Daniel Patrick Fisher

This painting is awesome! Just had to revert to adolescence I was so excited!

Art or illustration? I think it's all a matter of degree. In the Sistine chapel, Michelangelo was given the assignment to illustrate the story of the bible and the last judgment, which he did. Great art or not? A simple rule of thumb would be; if we continue to find a work of art useful, inspirational, beautiful and full of insight about ourselves and the world, for hundreds (at the least) or even thousands of years, then it is great art. With the pickled ewe, let'e just say that all the votes aren't in yet- or even born. My understanding is that the same is pretty much true for scientific theory. It has to continue to be useful. Perhaps it isn't the actual image an artist produces that aids the scientist as much as the creative thinking it inspires. On the other hand, the invention of linear perspective by the artist Brunelleschi helped influence objectivity in scientific investigation. In a way, the artist helped the scientist to "see" more clearly. I think the same could be true today. (If you look at that picked ewe long enough....) Mike Smith Cosmos, It's just my subjective opinion, but I must say that your efforts in art demonstrate some remarkable ability. For your star painting you chose a square which presents some rather difficult visual problems. A square is one of the three basic geometric shapes. The shape itself becomes competition for what you put in it. With a rectangle, virtually anything you put in it becomes dominate over the shape itself. Bottom line; what you put in a square has to be pretty strong and yours is. Probably good that I didm't tell you all this before you started. Your woodland painting is very interesting! There is an obvious asymmetry to the composition, which I think we talked about before. Your specimen tree in the foreground is indeed a tree with tree parts, but given the way you painted it, it also also remarkably resembles a single leaf. Much unconscious symbolism there! I am most curious about the small, very expressive reddish tree in the lower left. I suspect there is an unconscious relevance, to what I don't know. Additionally, I love that you put the black where you put it, in the background, to represent the unknown. It is a distinct principle in art (scientifically verifiable) that the darkest colors are the closest. What you are saying in the painting is that we are much closer to the unknown than we think. Or maybe it is closer to us than we think?

Still, it is a difficult thing for me to visualize how two objects traveling at 99% the speed of light, in opposite directions, still can't reach the speed of light relative to each other. I know that the rule is that the speed of light is constant regardless of the motion of it's source, but the relative speed of the objects themselves is where I get confused.

Peter J, First of all, my good luck in having a dialogue with insightful, intelligent and challenging individuals, would never be considered by me to be a pain in the neck. You make a good point about the metaphysical foundation. Maybe I should explore that angle more. Way back in high school I made the proclamation that "the metaphysical world is that part of the physical world that we don't yet understand." And perhaps not so coincidentally, I would have to rather sheepishly admit that any insight I might have here with this theory came from some rather metaphysical experiences, and I don't mean drugs. I have always felt that it is the job of a good artist to see what others can't. I would even make the statement that talent has very little to do with being a good (or great) artist. At any one point in time there are tens of thousands of talented artists in the world who can adeptly describe what they see. Problem is, most of them don't see anything all that remarkable. It is only the few who do see something remarkable that become compelled, talent or not, to communicate it to others, whose lives are subsequently enriched and advanced by their vision. I will admit that the theme of existence was even mentioned in my original premise, so it, along with the nature of reality should stay in the discussion. Quite true that the picture of a universe consisting of reliably predictable building blocks belongs more to the nineteenth century than today. Just trying to take the Newtonian disclaimer and state that for the purposes of practical argument we might need to focus on that which is most familiar, or under our noses. It has always been my intent to advance this argument to far more difficult subjects, but I feel strongly that if I can't establish this point about ARU, then there is very little else I can offer since all other insights stem from this one. It is the alphabet for the rest.

Peter J, I've been directed toward Kant and Hegel before, but they are dealing with more sophisticated questions like the nature of being and the existence or nonexistence of reality. In my opinion these happen further down the line. I am interested in the most fundamental building block needed to construct our logical thought processes. Buddhism and Taoism are religions which by design are intended to relieve suffering- again not my concern. George Spencer Brown gets closer with his examination of consciousness, or self awareness. I would imagine both came in the early evolution of ARU. Might have misled you with my attempt at the oneness analogy. I was just trying to find some overlap. George Spencer Brown gets closer with his examination of consciousness, or self awareness. I would imagine both came in the early evolution of ARU. What it takes to "get" this theory, is to "see" the rational mind and it's moving parts, so to speak. Maybe we should imagine what hoola's "watcher" would see if he/it looked at our rational thinking mind. ALL of nature and the physical world breaks down into fundamental parts. Why would our logical mind be the single exception in the universe?

This discussion of what a void is has been very thought provoking and I will continue to study what both of you are saying. Thanks for the insights. As far as explaining what "ability to recognize uniqueness" is or means, I find it difficult to do more than paraphrase what's in my original premise and support, but it always helps to explore different angles. I am essentially attempting to explain how we think and reason. Maybe a little more ambitious than I thought! I am intentionally avoiding any aspect of emotion or intuition, even though we of course have thoughts about the aforementioned. With ARU we are able to pick up a stone, look at it, and know that it is different from it's surroundings. We are able to identify it and give it special meaning because of it's oneness. But the process is never static. Each "one" leads to another. Eventually we see that the stone is made of many other things, also possessing oneness. We begin to name things to keep track of them which leads to a far more sophisticated language than what we might have used as apes. A few million years pass and we continue to notice many things in this way, including things not physical, which we also assign meaning to and name. Each and every thing or thought has a quantity, or measurement that defines it. This measurement is basically it's relationship to other things and/or the whole. The things get very complex due to the fact that their definition depends on keeping track of the definitions of their many parts. All along this process I can see only one basic act of recognition, namely ARU. It is truly an amazing ability in that you can essentially direct it at anything. I hope this helps. If there is anything specifically in my original premise that seems unclear I would be happy to address it. I will readily admit that I have not done any research on the subject of the mechanics of thought. My only point in bringing it up is to hope to interest someone far more qualified than I am to take that on. I only found out recently that there are no similar theories out there. I spent 30+ years assuming it was common knowledge.

hoola, your rephrasing of bang to expression helped. It made me realize that all of the void would tend to be filled in every direction due in part to the effects of gravity. As far as ARU goes, I don't mean to imply that we invented logic. I see it (logic) as an inherent aspect of the universe that doesn't need us to exist. What fascinated me originally about this concept of ARU is that I couldn't find any construction of rational thought that required more than this single act(s) of recognizing the (unique) object, because we must simultaneously recognize the whole and the space between in order for any of it to happen. It is essentially the irreducible sum out of which all logical observations evolve. My analogy with the construction of life was meant to demonstrate that something incredibly complex could come from something relatively simple.

hoola, You seem to have some very interesting insights on the origin of, well- everything. I didn't think I was being quite that ambitious, but perhaps there's no way to avoid it. Maybe a sort of Pandora's box. Ever since I first began working on my theory, I have been struck by the similarities between religion and science. Both seem to have come from ARU. The purely objective point of view (which is rather holy in science circles) sounds much like the one perfect god. Additionally, it was Eve wanting to possess the knowledge of the kingdom of god that caused her to eat the apple. Her curiosity made her our first scientist. And even more intriguing is that her act (the acquisition of logic), was what separated us from other species, i.e.; the garden of eden. I have a question about the big band from an artist's point of view. If it was a big bang, an explosion, then there was an initial point of origin with everything fleeing that point. Wouldn't that leave a rather conspicuous empty spot somewhere? Given the force of the explosion, nothing could be headed back? I'm sure I have been told the answer to this in the past, but I have yet to make sense of it. Could you help? As regards math; you can't count anything unless you can "see" it as distinct from the whole (unique). This is the heart of my premise.

I did not mean to suggest that we discard logic. My sense is that anything else we discover will enhance it, perhaps exponentially. I think chaos looks like chaos to us because we expect it to behave in a predictable pattern. A different information gathering system might give us a better chance to make sense of it. I have been intrigued for some time by savants. They seem to know things without having to "figure". When you ask them how they know what they know, they just say "It's just there". Perhaps the information they are reading exists not in their head, but out in their environment. It just happens that they have not separated themselves from that information the way we have. If you look back at how I describe the mechanics of logic, the separation is a key part of the formula.

I can only guess of course, but I imagine that the ability to recognize uniqueness was a genetic mutation that gave the very earliest humanoids a distinct advantage over other species. I reason that this ability is genetic because we have had very little success teaching it to other species, even those with significant brain capacity equal to or surpassing ours. I also imagine that there may be more than one kind of logic, which is why it is necessary to define the kind of logic we primarily engage. My theory on the origin of logic could also be viewed as a theory on the mechanical structure of logic. Probably the only reason to separate the laws of physics from the laws of logic is to realize that there may be some laws of physics that don't follow the laws of logic. It would certainly figure that we would be helpless to discover or understand any such deviations because of our dependance (and insistence) on the laws of our logic system. One such law of physics that doesn't particularly follow what we know to be logical is the constant speed of light, being neither additive nor subtractive regardless of the motion of it's source. We have obviously bent the laws of logic over backwards to accommodate this and have subsequently ended up with increasingly illogical pictures of reality that are difficult to explain or visualize. I don't think anyone has considered the possibility that the handicap here might be the main tool we are using to see the world. Don't get me wrong, it's an incredible tool. One that works much better than any employed by monkeys or octopi, at least in terms of manipulating the environment. If we were to embark on an attempt to imagine a fundamentally different way to see the world, it would behove us to be very clear about the basic construction of the main tool we have been using up until now.

I don't see chaos as the opposite of logic. Our ability to think logically does give us the ability to recognize patterns. Some we see as ordered, some we see as disordered, or chaotic. When I talk about the origin of logic I am referring to a particular perceptive ability only we humans possess. I think we can assume that if we use this ability to discern order, or chaos for that matter, any such order or chaos inherent in the universe would have been there from the beginning. Memory, on the other hand, is something we share with other species. It definitely enhances logic as it does many other things, like emotion.

Imagine an astronaut in a space ship which, once it has left the earth's gravitational field, begins to accelerate continuously at 9.8 m/s2. I am imagining the ship's engine is efficient enough to accomplish this. By my calculation, he would be traveling at the speed of light, relative to his point of origin (earth), after 347.125 days. Assuming our space ship has a sufficiently sustaining life support system, our astronaut should be quiet happy and healthy, having spent all of that time in a simulated gravitational field. Ironically, he would have the sensation of being a body at rest the entire time. What law of physics makes this imaginary scenario impossible?

I am adding this if-then proposition concerning the backbone of my thesis in the hope that it will make what I am attempting to say more clear: If what we can ascertain about our reality is that it is made of objects, from god particles to super novas, and concepts are then formed, stemming from observations about the behavior of these objects, i.e.. objects in motion/events, then the primary perceptive facility needed to construct this picture of reality, is one which allows us to attach abstract significance to the object, isolating it as singular and distinct (a synonym for unique) from it’s surroundings. In addition I might point out that the holy grail of science is the "purely objective point of view", with the key word in the phrase being "objective" and the key word within that word being "object". Could be coincidence, but maybe not. Even "point of view" refers to the most pure object of all; a point in space.

Exactly how the core of our identity is formed would of course be a whole topic in itself. To reply in short I would just say: we recognize ourselves as unique, and yes, therefore distinctly different. Does my thesis on the origin of logic make sense to you?

Dekan: Thank you for YOUR thought provoking post. The most productive I've seen so far. "Logic" is indeed a slippery word and thank you for mentioning the root. I would imagine the very first "words" referred to objects, and subsequently the base for language. As for commonality, I do not see it as a contradiction to ARU. The concept itself comes from identifying two things as uniquely similar. Also as I mentioned in the support, no matter how similar, each is itself and not the other. I am not stressing uniqueness in the typical sense of the word or it's common use. I am stressing what it takes to create the concept of uniqueness, which is it's relationship to the whole, with "relationship", in the simplest terms being a measurement. Measurement creates definition and anything can be defined either by how similar or how different it is to another thing, each definition making the same statement in different ways. I could say, for instance: "My theory of ARU is 50 percent rational." Some one else might say: "It's 50 percent irrational." I should also mention at this point that I am well aware that a thought isn't generally considered to be an "action". If anything, the exact opposite. That being said, I must admit that I myself had trouble making sense of this notion of ARU until I began to see it as an activity, or action. Not physical perhaps, but still somehow similar.

I have shared this theory off and on over the years and have noticed that almost every one has a curious aversion toward even contemplating it. I think it is because it reveals the core of our identity, which is constructed using the means the theory describes. Our identity is a very sacred and private place where intrusion is not welcome. I would love to see if some one here is brave enough to responds The Origin of Logic Briefly, the theory sees the origin of our logic system as similar to the origin of life, where all of the complexities of life/logic are made of a single act repeated over and over. In both cases that act is simple, yet far more complex than anything that precedes it. In the case of logic, it is the ability to recognize uniqueness, or ARU. As with the creation of a single cell, several important things must occur simultaneously. An object cannot be unique without a whole from which it is separate. The object is unique, the whole is unique and the separation is unique. The separation gives birth to measurement, direction and difference. The object/whole gives birth to existence since it cannot exist without the potential for it to not exist. Recognizing the uniqueness of events creates time. Probably by the time we are adults we have layered up hundreds of thousands or even millions of repetitions of the act of recognizing uniqueness. I believe ARU is also what separates us from the apes or other animals. One could make a credible case for early humans standing upright in order to better see/understand the whole. This would account for the evolutionary suddenness of this event since, clearly, no single part can be created without all of the other parts. Other distinctly human characteristics such as social structure, language (unique sounds must be assigned to unique objects), tool making and belief in the afterlife, would soon follow. It might also be reasonable to assume that ARU was a genetic mutation giving the primates who possessed it an immediate and distinct advantage over those that did not. If this were true, then the gene responsible would still be present today and could be isolated Support: With ARU, we are able to take our temporal experience of reality and construct a conceptual version of reality. The primary tool used for this is measurement, which occurs when the object is separated from the whole, producing a difference. No measurement in physical reality has any meaning without the conceptualizing produced by ARU. The first measurements were probably simple comparisons that were visual in nature. Erg: a stone is more effective than a fist, a sharp stone is more effective still, a long stick augments the power of a blow, etc. More complex measurements in the form of logic came later. With simple logic, two propositions are analyzed, evaluated, compared, (all forms of measurement) to infer (sum up) a conclusion which creates a third, previously unknown proposition. A proposition is a fact or collection of facts. A fact consists of observed objects or events (objects in motion), defined the only way they can be which is; by their relationship to (separation from) the whole. This again is a product of ARU. “Whole” itself, must be defined as a concept since it cannot be physically observed either in stasis or in motion. No matter how complex the logic gets, the tool that drives it is still one form or another of measurement made possible by the “action” of ARU. It also follows that the concept of uniqueness applies to all of reality. Even objects or events that are by the best observation identical. nonetheless remain unique, since each is itself and not the other. Even the concept itself, as a noun, is a unique “object” of thought Daniel Patrick Fisher