Mind-Body Dualism | Equivalent eXchange

Our thesis is that the category Set is the ultimate abstraction of body, and that Set^op, equivalent to the category of complete atomic Boolean algebras (i.e. power sets), which we shall advocate thinking of as antisets, is dually the ultimate abstraction of mind.

— From Chu Spaces: automata with quantum aspects by Vaughan Pratt

Reflecting an era of reduced expectations for the superiority of humans, we have implemented causal interaction not with the pineal gland but with machinery freely available to all classical entities, whether newt, pet rock, electron, or theorem (but not quantum mechanical wavefunction, which is sibling to if not an actual instance of our machinery).

— From Rational Mechanics and Natural Mathematics by Vaughan Pratt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_lattice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_space

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partially_ordered_set

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_%28mathematics%29

References:

Click to access ph94.pdf

Click to access ratmech.pdf

http://chu.stanford.edu/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chu_space

[*7.140]

I have recently come across the philosophical work of Arthur M. Young (AMY). This is an initial impression of that work since I have only read what is available from the web links below, and even then there is a great deal to digest. In addition, there is difficulty in presenting a summary of his theory because of similarities to my ideas as well as substantial differences. I am sure I will need to return to AMY’s theory after more consideration.

I have hinted at a correspondence between several double duals presented in this blog, but I have steered away from claiming that they are all linked to each other – that they are essentially equivalently exchangeable. AMY’s theory links the four elements, the four causes, Jung’s functions of the psyche, geometrical elements and transformations, as well as several other fourfolds into a cosmic theory of reality.

Some of these same fourfolds are present in my theory, and I am considering how others may be introduced. Some not mentioned by AMY are only mentioned in earlier entries on this blog, without presentation. However, from many of these same fourfolds I have reached substantially different conclusions from AMY. I believe this is because AMY’s theory of process is essentially dualistic, whereas my theory appears to be physicalistic, although one might also say it is a process and/or relational theory.

Below is a table of some of the correspondences for AMY’s theory of process:

	Aristotle’s Four Causes	Jung’s Functions of the Psyche	Four Elements of Empedocles	Geometric Transform- ations
Purpose	Final	Intuition	Fire	Rotation	Spirit
Value	Material	Emotion	Water	Scale	Soul
Form	Formal	Intellect	Air	Inversion	Mind
Object	Efficient	Sensation	Earth	Translation	Body

Below is a table of some of the correspondences for my theory:

Four Elements of Empedocles	The Here and the Now	Aristotle’s Four Causes	Duality of Time and Information	Hjelmslev’s Net
Fire	Before	Efficient	Change time	Substance of content
Water	After	Final	Bear time	Form of content
Air	Above	Formal	Bear information	Form of expression
Earth	Below	Material	Change information	Substance of expression