On the Doomsday Clock, it is 85 seconds before midnight!
Tick… tick… tick… tick…
Further reading:
Home page for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:
2026 Doomsday Clock Announcement: Complete Livestream
<>
On the Doomsday Clock, it is 85 seconds before midnight!
Tick… tick… tick… tick…
Further reading:
Home page for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:
2026 Doomsday Clock Announcement: Complete Livestream
<>
The more of these moments memory can contract into one, the firmer is the hold which it gives to us on matter : so that the memory of a living being appears indeed to measure, above all, its powers of action upon things, and to be only the intellectual reverberation of this power. Let us start, then, from this energy, as from the true principle : let us suppose that the body is a centre of action, and only a centre of action. We must see what consequences thence result for perception, for memory, and for the relations between body and mind.
Perception is master of space in the exact measure in which action is master of time.
— Henri Bergson, from Matter and Memory
Further Reading:
https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Bergson/Bergson_1911b/Bergson_1911_05.html
https://epochemagazine.org/50/creative-recollection-bergsons-theory-of-memory/
Click to download a pdf copy of Matter and Memory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_and_Memory
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bergson/#PercMemo
Emily Herring / Herald of a Restless World, how Henri Bergson brought philosophy to the people
https://share.google/aimode/qjOPizFa2d2U8Ab4v
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/literature-and-writing/matter-and-memory-henri-bergson
[*12.116]
<>
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.
In relation to the Four Causes, Whitehead’s Criteria, and Structure-Function we see:
And so:
Further Reading:
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]
<>
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/
Ludwig Jaskolla / Real Fourdimensionalism: An Essay in the Ontology of Persistence and Mind
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]
<>
The Shewhart Cycle (also known as the PDCA) is an iterative design and management cycle for continuous quality improvement of products and processes. It is named after Walter Shewhart who is known as the father of statistical quality control. The more recent name, PDCA, has several variations in the literature. The PDCA or Shewhart Cycle consists of four parts:
Similarly, the OODA Loop is an iterative framework for the improvement and management of decision processes. It is used in various domains such as business, litigation, and military strategy. The OODA Loop consists of four parts:
Learning Cycles are similar to Design Cycles in that the process to be improved is learning and the product to be improved is knowledge. It would be interesting to compare the two types of cycles to understand their similarities and differences. Some of each type have four stages but others have more or less. I have mentioned several learning cycles with four steps already in this blog, the Kolb learning cycle and the Scientific Method.
Further Reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_A._Shewhart
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continual_improvement_process
https://www.praxisframework.org/en/library/shewhart-cycle
https://www.google.com/search?q=PDCA+cycle&tbm=isch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_cycle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop
https://www.techtarget.com/searchcio/definition/OODA-loop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_cycle
https://www.google.com/search?q=learning+cycles+and+design+cycles+compared&tbm=isch
[*6.54]
<>
The Tree of Knowledge (ToK) System posits four hierarchical planes of existence having separate dimensions of complexity mapped out or studied by four different kinds of sciences:
The ToK System is reminiscent of other “big history” or “cosmic evolution” schemas such as Tyler Volk’s Combogenesis except for the special consideration for the mental and psychological (i.e. subjective) aspects of existence. I would think that this is primarily due to the fact that the developer of the system, Professor Gregg Henriques, is a psychologist.
In order to support his focus on consciousness and psychology, Henriques has developed several theories to address the “problem of psychology”, for example the Justification Systems Theory and the Behavioral Investment Theory. With the ToK System, these and several other key ideas, he claims he has a “Unified Theory of Knowledge” (UToK)!
Further Reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_knowledge_system
https://www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org/8-key-ideas/the-tree-of-knowledge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_Henriques
http://www.gregghenriques.com/
https://www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W6h2wsRx4EqYJ5WuPHxFUwphRJJwy0p1/view
<>
In the past, I’ve created several diagrams juxtaposing pairs of fourfolds, for example
So here’s another, The Four Classical Elements and Space-Time-Energy-Matter.
I asked ChatGPT to look at this association: “Please write a short essay comparing and contrasting the classical four elements of air, fire, earth, and water with the modern scientific foursome of space, energy, matter, and time.”
The concept of the classical four elements of air, fire, earth, and water has been a fundamental aspect of ancient philosophy for thousands of years. This idea, which was first proposed by the ancient Greek philosopher Empedocles, held that these four elements were the building blocks of the universe and were responsible for all natural phenomena.
In contrast, the modern scientific foursome of space, energy, matter, and time provides a more comprehensive and rigorous explanation of the nature of the universe. Space refers to the three-dimensional continuum in which all matter exists, and it provides the framework for the movements of objects. Energy refers to the capacity of a system to perform work and is responsible for all physical and chemical processes. Matter refers to any physical substance, including solid, liquid, and gas. Time, on the other hand, is a fundamental aspect of the universe that allows for the measurement of the duration of events and the progression of physical processes.
One key difference between the classical and modern concepts of the elements is that the classical elements were thought to have qualities and personalities, while the modern elements are purely physical and mathematical constructs. The classical elements were thought to interact with each other in specific ways to produce the natural world, while the modern elements interact according to the laws of physics and chemistry.
Another difference is that the classical elements were limited to four, while the modern elements form a much more complex and nuanced picture of the universe. This difference reflects the advancement of human knowledge and understanding of the natural world over time.
In conclusion, the classical four elements of air, fire, earth, and water have played an important role in shaping human thought and culture. However, the modern scientific foursome of space, energy, matter, and time provides a more comprehensive and scientifically rigorous explanation of the universe and its workings. Both concepts have contributed to our understanding of the world, and they continue to play a role in shaping our ideas about the nature of reality.
Not quite enough, so I replied “Thank you, that’s pretty good. However, please say more about how air is like space, how fire is like energy, how earth is like matter, and how water is like time.”
Certainly! Let me expand on the similarities between the classical elements and the modern scientific elements:
1. Air and space: Both air and space are often thought of as being intangible and difficult to define. They both provide the framework for other physical phenomena, such as the movements of objects in space or the flow of air currents. Additionally, both air and space have the ability to contain other elements or substances, such as the gases that make up air or the stars and planets that exist within space.
2. Fire and energy: Fire is often associated with heat and light, and it can be both destructive and transformative. Energy also has the ability to transform physical systems, such as through chemical reactions or the transfer of heat. Furthermore, fire can be seen as a form of energy that is released through combustion, and it can be harnessed for practical purposes, such as cooking food or heating homes.
3. Earth and matter: Earth is often thought of as being solid and unchanging, while matter is the physical substance that makes up the universe. Earth provides a foundation for other physical phenomena, such as the growth of plants or the construction of buildings. Similarly, matter provides the building blocks for physical systems, such as the atoms and molecules that make up the substances in our world.
4. Water and time: Water is often thought of as being cyclical and constantly changing, such as through the phases of the tides or the flow of rivers. Time is also cyclical and constantly changing, as it moves forward and allows for the progression of physical processes and the measurement of the duration of events. Furthermore, just as water can shape the physical world through erosion and the formation of land masses, time shapes the physical world through its influence on the progression of physical processes.
In conclusion, there are certainly similarities between the classical four elements of air, fire, earth, and water, and the modern scientific foursome of space, energy, matter, and time. These similarities reflect the continuity of human thought and understanding of the natural world, and they demonstrate the ongoing influence of ancient ideas in shaping our modern understanding of the universe.
<>
Tinbergen’s Four Questions are questions that can be asked about an organism and its evolution that help to explain its adaptations and behavior. They operate via a double dual of Static vs. Dynamic and Proximate vs. Ultimate. Static is concerned with the current time whereas Dynamic considers a time series. Proximate is concerned with how the organism behaves currently or how its behavior changes over its lifetime, and Ultimate considers why the organism and its behavior/adaptations may have evolved the way they did. Both pairs are somewhat confusedly concerned with time: both Static and Proximate are concerned with either the current time or a short lifetime, and Dynamic and Ultimate are concerned with changes in that short lifetime or over evolutionary time.
Ultimate is also called Evolutionary, to distinguish it from a connotation of telos or purpose. Static refers to the current form of the organism, and is also called Synchronic or Single Form or Snapshot or Contemporary, etc. Dynamic refers to the historical changes of the organism, and is also called Diachronic or Sequence or Historical or Chronicle, etc.
Some compare these four questions to Aristotle’s Four Causes, see for example [1] and [2]. However, [1] seems less enthusiastic than the published paper [2]. Also, I don’t agree with either completely on the assignment; it seems to me that the Efficient and Final Causes are Dynamic, and the Material and Formal causes are Static. I believe we all agree that the Efficient and Material Causes are Proximate, and Formal and Final Causes are Ultimate. See [3] for comparison. Frankly, I am guided more by the definitions of Static and Dynamic than anything else.
Further Reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinbergen%27s_four_questions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolaas_Tinbergen
https://www.conted.ox.ac.uk/courses/samples/animal-behaviour-an-introduction-online/index.html
https://www.reed.edu/biology/courses/BIO342/2014_syllabus_old/2014_WEBSITES/khsite/tinenbergen.html
[1] https://www.evphil.com/blog/consciousness-18-tinbergens-four-questions
[2] Vojtěch Hladký, Jan Havlíček / WAS TINBERGEN AN ARISTOTELIAN? COMPARISON OF TINBERGEN’S FOUR WHYS AND ARISTOTLE’S FOUR CAUSES,
Human Ethology Bulletin 28 No 4 (2013): Special Issue on Tinbergen 3-11
[3] https://equivalentexchange.blog/2015/07/29/evolution-and-genetics/
Other Images of Tinbergen’s Four Question:
https://www.google.com/search?&q=tinbergen%27s+four+questions&tbm=isch
[*9.63, *10.98]
<>
— Nomad, from Star Trek “The Changeling”
While reading “Entering Space” by Robert Zubrin, I chanced upon the subject of stellar classification. The Morgan-Keenan system goes from O-type, the hottest, to M-type, the coolest (Red dwarfs). Our own sun, Sol, is an example of a G-type star, which are on the cool side yet still hot and bright. Later, other types have been added, for example White Dwarfs are known as D-types. If humankind will someday journey to remote stars, it’s best to memorize this handy list!
The Morgan-Keenan system is as follows:
This is sometimes remembered by the mnemonic “O be a fine gal/guy, kiss me.”
Further Reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_classification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-type_main-sequence_star
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-type_main-sequence_star
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-type_main-sequence_star
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-type_main-sequence_star
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-type_main-sequence_star
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-type_main-sequence_star
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-type_main-sequence_star
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Jump_Cannon
<>
The eight “easy” steps of the Millennial Project (MP) are:
Further Reading:
Marshall T. Savage / The Millennial Project
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millennial_Project
https://tmp2.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page
Robert Zubrin / Entering Space: creating a space-faring civilization
Robert Zubrin / The Case for Mars
Carl Sagan / Pale Blue Dot: a vision of the human future in space
MP reminds me a bit of Olaf Stapledon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaf_Stapledon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_and_First_Men
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Maker
<>
Because there are way more than seven wonders in the world.
Always Forward Between Heaven and Earth
Psychological Musings
Critiquing anime and everything else
"For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern" -- William Blake
Category Theory, Haskell, Concurrency, C++
Reviewing fascinating science books since 2017
Every Fourth Thing
Derek Wise's blog: Mathematics, Physics, Computing and other fun stuff.
integrating 4 binary opposites in life, learning, art, science and architecture
integrating 4 binary opposites in life, learning, art, science and architecture
Chasing the Paper Rabbit
experiments in a reaction from the left
A blog about computers, evolution, complexity, cells, intelligence, brains, and minds.
mind maps, infographics, and expositions
neat ideas from unusual places
Introduction to a Quadralectic Epistomology
Astronomy, space and space travel for the non scientist
Every Fourth Thing
A Serious Look at Trivial Things
A Survey of Tetradic Testimonials in Architecture
Musings from a Naturalist
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.
Four-fold thinking4you
Craig Weinberg's Cosmology of Sense
Purveyors of Fine Anime Reviews and Ratings Since 2010
Between Subject and Object
Every Fourth Thing
Every Fourth Thing
Every Fourth Thing
Every Fourth Thing
Every Fourth Thing
Sometimes those Sticking their Heads in the Sand are Looking for Something Deep
Online Home of Christopher Vitale, Associate Professor of Media Studies, The Graduate Program in Media Studies, Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, NY.
Linking Ideas
RESEARCHING THE DEMANDS OF THOUGHT
Explorations in the Paradoxes of Meaning
"The centaur of classical metaphysics shall be mated with the cheetah of actor-network theory."
objects & things, design, art & technology