Category Archives: Science

Spacetime

What is space? Is space merely extension? What makes up extension, but a set of locations?

What is time? Is time merely duration? What makes up duration, but a series of successions?

Is space a void for things to be located in, or do things create the space between them?

Is time a continuance for events to happen in, or do events create the time that joins them?

Does space and time exist objectively, or only subjectively? Are they absolute or are they relative?

Does space and time enframe all that exists? Does anything exist outside of space or time? How could we know if it did?

What is spacetime? Is it space plus time, disjoint, or is it a reciprocal enfolding of space and time, so that neither can exist without the other?

[*7.4]

<>

The Four Conic Sections

To teach superstitions as truth is a most terrible thing.

– Hypatia of Alexandria

In mathematics, the four conic sections are the different shapes that can be formed by the intersection of a three dimensional right double cone and a plane: the circle, the ellipse, the parabola, and the hyperbola. The conics have been studied since the dawn of Greek mathematics. These shapes have interest as pure mathematical constructions, as well as many practical uses in applied mathematics.

Special points (focus or foci, plural) and lines (directrix or directrices, plural) can also be used to generate the conic sections in analytic geometry. A circle or parabola has one focus; the ellipse or hyperbola has two. The circle is a special case of the ellipse, one whose two foci coincide at a unique center, and in a different sense, the parabola can also be considered as a special case of the ellipse, having one of its foci at infinity. All circles can be transformed into each other by uniform scaling, a property shared by all parabolas. Thus the circle can be considered to be a singular shape, as well as the parabola. In contrast, ellipses and hyperbolas have a multitude of shapes and cannot be transformed into others of the same kind by uniform scaling. However, a nonuniform scaling or affine transformation can be used to achieve this goal. In even more abstract projective geometry, one could consider that all the conics are the same.

If the double cone is considered as the so-called light cone in Minkowski Space-time, many interesting concepts in special relativity can be considered. In this simplified model, space has two dimensions and time has one. The light cone divides all of space-time into four parts: the past, the present, the future, and the rest. The observer is located in time and space at the common apex of the two cones. Light travels on the surface of the cones, in straight lines towards and away from the observer. Anything traveling strictly within the space-time of a cone must necessarily be traveling slower than the speed of light. One cone can be thought of as the past: the interior of which contains all space-time that could have been observed by the observer, bounded by the circles of light traveling towards her. The second cone can be thought of as the future: the interior of which contains all space-time that could possibly be observed by the observer, bounded by the circles of other observers observing her light. Everything outside of the light cone cannot be observed or influenced by the observer at that instant, since light from it would have to travel faster than the speed of light in order to be seen or acted on by the observer.

Letting my analogical thinking run rampant, I can think of several associations with other fourfolds presented here. The circle is the shape of perfection, of identity and wholeness. It has one center or focus. In Minkowski Space-time, it is formed by the plane cutting the light cone at a constant time, so that all light arrives at the observer simultaneously from the past. Thus it is the shape of the knower or perspective. The parabola has the shape of gravity, the arc of an object thrown from and falling towards the earth. The shape reminds me of a reality that flies up from the opaque depths of the knowable only to fall away again. Numbers that are perfect squares may have started ancient mathematicians thinking about arithmetic. The ellipse has the shape of cosmology. Once astronomers could consider orbits of planets not to be circles or epicycles, only then science changed from idealism to empiricism. The hyperbola’s asymptotes form the crossed lines of my ever-present double duals, dividing yet unifying, as well as the profile of Minkowski Space-time. In fact, space and time occur over and over in many of the fourfolds I have considered.

Circles and ellipses could be considered the shapes of time, subjectivity, conjunction, and content: closed, finite, and bounded, yet cyclic. Parabolas and hyperbolas could be considered the shapes of space, objectivity, disjunction, and expression: open, infinite, and unbounded, acyclic.

In the recent movie Agora, the main character is Hypatia, the daughter of the last librarian of the great Library of Alexandria. A mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher, only fragments of Hypatia’s writings are available to us today. After the sack of the library, Hypatia is shown in her new study with a beautiful wooden model of the conics that she saved from destruction. For any that love wisdom over superstition, the movie is heartbreaking. As an echo to the loss of the contents of the library, it is offered (without any proof) that she considered the truth of the Heliocentric model of the solar system with the planets moving in elliptical orbits. Her senseless murder meant her insights were destroyed without legacy, falling away into the gravity of the dark unknown. Fortunately, even if she had, Copernicus and Kepler rediscovered these insights well over a thousand years later and brought them to light. The library’s loss will never be recovered.

References:

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

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/07/11/137743796/agora-most-intelligent-movie-on-science-and-religion-ever?ft=1&f=114424647

http://babelniche.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/more-on-agora-and-hypatia/

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=14979

[*6.170, *6.172]

<>

The Medieval Quadrivium

As Proclus wrote:  The Pythagoreans considered all mathematical science to be divided into four parts: one half they marked off as concerned with quantity, the other half with magnitude; and each of these they posited as twofold. A quantity can be considered in regard to its character by itself or in its relation to another quantity, magnitudes as either stationary or in motion. Arithmetic, then, studies quantities as such, music the relations between quantities, geometry magnitude at rest, spherics [astronomy] magnitude inherently moving.

Thus arithmetic is number in itself, music is number in time, geometry is number in space, and cosmology is number in space and time.

References:

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

http://quadriformisratio.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/the-curriculum-in-ancient-times/

[*6.66, *7.40]

<>

E. J. Lowe’s Four Category Ontology

References:

E. J. Lowe / The Four-Category Ontology: a metaphysical foundation for natural science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.J._Lowe

https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/the-four-category-ontology-a-metaphysical-foundation-for-natural-science/

Lowe, Edward Jonathan

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/lowe/

[*4.94, *6.98]

<>

The Four Basic Electronic Components

A fourfold has recently been in the news. The physical realization of the memristor completes the four basic electronic components, along with the resistor, capacitor, and inductor. Theorized to exist since 1971, the memristor may revolutionize computational devices.

References:

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

[*6.126-*6.128]

<>

A Story for Everyone

Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone had a common story we could all learn and share? A story about who we are, what we are, and maybe even a little about the how and the why. Could it be told in such a way that each of us could accept it as our very own? A film and companion book coming out soon will attempt just that, titled Journey of the Universe.

Previous books by Loyal Rue and Brian Swimme have tried to achieve this ideal. Swimme is involved in this new movie, and is the narrator. Rue’s book is a personal favorite. Astrophysicist Eric J. Chaisson has written many books on this topic. Their common theme is evolution, expanded from the biological to encompass the cosmos. Cosmic evolution, if you will.

Evolution merely means change over time, i.e. transformation. Most people agree that things have changed over time, but many disagree on how much, how long, and how come. How can we decide what information to accept, and what to reject? The great unifier of human knowledge is science, yet science is often disparaged even while making the modern world possible. Partially, I’m sure, for that very reason.

Different cultures have had their own creation stories since the very beginning of humanity. Many have said that a large part of being human is the impulse to tell and the need to hear stories. All narratives are built from atomic parts that answer questions: who, what, how, and why. Or, to cast them into modal verbs: may, can, must, and should. Who may? Intention or agency: the characters. What can? Chance or contingency: the setting. How must? Structure or necessity: the plot. Why should? Obligation or responsibility: the theme.

Would a story simplistic enough for everyone to accept be so dilute as to be worthless? All life as we know it requires water, and pure water is ultimately ‘diluted’. But water is certainly not worthless. Daniel Dennett calls the concept of evolution the ‘universal acid’, an alchemical alkahest. Can we replace the corrosive acid in his metaphor with sustaining and nurturing water?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/03/31/135008214/journey-of-the-universe-the-challenge-of-telling-everybodys-story

http://www.journeyoftheuniverse.org/

Loyal Rue / Everybody’s Story: Wising Up to the Epic of Evolution

Brian Swimme / The Universe Story: From the Primordial Flaring Forth to the Ecozoic Era–A Celebration of the Unfolding of the Cosmos

Daniel Dennett / Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: evolution and the meaning of life

Eric J. Chaisson / Epic of Evolution: seven ages of the cosmos

Marjolein Groefsema / Can, May, Must and Should: A Relevance Theoretic Account, in Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Mar., 1995), pp. 53-79

<>

Kevin Kelly’s Philosophy of Technology

Kevin Kelly’s new book “What Technology Wants” is an exploration of what technology is and what it does. Technology has many of the same attributes as biological evolution, and as such, its effects cannot be fully predicted. At best, we can try to evaluate a particular technology’s advantages and dangers before it is let loose into the world; at worst, we will have no control over it at all.

Kelly describes evolution as shaped by structural, historical, and functional factors; and goes on the describe technology as dependent on structural, historical, and intentional factors. However, he also maintains that technology is an evolutionary process, and evolution in turn is a technological process. Kelly seems to say both processes have all four of the factors shown in the double dual above.

Kelly says that human language is the first big human technology (or was it fire? or stone tools?). But I also agree with him that the mechanisms of biological evolution can be considered technology. What is technique except a method that can shared and perpetuated by others? Molecular genetics grants us the ability to pass (most of) our attributes on to our progeny, including the ability to pass (most of) their attributes on to theirs. Once techniques can be shown or told to others, biology becomes the basis for the showing or telling, but not the mechanism of it.

Kelly calls the entire system of evolution/technology the technium. Because we have been continually shaped by our human technologies, they are not foreign to us. On the whole, we are better with them, than without them. One could argue that without them we wouldn’t even be human!

References:

Kevin Kelly / What Technology Wants

NYT Review of What Technology Wants

[*5.92, *6.60]

<>

The Duality of Time and Information

The states of a computing system bear information and change time, while its events bear time and change information.

from The Duality of Time and Information by Vaughan Pratt

The most promising transformational logic seems to us to be Girard’s linear logic.

— from Rational Mechanics and Natural Mathematics by Vaughan Pratt

References:

Vaughan Pratt / The Duality of Time and Information http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/dti.pdf

Vaughan Pratt / Time and Information in Sequential and Concurrent Computation http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/tppp.pdf

Vaughan Pratt / Rational Mechanics and Natural Mathematics http://chu.stanford.edu/guide.html#ratmech

 [*5.170]

<>

Aristotle’s Four Causes

Material: That from which something is made.

Efficient: That by which something is made.

Formal: That into which something is made.

Final: That for the sake of which something is made.

— from Aristotle for Everybody by Mortimer Adler

“Happy is he who can recognize the causes of things.”

Virgil

Aristotle’s Four Causes is likely the most familiar of all the double duals that I will present. The causes are closer to being “becauses” since they are usually thought of as the reasons or explanations for things. Why not call them the four prepositions?

The standard example of the four causes is what is needed for the building of a house. A house is built by the craftsmen, from the raw materials, into the form shown on blueprints, for the homeowner to live in. This and other usual examples are concerned with the making of something.

Formal and final causes have gotten the short shift since the beginning of the scientific revolution. Francis Bacon stated that the only scientific reasons for things were the efficient and material causes. For those critical of materialism this is often termed mere “matter in motion”. Matter can be thought to exist in space, and motion in time. Where does form or finality exist? I will say in space and time as well.

References:

Max Hocutt / Aristotle’s Four Becauses, in Philosophy, Vol. 49, No. 190. (Oct., 1974), pp. 385-399.

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

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/

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

http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/4causes.htm

Notes:

John Sowa’s Thematic Roles: initiator, resource, essence, goal.

http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/thematic.htm

[*4.112, *5.73, *5.162, *5.168, *7.47]

<>

 

The Here and the Now

Whosoever speculated on these four things, it were better for him if he had not come into the world —

  • what is above?
  • what is beneath?
  • what was beforetime?
  • and what will be hereafter?

— From the Mishnah (Hagigah 2:1)

All things have a root and a top; all events an end and a beginning. Whoever understands correctly what comes first and what follows draws nearer the Dao.

— From T’ai Hioh by Confucius

As above, so below.

— From The Emerald Tablet

I like these quotes because they show that Above, Below, Before and After are linked together. The first quote gives a warning about thinking about these concepts, but the second, encouragement. Above and below, or higher and lower, can be thought of as directions in space, but also as terms of hierarchy. Before and after can be thought of as directions in time, but also as beginnings and endings, causes and results.

Every individual is situated in space and time (see SpaceTime). Every perspective is due to expression and content (see Hjelmslev’s Net). Here is space, now is time.

References:

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

[*5.160, *6.30]

<>