Member 2102
16 entries
35741 views

 RSS
Nancy Caton (F)
New York, US
Immortal since Feb 2, 2009
Uplinks: 0, Generation 3
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • Recently commented on
    From whiskey
    Trees & Skyscrapers
    From edanet
    SpHidron can deform plane...
    From whiskey
    Immersive Kaleidoscope...
    From whiskey
    "Particle Fever" Movie
    From syncopath
    Truth; Realism. Are you...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    From whiskey's personal cargo

    "A Case For The Non-Necessity Of Proof"
    An open letter...

    Dear Space Collective Colleagues,

    Though I've been a Space Collective member for some time now, I'm embarrassed to say that I have not added to the amazing wealth of ideas and information put forth by others. This unbalanced relationship is not fair, as I have received so much inspiration from the posts of others, for which I am infinitely grateful. These advanced ideas shared on Space Collective have sustained me and comforted me, in my dark moments of aloneness and isolation, providing me the fuel to go on, despite being an "outsider".

    That being said, I am finally ready and compelled to share with you my thoughts and passion - I want to write a book, or at least an essay, based on an idea I've been working through for years. It is a culmination of my interests in physics, mathematics and philosophy. The title came first.... "A Case for The Non-Necessity of Proof". This is a vast idea and subject, at times being completely clear to me, then oscillating to an abstraction, impossible to put into words.

    Late last night, while again thinking of this essay, and feeling a strong urge to articulate it, I decided the only way to proceed was to start to put down, in extremely rough format, ideas, words and even incomplete sentences. Letting the ideas and train of thought flow freely, without the confines of grammatical structure, could then be the seeds I could later use as a base for development. I believe that to truly flesh out this idea, and to present it in a coherent manner will take years. But, honestly, it feels so good to start on that path. Following are the words and concepts that first came to mind. I realize that they may be a completely incomprehensible, a string of seemingly unattached ideas, decipherable only to myself. However, I hope that they may be words that speak to someone else's intuition and spark some thought. I put them forth, honestly and openly, at this very raw stage (in no specific order) and ask humbly, for anyone who glimpses some inspiration or thought, to respond back ... positive or negative... or to suggest paths of research that I should invest in.

    I thank you in advance for the opportunity of sharing my thoughts in this forum, of which I am hugely respectful and grateful.

    A Case for The Non-Necessity of Proof - - NOTES

    Ultimate or absolute truth is unattainable, and is therefore not necessary to pursue in and of itself as a “truth”. Obviously, scientific research is infinitely valuable, but only to an end of highest probability, never for complete comfort of attaining a determined outcome.


    - Quantum physics
    - Intuition
    - Power of the mind (doubt)
    - Everything has a duality

    This (my) theory doesn't intent to disregard the absolute need for science, study, examination, experimentation & calculations.

    Interpreting experience and categorizing into patterns to gives peace to the ultimate uncomfortableness of uncertainty - for which humans are unequipped

    Proof implies solution, concrete unwavering explanation, which then denies further investigation, analysis, questioning, - thus stagnating future discoveries

    If you accept infinity, and accept infinite possibilities, as improbable as they may be.... this renders proof and all forms of certainty impossible

    Logic is deemed in high regard... but it simply uses experience to predict necessary outcome of initial event or cause... cause & effect - —> useful only to limited level.

    I'm a true believer in Whitehead's process philosophy, as an explanation of path, not as proof.

    Plato - truths - Not possible?

    non-existence of proof - skeptism - but that is not negative - or doesn't imply impossible... just shows that it is not certain and solid... as is unattainable.

    idea of movement - zero point - - even at zero there is still measurable movement - variance - not dead - so nothing is solid ...permanent ....impenetrable
    still slight oscillation which allows for creation
    proof stops halts, kills, limits, defines & traps movement
    whereas ..variance.. oscillation... allows possibility

    all we can say is - that this is the previous pattern —- so we expect the future to behave in ways that follow this pattern, but it is NOT certain

    all history and process that moves through as information like DNA carries the past toward a somewhat predictable future but prediction is not a science, it is a probability

    Prediction is closer in tune with intuition accepting past but trusting the intuitive self of the effect of the cause (being the past history)

    At a very general level, Popper argues that historicism and holism have their origins in what he terms ‘one of the oldest dreams of mankind—the dream of prophecy, the idea that we can know what the future has in store for us, and that we can profit from such knowledge by adjusting our policy to it.’ (Conjectures and Refutations, 338).


    • sin curve
    • wave
    • magic is at the extremities - where dual possibility is at the highest vibration of possibility
    • accept the absolute necessity of the negative (opposite) or low points of everything
    • the separation is what creates/allows the current or movement
    • vector - direction is chosen - path
    • most possibility is at the extremity of curve - magic point

    Example of the contradiction of so-called "proof":
    Light having both wave & particle characteristics. Both have been "proven", and yet are paradoxical

    Holy grail of physics and mathematics is the "theory of everything"... the search for the equation, the explanation, that encompasses all. But don't we inheritantly know that all is already necessarily linked, related and intertwined. And what would the result of finding this "theory of everything" imply? determinism?, which with the advance of quantum mechanics has proven to be faulty?


    proof implies certainty, finality

    in court - proof - "beyond reasonable doubt"

    We can only document past historical data and predict the future, but without absolute certainty

    Schrodinger - outcome based on observation - without observation, is both..all...uncertain

    Bohm
    Tesla
    Einstein
    Infinite possibility - responsibility of this knowledge is overwhelming for most to handle. Once you glimpse this… it is something that you cannot retract from.

    Cern
    Entanglement – Makes speed faster than the speed of light possible for information transfer
    No-locality
    Chaos
    Fractals
    E8

    Why can you influence / affect the outcome / tilt possibility - therefore must accept that you are connected to everything

    Alfred North Whitehead – Process Philosophy – Senescent being – trust intuition

    Proof is not possible and the quest is futile but the power lies within one's self and trust of instinct.

    Challenge to let go of the need for a definitive and learn to live with the uncomforability of infinity and incalculable possibilities


    What prevents theoretical insights from going beyond existing limitations and changing to meet new facts is just the belief that theories give true knowledge of reality (which implies, of course, that they never change). Although our modern way of thinking has changed a great deal relative to the ancient one, the two have had one key feature in common: i.e. they are both generally 'blinkered' by the notion that theories give true knowledge about 'reality as it is'. Thus, both are led to confuse the forms and shapes induced in our perceptions by theoretical insight with a reality independent of our thought and way of looking. This confusion is of crucial significance, since it leads us to approach nature, society and the individual in terms of more or less fixed and limited forms of thought, and thus, apparently, to keep on confirming the limitations of these forms of thought in experience. (David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)




    Again, I would greatly welcome any thoughts on this, and do apologize for the incomplete format of the theory. I thought it best to start…. Thank you.

    Sat, Jun 1, 2013  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
    1 comment
      Promote (2)
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    Comments:


    Spaceweaver     Sat, Jun 22, 2013  Permanent link
    Interesting subject.

    I would recommend you to look into Kurt Goddel's incompleteness theorem which is a mathematical proof(!) of the incompleteness of proof systems.
     
          Cancel