lingual syntax taking in consideration and having as term the Contradiction Elementary Unit, as it has been proposed by Zeno and the dialectic mental structures of the Heracleitian thinking, which I have reformed in this work. After that, all sciences, should be «seen» again and reconsidered, having in mind the Contradictive Elementary Unit and the Contradictive Geometric Bio-chartography of the world. This way, science will again be One, the Philosophy, and will coincide to the Contradictive Rationality Logics-Lingual Syntax, which is Dialectics as essence; The Heracleitian «Logos».
42. We could redeterminate the principles of a Dialectic Logic formality, stepping on this contradictive elementary unit. This way we could form three principles of the Dialectic Logic:
A. «The Principle of Dialectic Identity» where identity coincides with the Contradictive Unite, as it has been proposed during this work.
B. «The Contradictive Relativity Principle of the Opposites», which we have terminated in the contradictive opposition meaning.
C. «The Amphi-dromic Rationality Principle», being a both way Rational Activity Chain, presupposing Reason and Result to be intercollapsing-intercomposing each-other, having an unconstrained number of dimensions, which reach up to the instantaneous-immobility, zero and infinite, (the contradiction nude and the potentiality). In this principle, rationality is considered to be a departure-returning evolving process, as it has been terminated previously during this work.
43. These principles worth only as operative tools in specific situations, being a concentration of all the previous work, which should be considered in relation to the development for every specific case, but not as a formal stereotypes.
44. As we have noticed, Logic and Aesthetics are recorded in the human hereditary mechanism and Conscience is the de-codified part of this recording. This recording do not constrain the human notion and behaviour, because being contradictive is unconstrained and multi-dimensional.
45. This imaginary adventure of the normally and rectilinearly moving point, let be considered by the reader as a contradictive cognitive game. Yet this “Contradiction Anatomy ” aspect, could claim a scientific face.
46. The preposition and use of the Contradictive Logic, for centuries, was accepted as a cognitive game and it would stay this way, since rationalism departing from Aristotle, till the times of Newton has taken the position of Logic itself in our conscience. Rationalism as determinism and typical logic, being reinforced with differential and integral mathematics and with the necessity of the electronic computer, which is indeed an instrument of rational typicality, had puss away contradictive dialectic logic. With the appearance though of the “relativity” and the “quantic theories”, this situation has been violently reversed.
47. For the above reason we must not forget the notation of the great scientist and humanist Bohm: Every motion in the quantum-mechanics “Fields Theory”, is described as a collapsing-composition of the moving elementary units. . . . The motion of a free particle is described as destruction of that in one position and creation of another in other position. This realisation seems so much with the collapsing-composition of the Heracletian dialectics, that brings back Contradictive and Dialectic Logic in the front of the stage. Dialectic Logic is not anymore a logical game, but a door to the future.
space and time
From a contraductive and collapsing-compositive point of view, because things are always Other-Different and in other position, neither Time could be duration nor Space extension, the way we used to accept them. In that ultimate level of the world which could be the quantic one, time is the repetition frequency of under-events in position and space is their wave length. So Time, Space, Speed and Being, in that universal level, are very different from the newtonian and aristotelian concept. The Relativity Theory though and the Equation of Strediger do not take under consideration this fact and intermix the newtonian space and time with quantic time and space (frequency and wave-length) in the same calculations. Moreover these theories do not consider that in Relativity and Quantic world, speed is not the same as in the Newtonian world. That being logically illegal, creates in specific cases logical problems and antinomies.a final notation
The world is a dynamic process, which has a contradictive nature being in a continuance of evolving process and for this reason, needs a Contradictive Rationalism to be described. Science should consider my preposition about the Contradictive Elementary Unit and the Contradictive Rationality, as it is proposed in that logic tractatus, or other works maybe better proposed about that matter, because will not be able to forward theoretically any more. It is necessary thinkers and new mathematicians, to take under consideration this work and depart for a long journey to the unknown. They must create a new mathematic logic instrument, which should step upon the collapsing-compositive hypothetical “tablets” I have proposed. Then all sciences will step on another theoretical base, having under consideration the “collapsing-compositive” (contradictive) nature of the world and will be reorganised.
This work was not understood by the english interpreters I addressed to, so I translated it by myself, though the level of my english knowledge is low. This english version though, being an approximate one to the greek prototype, gives the general idea of its meaning.
This work was not understood by the english interpreters I addressed to, so I translated it by myself, though the level of my english knowledge is low. This english version though, being an approximate one to the greek prototype, gives the general idea of its meaning.
Σχόλια
Δημοσίευση σχολίου