Geomancy

I’m not sure why I haven’t noticed the esoteric study of Medieval Geomancy before. There are 16 figures, each having four vertical binary digits of one or two dots, and there are several relationships between the figures, as well as arcane meanings. And there are quite a few introductions to the subject on the web, like many other occult topics have.

The figures are as follows (with the number explained below):

0 Populus (People)
1 Laetitia (Joy)
2 Rubeus (Red)
3 Fortuna Minor (Lesser)
4 Albus (White)
5 Amissio (Loss)
6 Conjunctio (Union)
7 Cauda Draconis (Head)
8 Tristitia (Sorrow)
9 Carcer (Prison)
A Acquisitio (Gain)
B Puer (Boy)
C Fortuna Major (Greater)
D Puella (Girl)
E Caput Draconis (Tail)
F Via (Path)

I think I have numbered them in reverse of what is usual, because to me it seemed that the top line Fire to be the most mobile, then Air, then Water, and then Earth to be the least. Thus Fire should change most frequently, and so on. A line with two dots is usually thought of as passive (0), and one dot is active (1).

And so I have numbered the 16 figures as a hexadecimal digit where Fire is in the one’s place, Air is in the two’s place, Water is in the four’s place, and Earth is in the eight’s place. For example, Puella is 1101 or D (decimal 13).

The arrangement of the figures on the diagram above has the so called Reversion of each being the one reflected through a vertical mirror, and the Inversion of each being the one reflected about the center point of the diagram. For example, the Reversion of Puella is Puer, and the Inversion of Puella is Rebeus.

There is also the operation of Conversion, or a combination of both Inversion and Reversion. Those associated figures are found via a horizontal mirror through the center point. Note also what are called the entering figures are on the right side, the exiting figures are on the left side, and the ones along the center are both entering and exiting.

Finally, I couldn’t resist showing the figures as their dotted glyphs, but with them all oriented correctly (i.e. vertically). The diagram is more or less the same as the arrangement found in Four Forms Make a Universe, Part 2.

Further Reading:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomantic_figures

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomancy

Fun With Geomancy, Part 1

Fun With Geomancy, Part 2

Fun With Geomancy, Part 3

https://www.princeton.edu/~ezb/geomancy/figures.html

https://www.princeton.edu/~ezb/geomancy/geostep.html

https://www.princeton.edu/~ezb/geomancy/agrippa.html

Magic: Learning Geomancy

http://www.quadibloc.com/other/geoint.htm

On the Structure and Operations of the Geomantic Figures

https://digitalambler.com/category/geomancy/

<>

 

 

 

 

Deductive Systems

Me: I’m trying to come up with a model for a deductive system. It should contain four parts: axioms, a logic or rules of inference, a proof methodology, and an overall schema or system. What can you add to my thoughts?

ChatGPT: Certainly! Developing a deductive system involves careful consideration of axioms, rules of inference, proof methodology, and an overall system or schema. Here’s a breakdown of each component:

    1. Axioms:
      • Define the fundamental, self-evident truths or statements that serve as the starting point for the deductive system.
      • Axioms should be clear, consistent, and independent, forming the foundation upon which logical reasoning will be built.
      • Ensure that the axioms are relevant to the specific domain or problem you are addressing.
    2. Logic or Rules of Inference:
      • Establish a set of rules that dictate how conclusions can be drawn from the given axioms.
      • Common rules of inference include modus ponens, modus tollens, hypothetical syllogism, and more.
      • Choose rules that align with the nature of your deductive system and support valid logical reasoning.
    3. Proof Methodology:
      • Specify how proofs will be constructed within your deductive system.
      • Determine the structure and format of a valid proof, including the sequence of logical steps that lead from the axioms to the desired conclusion.
      • Consider the principle of mathematical induction, direct proof, proof by contradiction, or other proof techniques depending on the context.
    4. Overall Schema or System:
      • Develop a coherent and systematic framework that integrates the axioms, rules of inference, and proof methodology.
      • Clarify the relationships between different components and how they interact within the deductive system.
      • Consider whether your system aligns with classical logic, modal logic, propositional logic, or some other logical framework.

Here’s a more detailed breakdown:

    • Introduction:
      • Present the purpose and scope of your deductive system.
      • Define the terms and symbols used in the system.
    • Axioms:
      • List and explain each axiom.
      • Ensure clarity and completeness.
    • Rules of Inference:
      • Enumerate the rules of inference.
      • Provide examples to illustrate how the rules are applied.
    • Proof Methodology:
      • Specify the steps involved in constructing a proof.
      • Define the criteria for a valid proof.
    • Examples and Applications:
      • Demonstrate the application of your deductive system with specific examples or problem instances.
      • Show how the axioms and rules lead to valid conclusions.
    • Analysis:
      • Evaluate the strengths and limitations of your deductive system.
      • Discuss any assumptions or constraints.
    • Conclusion:
      • Summarize the key components of your deductive system.
      • Reflect on the effectiveness of the system in addressing the intended purpose.

Remember to iterate and refine your deductive system based on feedback and further analysis. It’s also important to be explicit and precise in your definitions and statements to ensure the soundness of your deductive reasoning.

Me: Thanks! I guess I was trying to decide if any model for a deductive system would have these four parts. What do you think?

ChatGPT: Yes, typically, deductive systems do encompass these four fundamental parts: axioms, rules of inference, proof methodology, and an overall schema or system. These components work together to create a coherent and systematic framework for logical reasoning. Let’s briefly revisit each part:

    1. Axioms: Axioms serve as the foundation of a deductive system, providing self-evident truths or statements from which logical reasoning begins.
    2. Rules of Inference: These rules dictate how conclusions can be drawn from the axioms, enabling the systematic derivation of new statements or theorems.
    3. Proof Methodology: The proof methodology outlines how to construct valid proofs within the deductive system, specifying the logical steps to move from the axioms to a desired conclusion.
    4. Overall Schema or System: This component ties everything together, providing a structured framework that defines the relationships and interactions between axioms, rules of inference, and proof methodology.

Together, these parts create a robust deductive system that allows for rigorous and valid logical reasoning. The specific details and nature of these components may vary depending on the type of logic or the problem domain you are addressing. However, having these four elements ensures a systematic and well-defined approach to deductive reasoning.

Further Reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/deductive-system

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/deductive+system

[*11.167]

 

 

 

 

Information and Computation

I’ve long wished for a succinct definition for the notion of information. What is it? What makes something information and another thing disinformation? Why do people accept things as truth that others know as false? Is information something that informs the physical universe, or is it only a way that the human mind tries to structure itself? The nonhuman world seems to get along just fine without knowing anything, doesn’t it?

Here is an idea for a simple schema for information that utilizes notions from other posts.

  • Distinction = an action that tells or makes a Difference.
  • Difference = a fact (or part) that is told or is made by a Distinction.
  • Information = a structured collection of facts (or parts).
  • Computation = a functional collection of actions.

In relation to the Four Causes, Whitehead’s Criteria, and Structure-Function we see:

  • Efficient: Consistency: Action: Distinction
  • Material: Applicability: Part: Difference
  • Formal: Coherence: Structure: Information
  • Final: Adequacy: Function: Computation

And so:

  • A Distinction is an action that tells or makes a Difference, consistently and efficiently.
  • A Difference is a fact or part that is told or is made by a Distinction, and applies materially.
  • Information is a structured collection of Differences (as facts or parts), that has a formal coherence.
  • A Computation is a functional collection of Distinctions (as actions), that are adequate for an end or purpose.

Further Reading:

https://grammar.collinsdictionary.com/us/english-usage/what-is-the-difference-between-difference-and-distinction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

https://www.informationphilosopher.com/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/action/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-information/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computation-physicalsystems/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_implication_(rule_of_inference)

[*9.26, *9.106, *13.196, *13.200]

<>

 

 

Four-dimensionalism

Previous posts (here and here) have considered mathematical and scientific ideas about four dimensions. Here are some links about the metaphysical considerations of four-dimensionalism.

Further Reading:

Theodore Sider / Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time

https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/four-dimensionalism-an-ontology-of-persistence-and-time/

https://tedsider.org/

Ludwig Jaskolla / Real Fourdimensionalism: An Essay in the Ontology of Persistence and Mind

https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/real-fourdimensionalism-an-essay-in-the-ontology-of-persistence-and-mind-2/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensionalism

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/temporal-parts/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreality_of_Time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_space_and_time

Also:

https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/persistence-through-time-and-across-possible-worlds/

https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/how-things-persist/

And even:

https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/the-language-and-reality-of-time/

https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/the-elements-and-patterns-of-being-essays-in-metaphysics/

https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/a-materialist-metaphysics-of-the-human-person/

Maybe:

https://www.friesian.com/lieb.htm

[*10.89]

<>

Tetraphobia

Tetraphobia is the fear of the number 4. In some East Asian cultures, the number 4 is considered unlucky because it sounds similar to the word for “death.” This superstition has led to buildings skipping the 4th floor, hospitals avoiding room numbers with the number 4, and many other cultural practices. People with tetraphobia experience anxiety and distress when they encounter the number 4.

Further Reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraphobia

https://www.joincake.com/blog/tetraphobia/

[*10.108]

<>

Trust, Belief, Faith, and Hope

ChatGPT, can you please describe the differences and similarities between the terms trust, belief, faith, and hope?

Certainly! While the terms trust, belief, faith, and hope are related, they each have distinct meanings and connotations. Here’s a breakdown of their differences and similarities:

Trust: Trust is a reliance or confidence placed in someone or something based on their reliability, integrity, or abilities. It involves having faith in the character, competence, and intentions of another person or entity. Trust is typically built through consistent behavior, honesty, and the fulfillment of promises. It often implies a sense of predictability and the expectation that the trusted person or thing will act in a dependable and desirable manner.

Belief: Belief refers to accepting something as true or real without necessarily requiring concrete evidence or proof. It can be based on personal experiences, cultural upbringing, or persuasive arguments. Beliefs are subjective and can vary widely among individuals or communities. They can be influenced by knowledge, values, emotions, and religious or philosophical systems. Beliefs may or may not align with objective reality and can change over time in response to new information or experiences.

Faith: Faith typically involves a strong, unwavering belief or trust in something or someone, often associated with religious or spiritual contexts. It goes beyond rationality and may involve a conviction in the absence of conclusive evidence. Faith often relates to beliefs about the divine, the supernatural, or philosophical principles. It can provide comfort, meaning, and a sense of purpose to individuals and communities. While faith can be influenced by external factors, it is often seen as deeply personal and subjective.

Hope: Hope is an optimistic or positive expectation about the future. It involves desiring or anticipating that something desired or favorable will happen. Hope is often based on a belief that circumstances can improve or that desired outcomes are attainable. It can provide motivation, resilience, and a sense of possibility in challenging situations. Hope can be deeply personal and can arise from individual aspirations, societal changes, or collective movements. It is often associated with a positive mindset and can contribute to overall well-being.

Similarities: All four terms—trust, belief, faith, and hope—involve an element of relying on or expecting something or someone. They can contribute to shaping our thoughts, emotions, and actions. Additionally, they are subjective experiences that can vary among individuals and cultures. Trust, belief, faith, and hope can also influence our perceptions of the world, impact our relationships, and provide a sense of security or meaning.

Despite these similarities, the terms differ in their specific meanings, contexts, and the level of evidence or assurance involved. Trust focuses on reliability and confidence, belief on accepting something as true, faith on conviction and spirituality, and hope on positive anticipation for the future.

[*13.182]

<>

Connections

Have you heard of Connections? It’s a recent game from The New York Times, kind of like their Wordle.

You’re given sixteen words, and you have to pick four sets of four, guessing four at a time. Each set has to have something in common, like a common meaning, or parts of two-word phases with a common word (not given), or even something like a letter or word structure in common.

Often you see that more than four things could form a set, or even less than four if you’re on the wrong track. There’s also a web site (see below) where you can play past games and even play them as much as you like. What fun!!

You can try my puzzle if you like! I wish I had interactive features that let you know if your guesses are correct or not, but I don’t. Sorry!

Further Reading:

https://www.connectionsunlimited.org/

[*12.30]

<>

Roads and Rivers

Heraclitus once said that one cannot step into the same river twice, yet he also said that the road up and the road down are one and the same. These two notions seem to be completely contradictory.

I don’t think he meant that rivers change whereas roads don’t, although the water in the river is changing as it flows by, and the material or dirt of the road usually doesn’t.

If I step into a river and then again later, I also have the memory of stepping into it before. If I travel the road up, then on the road down I remember the journey and what I’ve seen each way, and maybe what’s changed.

Perhaps he meant that the “road up” is the path of increased success and well-being, and the “road down” has those things decreased. Maybe you’re supposed to take both equally, like the Stoics.

Further Reading:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Heraclitus

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heraclitus/

https://www.albany.edu/~rn774/fall96/philos3.html

<>

Much in Little

“I’m always looking for the Hows and the Whys and the Whats,” said Muskrat, “That is why I speak as I do. You’ve heard of Muskrat’s Much-in-Little, of course?”
“No,” said the child. “What is it?”
Muskrat stopped, cleared his throat, ruffled his fur, drew himself up, and said in ringing tones, “Why times How equals What.” He paused to let the words take effect. “That’s Muskrat’s Much-in-Little,” he said.

— From “The Mouse and His Child”, by Russell Hoban

“What?,” asked the child.
“Yes, exactly!,” said Muskrat.

— Not in the book

“Who?,” said the Owl.

— Maybe somewhere in the book

Further Reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mouse_and_His_Child

http://www.ocelotfactory.com/hoban/mouse.html

In Latin, Multum in Parvo.

Multum in Parvo

And now, a nice poem:

Much in Little, by Yvor Winters

Amid the iris and the rose,
The honeysuckle and the bay,
The wild earth for a moment goes
In dust or weed another way.

Small though its corner be, the weed
Will yet intrude its creeping beard;
The harsh blade and the hairy seed
Recall the brutal earth we feared.

And if no water touch the dust
In some far corner, and one dare
To breathe upon it, one may trust
The spectre on the summer air:

The risen dust alive with fire,
The fire made visible, a blur
Interrate, the pervasive ire
Of foxtail and of hoarhound burr.

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/47783/much-in-little

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yvor_Winters

<>

What is Information?

Information is a difference that makes a difference.

— Gregory Bateson

Information is a distinction that makes a difference.

— Donald M. Mackay

Draw a distinction.

— G. Spencer-Brown

To Luciano Floridi, information can have one (or more?) of the following four properties:

    • As something
    • About something
    • In something
    • For something

To Charles S. Peirce, information is about semiosis, integrating the four aspects of:

    • Denotation
    • Connotation
    • Extension
    • Comprehension

 

Further Reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_information#Definitions_of_%22information%22

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_information

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_of_information

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denotation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connotation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_(semantics)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehension_(logic)

Aaron Sloman on Bateson and Information:

https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/projects/cogaff/misc/information-difference.html

https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk//research/projects/cogaff/misc/austen-info.html

https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk//research/projects/cogaff/sloman-inf-chap.html

Various links:

https://www.stephanie-burns.com/blog/2017/3/25/the-difference-that-makes-the-difference

https://www.edge.org/conversation/daniel_c_dennett-a-difference-that-makes-a-difference

Dynamics of Information as Natural Computation (2 links to same paper):

https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/2/3/460

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220121522_Dynamics_of_Information_as_Natural_Computation

[*13.192, *13.194]

<>

Every Fourth Thing

The Digital Ambler

Always Forward Between Heaven and Earth

The Mouse Trap

Psychological Musings

Wrong Every Time

Critiquing anime and everything else

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

  Bartosz Milewski's Programming Cafe

Category Theory, Haskell, Concurrency, C++

The Inquisitive Biologist

Reviewing fascinating science books since 2017

Gizmodo

Every Fourth Thing

Simplicity

Derek Wise's blog: Mathematics, Physics, Computing and other fun stuff.

COMPLEMENTARY 4x

integrating 4 binary opposites in life, learning, art, science and architecture

INTEGRATED 4x

integrating 4 binary opposites in life, learning, art, science and architecture

Playful Bookbinding and Paper Works

Chasing the Paper Rabbit

Antinomia Imediata

experiments in a reaction from the left

Digital Minds

A blog about computers, evolution, complexity, cells, intelligence, brains, and minds.

philosophy maps

mind maps, infographics, and expositions

hyde and rugg

neat ideas from unusual places

Visions of Four Notions

Introduction to a Quadralectic Epistomology

Explaining Science

Astronomy, space and space travel for the non scientist

Log24

Every Fourth Thing

Illustrated Poetry

Art by Marcy Erb

Ideas Without End

A Serious Look at Trivial Things

Quadralectic Architecture

A Survey of Tetradic Testimonials in Architecture

Minds and Brains

Musings from a Naturalist

Why Evolution Is True

Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.

Quadriformisratio

Four-fold thinking4you

Multisense Realism

Craig Weinberg's Cosmology of Sense

RABUJOI - An Anime Blog

Purveyors of Fine Anime Reviews and Ratings Since 2010

Intra-Being

Between Subject and Object

The Woodring Monitor

Every Fourth Thing

FORM &amp; FORMALISM

Every Fourth Thing

Log24

Every Fourth Thing

The n-Category Café

Every Fourth Thing

ECOLOGY WITHOUT NATURE

Every Fourth Thing

PHILOSOPHY IN A TIME OF ERROR

Sometimes those Sticking their Heads in the Sand are Looking for Something Deep

Networkologies

Online Home of Christopher Vitale, Associate Professor of Media Studies, The Graduate Program in Media Studies, Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, NY.

DEONTOLOGISTICS

RESEARCHING THE DEMANDS OF THOUGHT

Incognitions

Explorations in the Paradoxes of Meaning

Object-Oriented Philosophy

"The centaur of classical metaphysics shall be mated with the cheetah of actor-network theory."

Objects & Things

objects & things, design, art & technology