Neapibrėžtumas, Gyvenimo lygtis, Apimtys, Žinojimas, Požiūrių sudūrimas, Tiesa, Suvestinė, Apimtys, Požiūriai, Helmut Leitner, riba, ribota, neribota, laisvė, pirmyn, atgal, žvilgsnis, išėjimas už savęs, išskyrimas, deterministinis, miglota, Algebra of Distinguishability.
Kaip įmanoma apibrėžti pirmines sąvokas?
定义 ..... דעפֿיניציע
Kas yra apibrėžimas?
Apibrėžimo kilmė ir sąlygos
Nusakymas vienumo ir nevienumo.
Dvasios ir sandaros porinis išsivystymas, išeinant už savęs, taip kad tiesa turinys atitinka raišką.
Išėjimo už savęs eigos nustatymas, tad apimties nustatymas
Sandaros išvystymas tiesos lygmenimis, apimtimis:
Apibrėžiama tai, kas už apimties, kas neviena - neigimu iškeliamas jo nevieningumas su tuo, kas apimtyje - tad svarstoma būtis, to kas už apimties
Nulinis narys yra apibrėžimo pagrindas
Apibrėžtumas grindžia tarpinius lygmenis
Neapibrėžtas žvilgsnis ir apibrėžtas žvilgsnis
Apibrėžtumas susijęs su žinojimu. Žinome apibrėžtumą, jo lygmenis. Apibrėžtumas reiškiasi keturiais žinojimo lygmenimis. Tačiau galime žinoti ir neapibrėžtumą, tai ko nežinome.
Šis esminis skirtumas grindžia požiūrių grandinę kuria visos sandaros išsivysto. Žinau, kad nežinau, kad žinau...
Indefinite and definite are the two Representations Of Slack, increasing and decreasing. Their scopes are the four Representations Of Everything: all, any, some, none.
It is crucial which direction we are thinking about in defining things.
Apibrėžtumas yra dangaus karalystės esmė - dieviškumo išgyvenimą žmogiškume.
|Neapibrėžtas žvilgsnis||Apibrėžtas žvilgsnis|
|all suppositions are true||all suppositions are either true or false|
|Dievo žvilgsnis||žmogaus žvilgsnis|
|Apimtis neapibrėžta||Apimtis apibrėžta|
|the supposition identifies equally, unconditionally with all of its perspectives (like a nondeterministic automata)||the supposition identify with Any of its perspectives (like a deterministic automata)|
|"all statements are true" - I suppose it is the (supposed) point which goes beyond into all perspectives|
|not a subset of itself, hence contradictory, as in Russell's paradox||a subset of itself|
|defined and identified, in its perspectives, as what it goes into, and so it is all of the perspective||defined and identified, in its perspectives, as what it comes out from, and so it is one perspective among all of them|
|Immersed, empathetic and endless||framed, detached and finite|
|unlimited view||limited view|
|unbounded view||bounded view|
|view of the Indefinite||view of the Definite|
|view of the unknown||view of the known|
|has a scope, but the scope is not fixed, not defined||scope is fixed, defined, established|
|not yet mirrored by structure||mirrored by structure|
|increasing slack of scope||decreasing slack of scope|
|ever less defined||ever more defined|
|suppositions are indefinite||suppositions are definite|
|looking forwards||looking backwards|
|does not suppose God is good||supposes God is good|
|the supposition includes within it all of its perspectives||the supposition is one of its perspectives|
|is pregnant with all of its perspectives|
|differentiates its perspectives within itself prior to going out as them||differentiates its perspectives upon going beyond itself|
|engages through and identifies with all of its perspectives equally, unconditionally||engages through and identifies itself with any one of its perspectives|
|God is all of his possibilities||I am one of my possibilities|
|can distinguish more||can distinguish less|
|does not distinguish understandings||distinguishes understandings|
|does not know ignorance directly||knows ignorance directly|
|transparent||can be opaque|
|keeps concepts separate, as in eternal life is the understanding of the goodness of God, the keeping separate of goodness and God||blends concepts, as in life is the goodness of God, the fact that God is good|
|allows for multiple tracks, thinking in parallel||allows for one track (a one-track mind)|
|Leaves things hanging, allows them to be undefined for a while, or forever||Circumscribes everything, leaves nothing hanging|
|Defined by what it goes into||Defined by what it comes from|
|Does not allow for a change in scope||Allows for a change in scope|
|Does not open up space for a quality, for the good||Opens up space for a quality, for the good|
|Takes sole responsibility for its suppositions||Shifts some of its responsibility onto the quality|
|Acceptance of an indefinite scope|
|Allows for the indefinite separation, distinction, of perspectives||Allows for the definite separation, distinction, of perspectives|
|distinctions and separations are themselves suppositions||distinctions and separations are themselves not suppositions, but are derivative|
Apibrėžimai yra esmė mano užmojo viską žinoti.
Žinoti, tai turėti apibrėžtą apimtį. Ketverybė apibrėžia, tad išgauna sąvokų tiesą.
Žinoti viską tai turėti neapibrėžtojo požiūrį į apibrėžtąjį.
Apibrėžimai yra išbaigti kai jie apima stebėtoją. (RaimundasVaitkevicius)
Kas grindžia apibrėžimą?
Sandara svarbi apibrėžimams.
2000 metais brėžiau man žinomų sandarų brėžinius. Jų žymes spalvinau
My use of words and terms
What I'm trying to do is counter to how we're conditioned to think. Hopefully, I can help myself and others grow in our thinking. This means that I will diverge from how we usually think, and also, that I want, at some point, to relate to how we usually think, so that I and others might grow beyond that. This means that we'll give up how we usually think, or at least, expand beyond it, which is to say, give up on the restrictions that we place on our thinking.
For example, many people believe that it's not possible to think without words. Words do offer many advantages. However, we would not want to say that the deaf do not think, or that infants do not think. My work shows, at least to me, that it is possible to think in terms of concepts. For example, I can think the concept everything without making use of any particular word. I can think it because I can consider, intuit, reflect on its structural properties. This kind of thinking is much deeper than the manipulation or leveraging of words. Furthermore, I find evidence that concepts are universal and absolute, whereas words are quite unreliable and by nature have many meanings. So I think it's important to focus on the underlying concepts and not place too much weight on the names for these concepts.
Words or names are important as markers that we can manipulate. Sometimes I use abstract symbols, for example, I may refer to the levels of the foursome as +0, +1, +2, +3 or to the perspectives of the twosome as ! and ?. However, such symbols tend to be loaded with meaning at some point and in some way, and so we do not escape the question, what connotations to include in the name. Some terms I invent, especially if they are for original concepts, especially for the abstract structures that I uncover, for example: nullsome, onesome, twosome, threesome, foursome, etc. Although even here I use names that extend the meaning of existing words. Generally, I try to find the simplest, most familiar and understandable terms that capture the relevant intuition, but I give them an additional, often formal meaning. This approach is very common in mathematics, physics and the sciences. For example, the word or in everyday language is a bit vague, but tends to mean either... or... but not both, whereas in mathematics A or B means anything that is in at least one of A or B (or, in everday language, we might say for this A and/or B). Similarly, physics has taken everyday words such as force, mass, power, time, energy and given them very precise meanings which are quite unexpected and even counterintuitive for those who know only the everday usage. Indeed, people often think that everyday usage is somehow definitive when actually it is a social construct, a folk theory.
I try to express and ground concepts by way of structure, by way of their relationship with themselves, as then they do not depend on any larger context. That is why the divisions of everything are so central, because they are defined and described by the relationships between the perspectives, the parts which they organize. This is a great challenge, but I feel my efforts have been fruitful. I think of mathematics as the study of structure, and what I am doing is a sort of pre-mathematics, how structure arises out of concepts. Mathematics is important as a source of ideas. For this reason, I do draw on mathematics as a source of terms.
For example, in working with categories (as Kant would call them), I realized that it was not helpful to think of them as abstractions of things that we imagine. In fact, they were quite the opposite - they were backdrops, canvases, worlds which our imagination provided so that we could place something in it and imagine it in such a context. For example, there is a metaphor love is a journey, and here journey brings to mind an entire abstract world that an abstract journey conjures. Typically, a thing (or a word) may have a definition that can be pulled together as a single, definitive statement. However, a world is not described by a single, definitive statement. Imagine living on a sphere, or a flat plane, or a line, or on a torus. Each of these worlds has its own geometry, its own properties locally and globally. In mathematics, such a world is described not by one definitive statement, but rather by a set of rules, and that set is typically not special. The same world can be described, determined by a variety of different rules, none of which can claim to be special. It is only the world itself that is special. In mathematics, this kind of world is often talked about as a topology. Another word that I could use is circumstances. What I'm trying to convey is that a concept like many is not an abstract thing but rather a world or circumstance that we project things upon. For example, in defining language as a mapping you're relying on the concept of many, that there can be parallel relationships. With the [Topologies #] I have found a way to rigorously define concepts such as many.
Generally, what I'm trying to do is to find the existing words that best capture the intuition that I'm pointing to, and then extend, specialize, formalize their meaning further. Where possible I try to draw on everyday language. But I also extend terms from mathematics and other disciplines which themselves extend on the meanings of words from everyday life. This means that I can communicate to myself and others at least something of what I mean. And first of all, I am writing for myself, looking for terms which will help me capture my insights.
Also, this is all a work-in-progress, which means that many of the underlying concepts are underdeveloped, murky. Progress is made by getting a clearer understanding of the underlying concepts. Thinking about the terms is helpful but ultimately the issue to solve is deeper.
Yet truly it is exciting when ordinary everyday language can take on a deeper, more mature meaning. For example, the concepts whether, what, how and why are ancient. And yet we might come to understand that they are not accidental, that they express deep concepts.
The difference between deterministic and nondeterministic algorithms is relevant to the NPComplete problem.