>Some of us learned about "Occam's Razor" in our introductory philosophy
>classes, and used the razor to slice away unnecessary--and
>unrewarding--concepts.
For those of us who didn't learn THAT in introductory logic (or maybe
anything else), I offer the following -some of which is true and some of
which is false and some of which I just plain made up or invented
according to whim and fancy.
I found THAT sentence quoted above somewhat alarming.
I went off to a quiet place and, '-a little thinking I did do.' (Einstein)
That is the same Einstein who implied we should look for God in
everything.
Some think William of Occam stated that,
"-Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity."
He however, did not say this; but he did say, according to Bertrand Russell,
"-It is vain to do with more what can be done with fewer."
The difference between 'vanity' and 'necessity' highlighted by Russell may
be the significant thing?
Which 'difference' is taken by Russell and Moody among others, [The Logic of
William of Occam] to mean that, - if everything in some science can be
interpreted without 'assuming' this or that hypothetical entity, there is no
ground for 'assuming' it.
But, Russell found this only a, '-Fruitful principle for LOGICAL ANALYSIS.'
(He should know, he won a Nobel prize for his thinking;-)
I had taken Occam's dictum then as and for an 'instrument' of logic, not
the 'empiric' of science. Science being about all discernible 'things' not
'terms or concepts'. Logic is concerned according to this, as treating of
things, 'fabricated by the mind within itself which cannot exist except
through the existence of reason.' I have many times thought to myself ;-),
How often At' has hidden the light of the term 'entropy production' under
the bushel so that others will not run away screaming.
Furthermore, I understand now terms like 'entropy production' to be among
those which point at things are called 'terms of first intention'; those
that point at other terms are called 'terms of second intention'. 'Terms'
in science are of 'first intention', but in logic they are of the 'second
intention'. Further, the term/concept (entropy production) is to my
intuitional understanding a 'natural' sign while a word is a
'conventional' sign.
If the metaphysic of/at this point is somewhere between the two
'intentions' then consider this also, 'Metaphysical terms are peculiar in
that they signify both those things signified by words of 'first
intention' and things signified by words of 'second intention'. There are
six, exactly six metaphysical terms, - (I do not know why.)
being,
thing,
something,
one,
true,
good.
All can be predicated of each other, according to Russell. Logic has the
'quality' of being able to be pursued independently of them.
'Understanding is of things, not of forms produced by the mind; these are
not what is understood, but that by which things are understood.'
(Russell).
For Occam logic was an instrument for the 'philosophy' of nature. I have
searched for a hinge and find only that Occram gave God a mind via his
admittance of the 'universale ante rem', but after the Creation all is
'particular' and 'becomes' in human knowledge, 'universale post rem.'
-Artistically unhinged idea, 'Is entropy production the continually
living/striving memory of that creation in the eternally living mind of
God?'
Occram's legacy was to move philosophy from the Franciscan Schoolmen, via
his pupil Nicholas of Oresme who investigated planetary theory that led
directly to the work of Copernicas, who said that BOTH the theories of
Geocentricity and Heliocentricity espoused by him would explain all the
facts known in his day. So much so that there would be no way of deciding
between them.
BOTH then, and not EITHER/OR.
As for LO's, 'Is not the world one great LO?' As for Heliocentricity,
'What living/sentient thing does not desire to grow toward the
light/warmth?'
The Japanese warrior's battle sword is at once beautiful and terrifying.
The leading edge is brittle so it may be incredibly sharp for CUTTING
away. The rear edge is softer metal so that, in RECEIVING a blow, the
sword is turned to take/deflect that blow. When the heated metal of the
'created article' is plunged into cooling water, what was two is joined to
one and is gently curved as a result.
CREATIVE TENSION? Push/Pull?
Rejoice- you (we) are work in progress. (Bob Gass)
Best wishes,
Andrew Campbell
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>