Re: Can You Spare a Paradigm?Transformations

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Salon ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Erol Abit on March 01, 1999 at 13:49:34:

In Reply to: Hey Brother, Can You Spare a Paradigm? posted by Michael Wendorf on February 28, 1999 at 22:02:05:

One may note that The more scientific progressions The more error propagations? Sorry.. I'll try again and will not use the html tags next time
Some Random Thoughts:

Dear Michael,

The use of evolution and nature in the same theory has always seemed to me to be a contradiction.

Let me emphasize these words in one of your sentences In his view, the developmental process is one of evolution from primitive beginnings through successive stages that are characterized by an increasingly detailed and refined understanding of nature.

Once I saw these words, I immediately thought this theory is based on some axioms formed by observations and experiences of humans. This is the thought or the belief of "all is already in nature". If all not in the nature we must introduce another parameter, ie the time. The nature we now and always see is in the past in time. Who has been able to success to define the nature in the future? No one. Who had been able to determine (not "to predict" which is related to probability) imaginary numbers which are/were not natural numbers just before it was invented after a need? Today I can consider these numbers as natural numbers since it is not new anymore.
I could aggree with Kuhn if he added in all time. Then the theory would perhaps be exact. But then, when successive stages happen in all time (a deterministic thought), another virtual space must be introduced but the realists or physicans will never be satisfied with this new virtual space unless it is proved as an object. (the internet can be a transitional object between virtual and real lifes? Who knows that next year I will perhaps send a rug itself via laser transformation on the webs).
Anyways, the connection of the successive evolutions (time dependent phenomena) to the nature (to me, the nature can be considered a space like a frozen object including "perhaps" all, perhaps not all but certainly not in all time) in one theory is problematic. Such theories which connect the space and time argumants seem to me to be deterministic, subjective theories which can be supported by some belief systems.

What ebay is doing now is just the transformation of one thing from a real/virtual space to a virtual/real space by real time processes. Turkotek does this noncommercially in a scholarly environment. I call these transformations from one space to another the games of transitions like playing with calculus (virtual) before solving a physical problem (real) or loving (virtual work) before a baby (real) borning process. Another real example of transformation is our case, from a virtual web visits on the internet to a real visit and a real object, a rug we wove. So the paradigma by internet is in the travelling itself but enhanced more from/to virtual/real lifes and in the realization of mathematical imaginary objects to the real objects and the rugs take their parts of benefits.
I think that the real missions of the internet will first be seen by means of rugs "after the curtain (if there is) is opened suddenly or gradually".

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Salon ] [ FAQ ]