|To:||paoladimaio10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Avril.Styrman@xxxxxxxxxxx|
|From:||ravi sharma <drravisharma@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:51:28 -0500|
Here are my observations on this wonderful paper by Avril:
Brief Comments Dated - Jan 24, 2010 by Ravi Sharma on Wonderful Paper on Infinity: published by Avril Styrman.
Finitist Critique on Transfinity: An Investigation of Infinity, Collection Theory and Continuum by Avril Styrman Licentiate of Science Thesis Helsinki 23.1.2009
Wonderful single source and very praiseworthy publication that covers lot of knowledge base – author’s deep understanding of metaphysics, philosophy, mathematics and ontology and of course concepts related to INFINITY.
Some Observations different from those expressed in the paper:
Largely drawn from Eastern Background and learning that does not regard Aristotle as absolute reference but refers to concepts earlier than those documented by Aristotle (the Great Western Philosopher of few hundred BC).
I am doing my best to express these in English.
Concept of infinite and especially transfinite is only comprehensible by mind consciousness which is of course all pervading (manas+Buddhi+THAT=INFINITE) meaning that which is beyond but inclusive of mind, intellect and THAT (implying beyond connotations).
Everything physical, such as Universe is, by definition, finite or innumerable (Asankhya) and therefore: NOT INFINITE but included in Infinite.
Infinite (Anantha) includes all i.e. innumerable (transfinite) and finite.
Even the Concept of Whole Number required by 1+1=2 is rooted in the cognition of innumerable asymptotically leading to infinite or at least transfinite.
For mereology, or part of, or set of, please refer to a different way of thinking parts of: by referring to Upanishads – especially the concept of PURNA = Whole or Complete (approximately translated) – part – taken from the Complete still remains Complete - exemplifies not only transfinite but infinite.
Some other parts of the paper that deal with ontology are rich and require further analysis – more homework for me.
However one thing to keep in mind – new knowledge about this physical universe (really new conceptual knowledge not necessarily the utilitarian one) may well come from transfinite areas and examples are Tensorial-characteristics of General Relativity, multidimensional symmetry and charge spin parity of Quarks and Gluons, and perhaps unified forces and dark matter and energy.
The other knowledge that goes beyond the finite is the knowledge based on realization of Consciousness and is called Self-knowledge.
P.S. Comment: The bibliography does not include origin of concept of Infinity and Whole – completeness - these are found in 4-Vedas and about 108 Major-Upanishads originally spoken and written in Sanskrit but translated at various times in past in English (often poorly translated).
There is still a lot in this wonderful paper that I have to learn and absorb that would help us in understanding the basis of Ontology. In the pursuits of understanding Infinity, it would be nice to publish a sequel (paper) on what additional valuable concepts of relevance to ontology can be found in a deeper analysis of Eastern Philosophies and Vedic Mathematics (Arithmetic).
- thanks for unearthing the wonderful paper by Avril.
I copied your questions relating to infinity to me under this thread, hope you do not mind.
I still have to address your specific questions given below, as these observations were made earlier while reading the paper.
i am not sure what is the official position of science on 'infinity'
Was it Avril working on it? Avril please enlighten us:
If I remember correctly, EMC2 formula ended with an implication that resulted in an assertion of infinity,
that however is not a subject that science has been able to define.neasure therefore
it results at false (go figure) or ignored
(apologies for the trivialization of the paraphrased argument, please correct the above if you know how
I have seen papers published about the replication of random sets techniques and that makes me think (uhm> common sense would suggest it doesnt sound right)
re, intellectual freedom, maybe it should be 'ontological freedom' for the purpose of this forum
I understand that both science and religion try to provide some certainties so that people dont too astray in this world,
but the amount of misinformation that goes around is massive, even in universities
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(Dr. Ravi Sharma)
313 204 1740 Mobile
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||[ontolog-forum] infinity, Paola Di Maio|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Can Syntax become Semantic ?, Christopher Menzel|
|Previous by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] infinity, Paola Di Maio|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] infinity, Avril Styrman|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|