once i have done something in principle, i tend to lose desire to do it in practice. i have no explanation of this, i simply have observed it repeatedly and in a variety of situations. you may call it empirical evidence.
could we divide the subject of philosophy into two categories: the study of formal logic and reason, and the study of the implications of logic and reason(?). i ask because the former is somewhat metamathematics, philosophers such as Russell and Frege seem to have dealt with it extensively, as where the latter is more impact on everyday life, it more seeks to answer questions of what and why, relative to the human position in reality. such speculation is very distinct from the philosophy of reason, i think.
from this perspective, it is the former concept which interests me, however it is the latter concept which allows me to distinguish between the two.
discussing these issues with Corey last night indicated to me that the argument is not fully developed. there is some fundamental difference between the probing of empirical science and the philosophy of everyday life.
asymmetry is interesting - it is the clue of where to look.
im not sure if ive mentioned the idea of a mathematical "map" to look at what is and isnt understood in mathematics, but last night there were some neat ideas between Corey and i: the concept of connectedness would be a huge benefit to studying these mathematical maps, with land and water and permanent dark spots!
although i still have no idea how one would go about constructing such a map, i have determined how to construct oddly simple versions, for instance, if we start with the axiom that logic is inconsistent, the map is entirely dark, except the axiom, since without logic we lack any tools to explore propositions within the landscape.
ill set them up, you knock them over.
if we start with the axiom that all statements are true, well, i guess that is kind of an odd idea, because it leads to logical contradictions very quickly.
if im not part of the solution, i figure i should be as big a part of the problem as possible.
we are all a little obsessive compulsive.
we also realized, if you took several of these maps, each with certain axioms flipped one way or another, and you compiled them into a book of maps, you would have a peculiar view of a mathematical atlas.
we need to seperate the idea of 'truth' from the idea of 'axiom'.
youd have logical islands and everything.
in science, these maps are begun with emperical evidence.
this might be one of the most intelligent things ive said in a long time: "so if you solve the Dirac equation for the 1s electrons on a mercury atom you discover that their relativistic mass is significantly greater than their rest mass, and that when this new mass is entered in the Bohr radius calculation, the 1s shell decreases in size significantly, which ultimately leads to the liquid nature of mercury in common temperatures"
im not fully able to explain it yet, for instance, i dont know why the bohr radius calculation is dependent on the mass of the electron, but thats okay. in time.
so the problem seems to be an inability for me to express myself to people. which is peculiar, because i tend to think i am reasonably good at explaining abstract concepts to people in general. but when it comes to myself, my feelings and thoughts, i tend to disguise them or just not express them to people. i dont know if its a protection issue or a legitimate disability.
"In the TV series Bewitched, Aunt Clara had a very impressive collection of doorknobs. She referred to an unusual glass doorknob in her collection as the doorknob equivalent of the Hope Diamond."
keith and i have been trying to measure the speed of light at work, but its not quite working, and i have run out of trouble shooting ideas, mostly.
i think of this journal as some sort of creative pressure valve.
hugs and kisses.