Monad
Oct 26th, 2004, 4:37 PM
Hi people,
During the last 20 years I developed a new Mathematical theory, which is based on what I call: an included-middle reasoning.
Included-middle reasoning is:
The Art of interactions between independent opposites in non-destructive ways.
If we compare between the excluded-middle reasoning (which is the standard reasoning that standing in the basis of the standard language of mathematics) and Included-middle reasoning, we can find these major differences:
In an excluded-middle reasoning, two opposites are simultaneously contradicting each other, and the result is no-middle(=excluded-middle reasoning).
In an included-middle reasoning, two opposites are simultaneously preventing/defining their middle domain, and the result is a middle(=included-middle reasoning).
The goal of my work is to find a logical reasoning system, which can be used as a common basis for both our morality development and our technological developments.
And I am not talking about the biblical morality model, but on the idea of "power over nature" that is the basis of Descrates' and Bacon's philosophy.
This point of view is the basis of our modern technological civilization that is still directed by this "power over nature" idea, which can quickly lead us to a dead-end street of the history of our life on this planet.
Morality, In my opinion, is first of all our basic reasoning of natural balance with the fragile and complex phenomena of life on this planet, which we are part of it (whether we like it or not) and not "power over nature" of it.
If we achieve this goal, then I think that we improve our chances to survive the power of our technology.
I have found that included-middle reasoning has the properties to achieve this goal, after I developed some fundamental Mathematical works, which are based on its reasoning.
From this point of view, the mathematician's cognition abilities are taken as natural parts of the mathematical research itself, and this approach can be used to develop a gateway between his own morality development and his technical mathematical developments.
The main trigger behind this work is my interpretation to Drake's equation.
If we look at Drake's equation http://www.setileague.org/general/drake.htm we can find parameter L.
L = The "lifetime" of communicating civilizations, or in other worlds, if there is no natural catastrophe in some given planet, then how some civilization survives the power of its own technology?
If we look on our civilization, I think that we cannot ignore L and in this case we should ask every day "how we survive the power of our technology?"
My work for the last 20 years is one of many possible ways to answer this every day question.
Though my research I have found that if some civilization has no balance between its morality level and its technological level, then there is a very high probability that its L= some n , or in other words it is no longer exists.
Now, let us look at our L and let us ask ourselves: "Do we do all what we have to do in order to avoid some n?"
Most of the power of our technology is based on the Language of Mathematics and its reasoning, where the current reasoning is generally based on 0_XOR_1 logical reasoning, and there is nothing in this reasoning which researches the most important question which is: "How do we use this powerful Language in order to find the balance between our morality level and our technological level"?
If our answer is: "The Language of Mathematics has nothing to do with these kinds of questions", then in my opinion we quickly bring ourselves to find the exact n of our L.
In my opinion, in order to avoid the final n of our L, we have no choice but to find the balance between our morality level and our technological level within the framework of what is called the Language of Mathematics.
Furthermore, we should not leave this question to be answered beyond the framework of our scientific methods, because no other framework, accept our scientific method can really determinate the destiny of our L.
My work can be found in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheo...ry/CATpage.html (http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CATpage.html) and it is hard to follow especially for professional Mathematicians that most of their reasoning is based on the excluded-middle reasoning.
Anyway I would like to share with you my work and I'll be glad to get any detailed questions, comments and insights.
Thank you,
Doron
-----------------------------------------------------------------
My goal is to fulfill the dream of the great mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz ( http://www.andrews.edu/~calkins/math/biograph/bioleib.htm )
Actually my number system ( which some arithmetic of it can be found in http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=76489&postcount=20 ) is the fulfillment of Leibniz's Monads, and beyond it.
During the last 20 years I developed a new Mathematical theory, which is based on what I call: an included-middle reasoning.
Included-middle reasoning is:
The Art of interactions between independent opposites in non-destructive ways.
If we compare between the excluded-middle reasoning (which is the standard reasoning that standing in the basis of the standard language of mathematics) and Included-middle reasoning, we can find these major differences:
In an excluded-middle reasoning, two opposites are simultaneously contradicting each other, and the result is no-middle(=excluded-middle reasoning).
In an included-middle reasoning, two opposites are simultaneously preventing/defining their middle domain, and the result is a middle(=included-middle reasoning).
The goal of my work is to find a logical reasoning system, which can be used as a common basis for both our morality development and our technological developments.
And I am not talking about the biblical morality model, but on the idea of "power over nature" that is the basis of Descrates' and Bacon's philosophy.
This point of view is the basis of our modern technological civilization that is still directed by this "power over nature" idea, which can quickly lead us to a dead-end street of the history of our life on this planet.
Morality, In my opinion, is first of all our basic reasoning of natural balance with the fragile and complex phenomena of life on this planet, which we are part of it (whether we like it or not) and not "power over nature" of it.
If we achieve this goal, then I think that we improve our chances to survive the power of our technology.
I have found that included-middle reasoning has the properties to achieve this goal, after I developed some fundamental Mathematical works, which are based on its reasoning.
From this point of view, the mathematician's cognition abilities are taken as natural parts of the mathematical research itself, and this approach can be used to develop a gateway between his own morality development and his technical mathematical developments.
The main trigger behind this work is my interpretation to Drake's equation.
If we look at Drake's equation http://www.setileague.org/general/drake.htm we can find parameter L.
L = The "lifetime" of communicating civilizations, or in other worlds, if there is no natural catastrophe in some given planet, then how some civilization survives the power of its own technology?
If we look on our civilization, I think that we cannot ignore L and in this case we should ask every day "how we survive the power of our technology?"
My work for the last 20 years is one of many possible ways to answer this every day question.
Though my research I have found that if some civilization has no balance between its morality level and its technological level, then there is a very high probability that its L= some n , or in other words it is no longer exists.
Now, let us look at our L and let us ask ourselves: "Do we do all what we have to do in order to avoid some n?"
Most of the power of our technology is based on the Language of Mathematics and its reasoning, where the current reasoning is generally based on 0_XOR_1 logical reasoning, and there is nothing in this reasoning which researches the most important question which is: "How do we use this powerful Language in order to find the balance between our morality level and our technological level"?
If our answer is: "The Language of Mathematics has nothing to do with these kinds of questions", then in my opinion we quickly bring ourselves to find the exact n of our L.
In my opinion, in order to avoid the final n of our L, we have no choice but to find the balance between our morality level and our technological level within the framework of what is called the Language of Mathematics.
Furthermore, we should not leave this question to be answered beyond the framework of our scientific methods, because no other framework, accept our scientific method can really determinate the destiny of our L.
My work can be found in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheo...ry/CATpage.html (http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CATpage.html) and it is hard to follow especially for professional Mathematicians that most of their reasoning is based on the excluded-middle reasoning.
Anyway I would like to share with you my work and I'll be glad to get any detailed questions, comments and insights.
Thank you,
Doron
-----------------------------------------------------------------
My goal is to fulfill the dream of the great mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz ( http://www.andrews.edu/~calkins/math/biograph/bioleib.htm )
Actually my number system ( which some arithmetic of it can be found in http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=76489&postcount=20 ) is the fulfillment of Leibniz's Monads, and beyond it.