Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Would be grateful if some erudite Dakkite could point me in the direction of anything with regards to the concept that physical objects are actually or may be perceived to be, events.

I heard the idea posited briefly on the radio earlier this week. But the nature of the programme was such that it was an idea that had a two minute explaination as part of Radio 3's Free Thinking season.

The only other reference I have is in the Book "Blackfoot Physics" which mentions that some Indigenous Americans do not use nouns but have verbs to describe things.

Would be grateful for some help as Google is proving to be a chocolate teapot.
Thanks for looking


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Believe it is called Event Ontology as proposed by Heraclitus.

i had written my diploma work on event management, does your questions aim in that direction?

vik

If only there was a network of networks amongst which you could find information by entering a string of relevant symbols...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/events/

When in doubt, start with Stanford or Wikipedia and follow the citations to primary sources.

Nurglitch, not just an octopus

Not sure Vik
From the little I have managed to find out, some of the process theory has been applied to management and IT systems.

Part of the difficulty I had with google was the amount of hits that were related to digital music.

So the answer is very likely there is a connection. However I am more concerned with the theories from a philosophical point of view.

It is also called process ontology. I am interested in the world view that views the world as processes rather than the Western tradition of objects

i read a very good piece of literature from terry pratchet and his co writers Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen on the nature of processes rather than points in time and our view of many things in normal live and their understanding... a good read and gave my my first english scientific read that got me to better understand einstein and some other geniuses...

you should look up shroedingers cat...that gave me an insight i hadn´t asked for...

vik

Last time I tried to look up a cat I damn near got my eyes scratched out!
To be fair I also would object to a stranger suddenly sticking his nose up my jacksey!

jep, and if you read that particular book and a further one of that author you would be in for an even harder laugh^^

vik

Try Eckarte Tolle's "Ego: The Current State of Humanity" it deals with the subject of people using objects to describe themselves. (warning: it isn't an easy read)

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Would be grateful if some erudite Dakkite could point me in the direction of anything with regards to the concept that physical objects are actually or may be perceived to be, events.

I heard the idea posited briefly on the radio earlier this week. But the nature of the programme was such that it was an idea that had a two minute explaination as part of Radio 3's Free Thinking season.

The only other reference I have is in the Book "Blackfoot Physics" which mentions that some Indigenous Americans do not use nouns but have verbs to describe things.

Would be grateful for some help as Google is proving to be a chocolate teapot.
Thanks for looking


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Believe it is called Event Ontology as proposed by Heraclitus.

Read some Hawking....he touches on this kind of thing in the added material in the newest (ILLUSTRATED!!!!) version of A Brief History of Time.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/glossary


Basically once you get to the sub atomic level, objects can really only be described by probability. Its almost like if you look closely enough, the material world isn't really there....very very fascination.


I'd also reccomend the DVD "The Elegant Universe". Very easy to understand video on String Theory. Also, Stephen Hawkings "The Theory of Everything" is an AMAZING DVD dealing with things from black holes to superstrings and branes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheesecat wrote:Try Eckarte Tolle's "Ego: The Current State of Humanity" it deals with the subject of people using objects to describe themselves. (warning: it isn't an easy read)

Read Power of Now.....very very enlightening. Not what I'd call "reading for amusement" though.

A Brief History of Time is utter bs when it comes to philosophy: dude couldn't even describe Kant correctly.

Also, I'm surprised that the Chibi Bodge-Battle has heard of process ontology and not also made the connection of Alfred North Whitehead.

And incidentally, if you're going to invoke Heraclitus, then congratulations, you have just discovered that the Western tradition of philosophy encompassed and surpassed the Eastern tradition something like 3000 years ago. There's a reason the West invent computers...

Nurglitch wrote:A Brief History of Time is utter bs when it comes to philosophy: dude couldn't even describe Kant correctly.

Word, Hawking ain't gak.

Nurglitch wrote:
There's a reason the West invent computers...

Wait, math is pertinent to philosophy? Is that why I had to take multivariate calculus?

Nurglitch wrote:A Brief History of Time is utter bs when it comes to philosophy:

Cause Hawking is a philosopher and its a philosophy book?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:A Brief History of Time is utter bs when it comes to philosophy: dude couldn't even describe Kant correctly.

Word, Hawking ain't gak.

Hey, give the guy a break. he's past his glory days, but I think he does QUITE well for a guy that can't even twitch his pinky toe.

I find it mildly offensive to call a brilliant man "ain't gak". He's contributed enormously to the state of modern physics.

Cosmology is basically philosophy, plus math.

dogma wrote:Cosmology is basically philosophy, plus math.

Higher end physics does border on philosophy....thats no doubt. However the things that are based on mathematical probability, and testable theory ARE science. Things such as String Theory, multidimensional reality, etc pretty much are philosophy....even physicists admit this.


Let me be clear.....I have only a laymans understanding of these subjects. I recognize that as such, I will be out of my depth if anyone has a real background in physics. I do the best I can though.....not a mathy person.

You think that philosophy and science are mutually exclusive?

dogma wrote:You think that philosophy and science are mutually exclusive?

No, he is saying that you cant discount hawking for a lack of philosophy when the book was written to be science.

Actually yes, you can discount Hawking for getting the philosophy wrong if he's going to do physics. It colours his credibility when considering the philosophical foundations of his physics. One might say, if he can't follow syllogistic logic, how well is Hawking going to apply modern logics?

Einstein's physics, for example, depends not only on tensors, but their application to an eternal and unchanging universe that Einstein took as his foundation.

Exactly what Nurglitch said.

Its also telling that wheels was wrong about his own radiation.

A.N. Whitehead is on the list already
ditto Bergson, Deleuze and a few others.

I'm in the same boat as you Peter.
As I understand it string am M theories are decried as being unscientific in some quarters because (at least at present) they are undemonstrable.
The Elegant Universe was very good imho. Have a copy of Greene's subsequent book iirc somewhere, stacked with a lot of other unread such titles since the house was rewired.


The claim that Western philosophy surpassed the Eastern tradition 3000 years ago sounds suspect. The Upanishads preceded the birth of Heraclitus AFAIK.
Also the concept isn't the principle of change somewhat marginalised in western tradition?

May I ask a favour of those of you who have studied philosophy? Please could you remember that not all of us have done so and as laypersons would appreciate some help. thanks.

Would also appreciate tempering language in reference to someone's physical restrictions. The chap's science and philosophy is one thing. Nature of the game. But his physical aspect is of no consequence to the discussion.
Thank you.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
As I understand it string am M theories are decried as being unscientific in some quarters because (at least at present) they are undemonstrable.
The Elegant Universe was very good imho. Have a copy of Greene's subsequent book iirc somewhere, stacked with a lot of other unread such titles since the house was rewired.

More that its not testable. If you can't put a theory to some form of proof oriented test (even a mathematical construct) then it by default becomes a philosophical question. Which is where the lines begin to blur. The closer we look at the universe, the more insubstantial and there by fundamentally untestable it becomes.

Discounting Hawkings contributions to science because you don't like his theories from a philosophical stance seems a bit odd to me. <shrug>

Sorry that is what I meant, thanks for the corrrection.

dogma wrote:Exactly what Nurglitch said.

Its also telling that wheels was wrong about his own radiation.

Dude....please show a bit more respect. Making fun of herp derps is one thing, but the man is legitimately viewed as an international treasure. He's also been married more than once, and fathered plenty of kids while contributing enormously to the progress of modern science. He has his faults, but they are vastly outweighed by his positive aspects.

TLDR, you try to get laid looking like that and see how well you do. (So help me Shuma if you start yelling STRAWMAN....)



First



Second



Besides, the scientific community did a good job of pointing out the faults with another smart dude in his post prime years.....seems to me that he did a bit of good for mankind.

The Upanishads are religious texts... Although it should probably be mentioned that the Greek religious tradition likewise arose from the calcification of philosophy, so putting Heraclitus as the starting point for Western philosophy is about as foolish as using the Bible to calculate the age of the Earth.

Mind you, his comment that Homer should be taken from the [poetry] contests and be flogged is comedy gold. So there's that.

Not following the point of these observations.

Firstly I haven't placed Heraclitus as the founding father of Western Philosophy.
I only used his concepts as an example of describing the world in terms of flux or changing events rather than objects.

Secondly, the Upanishads are still valid from my point of view as an illustration of such metaphysical discourse.

At what point would Eastern philosophy be emperical or secular in a western sense? Are the teachings of Buddha or Lao Tzu religious or philosophical? IIRC they were at least contemporaneous with the greek scholars.

It is finally, not really of any import who did what first.

Ah my bad! misunderstood what was said, which was a typical assertion that western philosophy is superior to eastern thought.

That is of even less relevance than who did what first.

But that is also beside the point.
What I am trying to find out and understand is what has been thought regarding the world as process or event rather than as object.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Dude....please show a bit more respect. Making fun of herp derps is one thing, but the man is legitimately viewed as an international treasure.

Illegitimately in my mind. Dude isn't wry good at math.

Say what you will about Wheels; he makes a great Idol.

Nurglitch wrote:Say what you will about Wheels; he makes a great Idol.

Nurglitch wrote:If only there was a network of networks amongst which you could find information by entering a string of relevant symbols...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/events/

When in doubt, start with Stanford or Wikipedia and follow the citations to primary sources.

Nurglitch, the mad-gician.

Peter Wiggin wrote:I find it mildly offensive to call a brilliant man "ain't gak". He's contributed enormously to the state of modern physics.

Then you will be offended by many philosophy debates in the years to come. "That guy who is internationally respected and has written multiple important books on the subject is actually a bit rubbish" is basically the start to every second philosophy discussion.