The Four Elements of Thinking

While searching for something else I chanced upon “The Four Elements of Thinking: Reasoning, Creativity, Synthesis, Evaluation” by Benjamin Cheung, Ph.D., published in 2019. Any book about the four classical elements being used as metaphors for other things is of personal interest, plus that the things being four aspects of thinking was immediately intriguing. Dr. Cheung divides thinking into the four aspects of the subtitle, plus he divides each aspect into four sub-aspects or skills as follows:

    • Reasoning (Earth Thinking)
      • Evidence
      • Inductive Reasoning
      • Deductive Reasoning
      • Abductive Reasoning
    • Creativity (Air Thinking)
      • Investigation
      • Incubation
      • Insight
      • Innovation
    • Synthesis (Water Thinking)
      • Linking
      • Perspective
      • Synthesis
      • Pivots
    • Evaluation (Fire Thinking)
      • Decisions
      • Judgments
      • Contingency Plans
      • Validation

Note his choice in assignment of the Classical Four Elements to each of these aspects of thinking. I would have assigned them differently: Reasoning to Fire, Creativity to Earth, Synthesis to Air, and Evaluation to Water. The price of the e-book is reasonable, so I may investigate the “thinking” behind his alignments by purchasing and reading further.

He also has an interesting book on collections of ideas which he arranges into a “periodic table,” which might be analogous to a more modern scientific elemental assignment. Additionally, he has had Kickstarters on playing or flash cards for both books, which is a notion somewhat dear to my heart (See A Game of Fourfolds).

I have mentioned thinking or thought often in this blog, and believe that poor thinking or irrational thinking is greatly to blame for many of our current ills. Blame can also be attributed to poor communication skills. The best thinking can be obscured by poor communication. What is the best theory of the linkage between thought and language?

Further Reading:

Benjamin Cheung, Ph. D. / The Four Elements of Thinking: Reasoning, Creativity, Synthesis, Evaluation

Link to Amazon

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

[*13.1]

 

Maxwell Relations

Maxwell Relations are commonly known as a set of four partial differential equations between four thermodynamic quantities or potentials: pressure (P), volume (V), temperature (T), and entropy (S). So for example the expression (∂T/∂V) |S  means the partial derivative of T with respect to V while keeping S constant.

    • (∂T/∂V) |S = -(∂P/∂S) |V
    • (∂P/∂T) |V = (∂S/∂V) |T
    • -(∂S/∂P) |T = (∂V/∂T) |P
    • (∂V/∂S) |P = (∂T/∂P) |S

In my diagram above, the expressions that are equal are on either side of the common leg of adjacent isosceles right triangles.

Further Reading:

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

https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2021/09/17/maxwells-relations-part-1/

https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2021/09/18/maxwells-relations-part-two/

https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2021/09/22/maxwells-relations-part-3/

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

Thermodynamics and the Four Thermodynamic Potentials

[*12.194, *12.195]

<>

Linear Process Algebra

One of computer scientist and Professor Emeritus Vaughan Pratt’s most recent conference papers is on “linear process algebra,” which relates several of his previous interests on linear logic, Chu spaces, concurrent processes, events and states, etc.

The paper opens with a nice overview of computer science research primarily concerned with concurrent processes. Computation itself divides into the aspects of logical and algorithmic, formal methods into the logical and algebraic, concurrent computation into operational and denotational, and then the author gives a brief list of models of processes by a variety of mathematical structures until he comes to his theme of using Chu spaces.

As an example, he presents processes as Chu spaces over the set K, where K = { 0, T, 1, X}, with names and meanings :

  • 0: Ready
  • T: Transition
  • 1: Done
  • X: Cancelled

and then details four binary operations as working in Chu spaces over K:

  • P ; Q: Sequence
  • P + Q: Choice
  • P || Q: Concurrence
  • P ⊗ Q: Orthocurrence

Further Reading:

Vaughan Pratt / Linear Process Algebra

Click to access bhub.pdf

Click to access lpa.pdf

Click to access bud.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2663060_Chu_Spaces_A_Model_Of_Concurrency

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222310260_Types_as_Processes_via_Chu_spaces

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

https://dblp.org/pid/p/VRPratt.html

[*12.122]

<>

Neon Genesis Evangelion Rebuilt, V2

The fourth movie was finally made and finally shown! Thank you Hideaki Anno, for finishing your rebuild, and Amazon Prime, for letting us easily see all four.

Full of battles between giant robots and kaiju called angels, full of teenage, human, and non-human emotional struggles, and full of signature Evangelion nonsense, about midway I was getting a bit unhappy with it. But as it coming to a close I thought that this was indeed a good ending.

So what does “Thrice Upon a Time” mean? That this is the third ending? First for the series, second for the movies after the series, and thirdly for the rebuilt movies? And what does the designation “3.0+1.0” mean? Three movies plus one more?

Further Reading:

https://www.cnet.com/news/anime-epic-evangelion-gets-a-worthy-conclusion-heres-the-ending-explained/

‘Evangelion: 3.0+1.0 Thrice Upon a Time’ Review: Hideaki Anno’s Iconic Anime Finally Gets a Proper Ending

https://www.polygon.com/22627444/watch-evangelion-franchise-amazon-netflix

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelion:_3.0%2B1.0_Thrice_Upon_a_Time

Neon Genesis Evangelion Rebuilt

<>

 

 

On the Death of a Giant

Renowned physicist Steven Weinberg passed away recently. He was a giant in the world of physics and winner of the Nobel prize, advancing knowledge about the Standard Model and the unification of physical forces. He was also, famously, a materialist and atheist.

In his book “The Sophist”, Plato wrote (metaphorically?) about the battle of the gods and the giants. He related how the gods were friends of Platonic forms (perhaps being close to forms themselves) whereas the giants were materialists. Plato, being partial to forms, painted the giants as militant and unreasonable materialists, and the gods as a friendly and peaceful sort.

The Greek gods were friendly and peaceful? Perhaps the giants of the legend were the easy-going and reasonable sort, since the gods of the Greeks seemed the opposite. They say that history is rewritten by the victors.

Further Reading:

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

With Steven Weinberg’s death, physics loses a titan

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/learning-to-live-in-steven-weinbergs-pointless-universe/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/steven-weinberg-nobel-winning-physicist-who-united-principal-forces-of-nature-dies-at-88/2021/07/26/75d8d24a-ee31-11eb-bf80-e3877d9c5f06_story.html

A very nice article:

Steven Weinberg (1933-2021): a personal view

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0172%3Atext%3DSoph.%3Apage%3D246

<>

John Buridan’s Octagon of Opposition

Medieval logician John (or Jean) Buridan was a scholar of Aristotle, and wrote many works of commentary and elaboration on Aristotelian philosophy. Several items in logic and philosophy are tied to Buridan (such as Buridan’s Bridge and Buridan’s Ass) but he may now be more widely known for his Octagon which combines Aristotle’s Square of Opposition with a Square of Modality.

Below and to the right is a fourfold diagram of Aristotle’s Square of Opposition. The modern universal and existential (or particular) qualifiers are ∀ (meaning All) and ∃ (meaning Some), respectively. Also in these diagrams, ¬ means logical Not.

  • ∀ S are P
  • ∃ S are P
  • ∀ S are ¬ P
  • ∃ S are ¬ P

Next I show a fourfold of modal operators and their equivalents. The modern modal symbols are (meaning Necessarily) and or ◊ (meaning Possibly).

  • P ≡ ¬ ◊ ¬ P
  • ◊ P ≡ ¬ ¬ P
  • ¬ P ≡ ◊ ¬ P
  • ¬ ◊ P ≡ ¬ P

 

Further Reading:

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

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

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/medieval-syllogism/#JohnBuri

The Art of the Syllogism

https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/12/08/possibility-and-necessity-an-introduction-to-modality/

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

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

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modality-varieties/

https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/517366

Click to access Demey_DWMC2015_Buridan_Avicenna_slides.pdf

Click to access Buridan_Octagon.pdf

Click to access hughes-buridan.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_bridge

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

[*12.144]

<>

 

 

The Twelve Virtues of Aristotle

The Twelve Virtues of Aristotle:

  • Brave
  • Temperate
  • Generous
  • Munificent
  • High-minded
  • Ambitious
  • Patient
  • Friendly
  • Truthful
  • Witty
  • Modest
  • Indignant

Further Reading:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/

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

https://aesthetichealingmindset.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/4706/

https://www.cwu.edu/~warren/Unit1/aristotles_virtues_and_vices.htm

Aristotle’s 12 virtues: from courage to magnificence, patience to wit

https://www.google.com/search?q=twelve+virtues+of+aristotle&tbm=isch

<>

 

 

What am I?

I am the Beginning of Everything,
I am the End of Time and Space,
I am the Beginning of Every End,
and the End of Every Place.

What am I? (Hint: the answer isn’t Four!)

Further Reading:

Other images of this riddle are here.

Such riddles remind me of the Song of Amergin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amergin_Gl%C3%BAingel

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

https://minbarigirl.livejournal.com/32873.html

[*12.146]

<>

 

The Square of Epictetus

Here is a nice two-by-two matrix by engineer David E. Goldberg derived from the stoic philosophy of Epictetus. For each and every concern, it’s the cross product of one’s Activity (control vs. no control) and State of Mind (concerned vs. not concerned). And so we have the four combinations:

  • Concerned with Control: Accomplishment
  • Unconcerned with Control: Forgone Opportunity
  • Concerned but No Control: Needless Worry
  • Unconcerned and No Control: Peace of Mind

Of course the key is to dwell within the positive Accomplishment and Peace of Mind regions, and not to inhabit the negative ones of Needless Worry and Forgone Opportunity.

Further Reading:

http://entrepreneurialengineer.blogspot.com/2006/11/square-of-epictetus.html

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141007110433-722904-worry-less-accomplish-more/

More Accomplishment, Less Worry: Follow the Epictetus Square

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

Epictetus

<>

 

Knowledge as Justified True Belief

Quid est veritas?

— Pontius Pilate

Explanations come to an end somewhere.

— Ludwig Wittgenstein

I read that Edmund Gettier died recently, famous for the problem of knowledge named after him. He argued that justified true belief may not really be knowledge, and gave counterexamples for it not being so.

Here I show a diagram for those three conditions (Justified, True, Belief) and their opposites (Baseless, False, Doubt). The Wikipedia page on the Gettier problem states simply that the solution for it is that the justification must be true also, as the belief.

I don’t want to be posing as Pilate, but it does seems that truth is the most difficult and elusive of the three criteria, conditioning as it must the other two. In this age of disinformation, you could do worse than read the articles below.

Further Reading:

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

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

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/

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

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318135910_Justified_True_Belief_Plato_Gettier_and_Turing

[*10.88]

<>

Every Fourth Thing

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

The Chrysalis

"For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern" -- William Blake

  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 & 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

%d bloggers like this: