154 views

Uploaded by Jupwe

- The Laws of Form Controversy
- Laws of Form: Why Spencer-Brown is missing the point
- Toward a Cognitive Semantics Volume 2 Typology and Process in Concept Structuring Language Speech and Communication
- Clarke, Bruce; Hansen, Mark BN (Eds.) - Emergence and Embodiment. New Essays on Second-Order Systems Theory
- G. Spencer Brown - Laws_of_Form
- Two can play that game . . .
- Laws of Form
- Laws of Form: An Exploration in Mathematics and Foundations [Rough Draft] (Kauffman)
- Dynamic Existence
- How Consciousness Creates Reality
- StefanArteni_TheFormOfTheForm
- Applied metacognition.pdf
- Omnipresent Consciousness and Free Will
- Where Mathematics Comes From
- An Esoteric Guide to Laws of Form
- Laws Of Form
- Louis H. Kauffman and Francisco J. Varela- Form Dynamics
- Baecker - 2008 - Form and Forms of Communication(3)
- Baecker Intelligence of Ignorance Self-Reference
- Alternating Consciousness. From Perception to Infinities and Back to Free Will

You are on page 1of 61

edu/~kauffman

A Mobius Strip

Topological Thoughts

The ctional speaker Epimenides, a Cretan, reportedly stated: The Cretans are always liars.

L = Not(L)

From the point of view of logic, the Liar is in an imaginary state that is neither true nor false. From the point of view of topology, the Liar has the shape of a Mobius band. The boundary of the Mobius band is One, and yet it is Two.

Problem: Design a switching circuit (with an economical simplicity of design) that can control a single light from an arbitrary number of locations. This problem can be analysed by Boolean algebra. The following non-dual solution is the invention/discovery of cyberneticist Ricardo Uribe.

Laws of Form G. Spencer-Brown We take as given the idea of distinction and the idea of indiccation, and that one cannot make an indication without drawing a distinction. We take, therefore, the form of distinction for the form.

The circle makes a distinction in the plane. We make a distinction in the plane by drawing a circle. Circle and observer arise together in the act of perceiving. That circle, this observer and the distinction that arises are one.

But the purpose/play of this talk is to look at how, by starting in unity we make imaginary complexity and how that is related to the original unity.

Every discrimination is inherently a process, and the structure of our world as a whole comes from the relationships whose exploration constitutes that world. It is a reexive domain. There is no place to hide in a reexive domain, no fundamental particle, no irreducible object or building block. Any given entity acquires its properties through its relationships with everything else.

This talk will trace how a mathematics of distinction arises directly from the process of discrimination and how that language, understood rightly as an opportunity to join as well as to divide, can aid in the movement between duality and non-duality that is our heritage as human beings on this planet. The purpose of this talk is to express this language and invite your participation in it and to present the possiblity that all our resources physical, scientic, logical, intellectual, empathic are our allies in the journey to transcend separation.

Here is how multiplicity arises in set theory. 0: Empty Set. 1: Set whose member is the empty set.

TWO SETS ARE EQUAL IF AND ONLY IF THEY HAVE THE SAME MEMBERS. Theorem. There is only one empty set. Proof. Suppose U and V are both empty. By the above principle, they must be equal. They have the same members, namely none! Q.E.D. Theorem: 0 is not equal to 1. Proof. 0 has no members, while 1 has a member, namely 0.

3: Set whose members are 0,1,2. In Set Theory multiplicities arise from nothing but the act of collection and the denition of equality of sets.

The initial act of distinction. For the distinction to be (distinct) there must be a difference between the sides. Let us call one side Marked. The other side is Unmarked. M

Economy. The distinction is a circle. Let the circle itself stand for the marked state.

Now Circle has a name-tag in her own form. The tag and the name of the tag can be confused.

The name tag is not needed to identify the outside of our mark of distinction (in this representation). The principle that the value of a call (of a name) made again is the value of the call is quite general.

Spencer-Brown: The value of a call made again is the value of the call.

So far we have focused on the distinction as the locations of its sides and their names. Let the mark/circle/distinction be seen as a TRANSFORMATION from the state indicated on its inside to the state indicated on the outside.

Inside

Outside

Inside

= Outside

UnMarked = Marked

Marked

= UnMarked

=

Cross from the unmarked state. The marked state.

The value of a crossing made again is not the value of the crossing.

=

Cross from the marked state.

Example

We have constructed an arithmetic of forms (patterns of distinction) that is a language speaking about a single distinction. Arithmetics have algebras, and the rst algebra associated with this arithmetic is Boolean algebra, the algebra of classical Aristotelian logic. Using a = Not a.

So we see that the classical logic with all its dualities comes from and returns to a source that is the production and dissolution of imaginary distinctions in a world where there are no discriminations in the rst place.

Further play is fun and illuminating. For example, we can return to the Liar paradox like this. L L = Marked L = Unmarked = L L= L= = Unmarked = Marked

suggests a form L that reenters its own indicational space. A form of self-reference, or self -observation. A xed point. An invariance. A recursion. An object produced from a process. A process indicated by a transformation.

ual actions. We make an imaginative process that underlies it. inniteits observer. is ceive the generating approximation (to the ties of = F(X(t)). ors. It is impossible to X(t + 1) limit) that n sufcient to allow an observer eigenform model ca complete such objects to become The to infer/perof boxes. We do not quite underlies general And in imagining thatIt is impossible to The It the generating process thatthe condition o t ceive or eigenbehaviors. Here X(t) denotesabstract and it. we innite nest of boxes. We do not n arrive at the eigenvation at time Itthat we could be recursion t.numerical) giventheas sim X(t) are with a equatio The q We imagine it. And in imagining that set of nested boxes, or as complex as th nation to the innite L = L X(t + 1) = F(Xt nest of boxes, we arrive at the eigenf the human ability to conguration of your body in relation ols. In the case of the known universe Heretimedenotes the co at X(t) t. Then leap of imagination to to innite (X),The Process leadingthe It X can be regarded vation at time t. X(t) could denotes the result of nested boxes, the ope mitself model of the human ability to ss is a or as the name set of applying or as com symbolized by Fconguration of yourat tim to the condition body .gns and symbols. In the case of the Note that if you are known universe that F m X with X = F(X), X can be regarded could, for simplicity, assume at time v The Process leading to It denotes the result of applyi me of the process itself or as the name (X), pendent of time. Time independencs Space symbolized by F to the condi miting process. Note that if you are c recursion F will give us simple answers for X, you can write could, for simplicity, assum t Timependent It time. Time indk can later discuss what will happen The Process leading to of F(X)). d recursion F will give us simp X = F(X), actions depend upon the time. In th s nd again, you have can later discuss what wi independent case we can write the ti bstituting F(X) for X, you can write c actions depend upon F(F(F(F(X)))) = independent case we can wr p X))))) = = F(F(X)). X J = F(F(F())) J = F(F(F(r from again and again, you have titutingthe symbolic c the innite concatenation of F upo orm. In this view, the the innite concatenation a Then = F(F(F(X))) = F(F(F(F(X)))) = te order for the process Then i weF(F(F(F(F(X))))) = refer to implicate F(J) = J

Just so, an object in the world (cognitive,

F(J) = J

on to the innite e human ability toi In the case of the , X can be regarded tself or as the name ote that if you are

= -1/i

The square root = F(X(t) X(t + 1) of minus one the cond Here X(t) denotes is vation at time t. X(t) could be set of oscillation. a discretenested boxes, or as compl

The Process leading to It

ties of its observer. The eigenform model can b quite abstract and general te that we are given a recursion (n ii = -1 numerical) with the equation

)).

F(F(F(X)))) = ))) =

[-1,+1]

[+1,-1]

conguration of your body in known universe at time t. denotes the result of applying symbolized by F to the conditio could, for simplicity, assume pendent of time. Time indepe recursion F will give us simple a can later discuss what will h actions depend upon the time independent case we can write

om the symbolic m. In this view, the rder for the process refer to implicate

J = F(F(F()))

On encountering reentering and reexive structures we leave simple dualities for a complex world. Once this sort of pattern sets it is a challenge to go back to the beginning.

A market is composed of individuals whose actions inuence the market just as the actions of the market inuence these individuals.

There is no objective observer, and yet objects, repeatablity, a whole world of actions, and a reality to be explored arise in the relexive domain.

Describing Describing

Describing Describing Consider the consequences of describing and then describing that description. We begin with one entity: * And the language of the numbers: 1,2,3. Yes, just ONE,TWO,THREE.

* Description: One star. 1* Description: One one, one star. 111* Description: Three ones, one star. 311* Description: One three, two ones, one star. 13211*

R2 { { }; Cats; { { }; Cats} }: A 11131221131211132221. . . t a member of itself and so we would have to add R2 and rowing in other sets that come along and are normal. A s B 3113112221131112311332. . . er of itself. C 132113213221133112132123. . .

innite sequences are built by continually cycling th hree sequences. This leads to a denite and highly unpr nnite sequences, A, B, and C such that B describes A, C C! (Figure 5). cation is the eigenform for the recursion of the audio-acti tual description is the xed point of this recursion. W see the subtlety of the concept of an eigenform, and how an situations. For indeed imagine the plight of three in

Trefoil as self-mutuality. Loops about itself. Creates three loopings In the course of Closure.

Patterned Integrity The knot is information independent of the substrate that carries it.

We

loathe really

write no to

allow law

membership

relation

against

follows:

Knot Sets

to also have

this

b,

section

to

belong we

shall

to

(although diagram

the

there

we

are is

This

themselves,

notation

allows a

a b

us

Crossing as Relationship

sets that are

a -curve a b are no curves under-passage passing passing diagrammed underneath of curve the it as underneath

members

of

The

entities of

segments.

lines

and b that or

curves, is

are

empty

or

segment

represented with

with

in

the

the

a by

relation

a a a = {a}

{ }

SelfMembership

and

sets

can

be

members

}

of

each

other.

{ {

Mutuality

a={b}

b={a}

Architecture of Counting 0 1 2 3

A belongs to A.

This slide show has been only an introduction to certain mathematical and conceptual points of view about reexivity. In the worlds of scientic, political and economic action these principles come into play in the way structures rise and fall in the play of realities that are created from (almost) nothing by the participants in their desire to prot, have power or even just to have clarity and understanding. Beneath the remarkable and unpredictable structures that arise from such interplay is a lambent simplicity to which we may return, as to the source of the world.

- The Laws of Form ControversyUploaded byRandolph Dible
- Laws of Form: Why Spencer-Brown is missing the pointUploaded byClaus Janew
- Toward a Cognitive Semantics Volume 2 Typology and Process in Concept Structuring Language Speech and CommunicationUploaded byJean-Philippe BABU
- Clarke, Bruce; Hansen, Mark BN (Eds.) - Emergence and Embodiment. New Essays on Second-Order Systems TheoryUploaded byÁngel Sánchez Borges
- G. Spencer Brown - Laws_of_FormUploaded byGerardo Damian
- Two can play that game . . .Uploaded byexeter555
- Laws of FormUploaded byRandolph Dible
- Laws of Form: An Exploration in Mathematics and Foundations [Rough Draft] (Kauffman)Uploaded bytelecult
- Dynamic ExistenceUploaded byClaus Janew
- How Consciousness Creates RealityUploaded byClaus Janew
- StefanArteni_TheFormOfTheFormUploaded bystefan arteni
- Applied metacognition.pdfUploaded byNawel Zoghlami
- Omnipresent Consciousness and Free WillUploaded byClaus Janew
- Where Mathematics Comes FromUploaded byMichel Gautama
- An Esoteric Guide to Laws of FormUploaded byeQualizer
- Laws Of FormUploaded byPeter Farkas
- Louis H. Kauffman and Francisco J. Varela- Form DynamicsUploaded byJupwe
- Baecker - 2008 - Form and Forms of Communication(3)Uploaded byFel Epilef
- Baecker Intelligence of Ignorance Self-ReferenceUploaded byAndrea Sakoparnig
- Alternating Consciousness. From Perception to Infinities and Back to Free WillUploaded byClaus Janew
- Free Revised version of "Non-Philosophy and Aphilosophy"Uploaded byLance Kair
- Cause Condition Concession ContrastUploaded byTanya Markelova
- Louis H. Kauffman- Space and Time in Computation and Discrete PhysicsUploaded byJiamsD
- Focus DynamicUploaded byClaus Janew
- Louis H. Kauffman- Formal Systems: EigenFormUploaded byJupwe

- Louis H. Kauffman- Self-reference and recursive formsUploaded byJupwe
- Iain Moffatt- Partial Duals of Plane Graphs, Separability and the Graphs of KnotsUploaded byJupwe
- Louis H. Kauffman- Imaginary Values in Mathematical LogicUploaded byJupwe
- Yuanan Diao, Claus Ernst, Attila Por, and Uta Ziegler- The Ropelengths of Knots Are Almost Linear in Terms of Their Crossing NumbersUploaded byJupwe
- Louis H. Kauffman- Arithmetic in the FormUploaded byJupwe
- Louis H. Kauffman- Some Notes on Teaching Boolean AlgebraUploaded byJupwe
- Louis H. Kauffman- Robbins AlgebraUploaded byJupwe
- Louis H. Kauffman and Francisco J. Varela- Form DynamicsUploaded byJupwe
- RelativityUploaded bymaatt
- Laws of Form: An Exploration in Mathematics and Foundations [Rough Draft] (Kauffman)Uploaded bytelecult
- Jungsoo Kim and Jung Hoon Lee- Rectangle Condition for Compression Body and 2-Fold Branched CoveringUploaded byJupwe
- Louis H. Kauffman- EigenFormUploaded byJupwe
- Louis H. Kauffman- The Robbins Problem - Computer Proofs and Human ProofsUploaded byJupwe
- Louis H. Kauffman- Knot AutomataUploaded byJupwe
- Louis H. Kauffman- Formal Systems: EigenFormUploaded byJupwe
- Erica Shannon and Jennifer Townsend- Rational TanglesUploaded byJupwe
- Toshio Saito, Martin Scharlemann and Jennifer Schultens- Lecture Notes on Generalized Heegaard SplittingsUploaded byJupwe
- Louis H. Kauffman and Sofia Lambropoulou- On the classification of rational tanglesUploaded byJupwe
- James C. Hateley- A Review of Rational TanglesUploaded byJupwe
- Benedict Freedman and Michael H. Freedman- Kneser-Haken Finiteness for Bounded 3-Manifolds, Locally Free Groups, and Cyclic CoversUploaded byJupwe
- David Bachman- Connected Sums of Unstabilized Heegaard Splittings are UnstabilizedUploaded byJupwe
- Isabel K. Darcy- Solving unoriented tangle equations involving 4-platsUploaded byJupwe
- Adam Simon Levine- Slicing Mixed Bing-Whitehead DoublesUploaded byJupwe
- Richard P. Kent IV- Bundles, handcus, and local freedomUploaded byJupwe
- Scott Morrison, Emily Peters and Noah Snyder- Knot polynomial identities and quantum group coincidencesUploaded byJupwe
- Jesse Johnson- Flipping and Stabilizing Heegaard SplittingsUploaded byJupwe
- Jay R. Goldman- Rational TanglesUploaded byJupwe
- Louis H. Kauffman and Sofia Lambropoulou- On the Classification of Rational KnotsUploaded byJupwe
- Jennifer Schultens- The Classification of Heegaard Splittings (Compact Orientable Surface) x S^1Uploaded byJupwe

- rad93903Syriakes etaireies pou episkeythikan tin apostoli.docUploaded bygthtdjlxbr
- RegistryofIntramurosCulturalandHistoricalPropertiesPartialUploaded byNikko Limua (Emojetix)
- Chapter 8.pptUploaded byPrudhvinadh Kopparapu
- Balfour v BalfourUploaded bygallodon
- SDAUploaded byrmiguel7
- 015.02 Josefina Lubrica vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170220, November 20, 2006Uploaded byMark Genesis Alvarez Rojas
- p323 Triplex Plunger PumpUploaded bymarcelo hiza
- Gender Representation and Gender Discourse on Selected YouTube Videos of Ryan HigaUploaded byMic Villamayor
- AIUploaded bySubbu Lakshmi
- Syria Palmyra to Euphrates v1 m56577569830512436Uploaded byArabic Language
- Qnap Turbo Nas User Manual v3.6 EngUploaded bykeithiu
- 2-BuildingC#Application.pptUploaded bymgsuma
- Gastritis DdUploaded bysotosha
- SureCut Exhibits and QuestionsUploaded bysergej
- The Nativist ApproachUploaded byAdilahSharifudin
- Army - fm27 14 - Legal Guide for SoldiersUploaded byMeowmix
- Letter Shake Shack MaximsUploaded byHKFP
- pe lesson planUploaded byapi-351290835
- Review BJA PART 2 USG in RegionalUploaded byIvette M. Carroll D.
- Nutrition Research PaperUploaded byAshley Nobles
- Facilitator_Guide_Section_4_Annexures.pdfUploaded byRAJU
- CACC000444B_2014Uploaded bypschil
- Banking CasesUploaded byAaliyah
- Coffee ObsessionUploaded byRuxandra-Maria Radulescu
- Carl Panzram QuotesUploaded byzodiaco_nightstalker
- Grounds for Nullity, Annulment and Legal SeparationUploaded byEzra Denise Lubong Ramel
- Diplomacy Presentation SlideUploaded byMohd Noor Fakhrullah
- Jesus was born 1053 A.D.Uploaded bysilverado
- David Sedley - Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity (2008, University of California Press)Uploaded byhemigge
- Congenital Ptosis Case PresentationUploaded byHitesh Sharma