[jakell]

It never ceases to surprise me how few Americans have even heard of Charles Sanders Pierce, despite the fact that he was probably the greatest American philosopher who ever lived. He was a much better philosopher than Emerson or William James, for example. He essentially founded the discipline of semiotics. I made extensive use of his third trichotomy of signs in my PhD research, for example. The work of Emerson or James is of only historical interest now, yet the work of Pierce is still fresh and relevant even to this day. There should be statues of this guy on every public square.

TBH, I'm fairly new to what might be called 'formal' philosophy.

It's no matter though because, going into it, we find that it mostly describes extensions and variants of normal thought processes anyway. It's nice to discover though that, when one happens across what seems to be something novel, someone has been there before and done the legwork, which is where knowing the various philosophers comes in, they are handy 'bookmarks'.

[jakell]

To dumb down the conversation a bit, am I the only one with the song stuck in my head because of the the thread title?

Me too now.. damn you!

[RhetoricThug]

I do not think there is some kind of intrinsic meaning hidden away in the cosmos

And you call yourself a scientist?

Just being pragmatic.

No, by definition, you're not being pragmatic. Also, stop posting one-line hiccups.

Ignorance fallacy

"if a tree falls and no-one is there, does it make a sound?"

Are you bi-lingual? εάν ένα δέντρο πέφτει και κανείς δεν είναι εκεί, το κάνει έναν ήχο... If a foreign language appears and no-one is there to translate it, does it form meaning? The idea that the world revolves around our relative translation of the thing-in-itself does not nullify the thing-in-itself. "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"

3 is indeed a 'magic number', just like 0, 1, 7, pi, e or i (the square root of -1). The equation e^(i*pi) = -1 is probably the most 'magical' in all of mathematics.

Oh, and the philosopher C.S Pierce was obsessed with the number 3. He believed that his discovery of the importance of 'threeness' was his most important philosophical breakthrough. Reading his work, it's difficult not to agree with him.

As Yevgeny Zamyatin proclaimed in WE: “Now I no longer live in our clear, rational world; I live in the ancient nightmare world, the world of square roots of minus one,” because according to Zamyatin (D-503), our world is kept alive by heretics (dialectical tension, of course).


How long ago it was-during my school years-when I first encountered √ -1. A vivid memory, as though cut out of time: the brightly lit spherical hall, hundreds of round boys' heads, and Plapa, our mathematics teacher. We nicknamed him Plapa. He was badly worn out, coming apart, and when the monitor plugged him in, the loud-speakers would start with "Pla-pla-pla-tsh-sh-sh," and only then go on to the day's lesson. One day Plapa told us about irrational numbers, and, I remember, I cried, banged my fists on the table, and screamed, "I don't want √ -1! Take √ -1 out of me!" This irrational number had grown into me like something foreign, alien, terrifying. It devoured me- it was impossible to conceive, to render harmless, because it was outside ratio.
Zamyatin, Yevgeny, and Mirra Ginsburg. "Eighth Entry (Irrational Root, Triangle, R-13)." We. New York: Avon, 1983. pg 39. Print.

C.S. Peirce did not discover anything new, he simply reorganized the material world to fit his will & representation. Perhaps Peirce rediscovered Pythagoras through the Akashic records, retrieving sections of The Library of Alexandria . This is why I prefer Arthur Schopenhauer. Pragmatists seem to be obsessed with the notion that the material world is not a symptom of hidden process. Peirce internally struggled with Kant's Critique of Pure Reason because he refused to see the material world as an extension of hidden process. If we pierce the veil or the epidermis layer of our native interface (mind-matter interface) we can transcend its finite expression. The idea that our reality contains infinite potential (conscious energy) within multiple dimensions of form (expression) transcends the simplistic world of Newtonian mechanics. We may honor C.S. Peirce for his fixed perspective, but we mustn't applaud his semiosis, due to the nature of each relative translation (defined through induction/deduction) we produce through our applied consciousness. In other words, C.S. Peirce is a product (or byproduct) of his time/space, because the unified field of our applied consciousness determined his logic. Marshall McLuhan (classically trained Grammarian) studied input process output to its logical conclusion, that being: all forms are shaped by the information loop (the medium is the message, talk about brevity). If you follow that reasoning back to the human mind, you find that everything is will & representation and matter is a malleable construct. The unified field of experience is one simultaneous happening, but due to your finite sensibilities you fail to see the whole system.

Potemkin, space is not empty and everything is connected. The medium is the message. Yes, material reality can be inspected and explained, but it is the epidermis layers of our existence. Hence why I'm writing 'Poverty of the Visible Spectrum.' The world is one symphony and we are instruments creating human music.
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=167720

It's nice to discover though that, when one happens across what seems to be something novel, someone has been there before and done the legwork, which is where knowing the various philosophers comes in, they are handy 'bookmarks'.

Naturally stacking biological neural network (computers and books being an extension of it).

[noemon]

Mod notes: Do not take the conversation off-topic.

[Besoeker]

:eh: Thanks for the vague remark. Are you trying to insert deconstructionism? If so, I'll respond... 1 or 2 or e = functional human tools we use to organize things inside space/time.

You could say that about any number - or numbers in general.
If any one is "magic" then they all are or none is.

[RhetoricThug]

You could say that about any number - or numbers in general.

Do you have dyslexia? If you read the rest of my reply I briefly critique deconstructionism and explain where the magic actually occurs.

The real magic is in our consciousness, not in the number or letter. We gain power over material reality through our native interface (sensory resonance) by constructing cognitive patterns. Nonetheless, quantities and qualities or numbers and letters appear as natural phenomena in the all-at-once world (simultaneous happening/experience) we call reality.

Through conscious extension of human cognition, 3 is a magic number.

Furthermore, if you follow my posts, I suggest: Pythagoras mathematically established 3 as one principle form. The sacredness of the triad and its symbol- the triangle- may be derived from the form of the monad and duad, giving birth to sequential order while reinforcing human LOGOS. Without the concept of 3, science & math would be incomplete.

If any one is "magic" then they all are or none is.

Are you still frustrated by the word magic? If you treat our physical world or natural phenomena as encrypted data, the number 3 is like a master key. The number 3 may unlock other numbers and data sets.

That Matt Dillahunty character is not a serious thinker, he's an activist. The whole video is some kind of atheistic circle jerk. Matt here starts with a so-called 'mystical' veneration and ends up showing it is meaningless, no shit, he is confirming his inner mutterings. Many physicists, philosophers, mathematicians recognize number 3's magic (check out their expositions).

So, here we have a sticking-point that tells us something ie, it is significant to us personally. The move onwards from binary thinking to more considered thinking might be straightforward for some individuals, but collectively it's a bit of a hurdle, and if we think that dialogue is the way forward then we are stuck (at present) somewhere between 2 and 3. Three is the next step we look towards, what some may yearn for.

Yeah, it's called a bell curve, in a modern and properly functioning society (dynamic socioeconomic occupation) 'knowledge of the number 3' would follow normal distribution. Note, I'm not talking about IQ, I'm talking about occupation (statistically, most people will not study or use mathematics every single day). How can you expect the group to have enough insight to comment on the question- 'is three a magic number?' 3 is not the next step we yearn for, it is a natural product of nature. We call it procreation, sexual biological reproduction, 1+2=3. Perhaps procreation is biologically driven, but I'm going to assume that that is not what you meant by "what some yearn for." We operate through the mind/matter INTERFACE, we are the universe. We are information mediums, passing through information mediums, human melodies playing music inside the grand symphony/resonance called reality.

"I would not use the word 'magic' or anything like it" Wow, I know, wouldn't want to raise any eyebrows with all those CRAZY words. I get it, machines like prompt/command sequences, but man, are they teaching kids nuance and metaphor these days? How are you going to formulate your own ideas, theories, etc, if you fail to have faith in anything beyond confirmed/accepted knowledge? Science is not a way of life (dogma), science is a methodology or tool we use to probe the unknown.

[Potemkin]

You could say that about any number - or numbers in general.
If any one is "magic" then they all are or none is.

In fact, it is the relationships between numbers which is 'magical', not the numbers themselves. After all, what makes a prime number prime? The fact that it is not divisible by another other numbers other than itself and 1. This is a relationship between numbers. Likewise, the 'magic formula' e^(i*pi)=-1 describes a particular relationship between important yet apparently unrelated numbers. The 'magical' thing is that everything is in a subtle, creative yet fundamentally elegant relationship with everything else. The Cosmos has a structure, and that structure is endlessly generative and creative.

[RhetoricThug]

In fact, it is the relationships between numbers which is 'magical', not the numbers themselves. After all, what makes a prime number prime? The fact that it is not divisible by another other numbers other than itself and 1. This is a relationship between numbers. Likewise, the 'magic formula' e^(i*pi)=-1 describes a particular relationship between important yet apparently unrelated numbers. The 'magical' thing is that everything is in a subtle, creative yet fundamentally elegant relationship with everything else. The Cosmos has a structure, and that structure is endlessly generative and creative.

"Yet many creative spirits have found inspiration in the idea that the Creator (Generative Principle) might be, among other things, an artist whose esthetic motivations we can appreciate and share- or even, in daring speculation, that the Creator is primarily a creative artist."
-A Beautiful Question: Finding Nature's Deep Design, Frank Wilczek.


"Pythagoras also discovered, in the laws of stringed instruments, simple and surprising relationships between numbers and musical harmony. That discovery completes a trinity, Mind-Matter-Beauty, with Number as the linking thread."

I could go on and on citing Kepler, Euclid, Plato, Brunelleshci, Maxwell, Tesla, RhetoricThug, etc...

[jakell]

In response to the guy who says all of this forum are "mental midgets", promises to leave and then doesn't:

I used the phrase "I would not use the word 'magic' or anything like it" because, like too many words nowadays, it's a 'trigger' word that can induce incontinence in materialists and Occult fanboys alike, although for different reasons. Reflect for a moment on the effect it has had on you.
I wanted to start from a more solid position which is why I put it aside.

This said, I later noticed that the article I cited at the end of the OP is in a series about magic and, even more interestingly, it's an attempt to deal with this very issue of attitudes to that particular word. So, I will take a closer look at this when cooler minds start to prevail.

[Besoeker]

Pythagoras mathematically established 3 as one principle form.

Care to explain how?

[One Degree]

How are you going to formulate your own ideas, theories, etc, if you fail to have faith in anything beyond confirmed/accepted knowledge? Science is not a way of life (dogma), science is a methodology or tool we use to probe the unknown.

Well said. This is the difference between genius and mediocrity. Your IQ does not matter if you understand this.
Question. Question. Question.

[RhetoricThug]

@One Degree

Naturally stacking biological neural network, The micro and the macro = NOW.

I used the phrase "I would not use the word 'magic' or anything like it" because, like too many words nowadays, it's a 'trigger' word that can induce incontinence in materialists and Occult fanboys alike, although for different reasons. Reflect for a moment on the effect it has had on you.
I wanted to start from a more solid position which is why I put it aside.

Let me get this straight, are you suggesting that intellectual somnambulists use preconceived notions while conversing with other intellectual somnambulists? Sounds to me like a learning disability. See, I'm familiar with nuance, and since modern science (neurosciences, etc) does not offer one satisfactory explanation concerning human consciousness, I can safely use the word magic to describe sensory resonance. Human consciousness = supernatural force. Why would I be triggered by language, what does that mean? Are you describing a trip wire or mechanical apparatus? Luckily, my mind is not a mechanical apparatus, my mind is a complex biological supercomputer. I'm not a puke-bot regurgitating thought simulations. So how are you going to trigger my hard drive if the software you're using is kiddie script?

Once again, space is not empty and everything is connected, so stop fragmenting the whole system.

This said, I later noticed that the article I cited at the end of the OP is in a series about magic and, even more interestingly, it's an attempt to deal with this very issue of attitudes to that particular word. So, I will take a closer look at this when cooler minds start to prevail.

Once again, are you frustrated by the number three, or the word magic?

Care to explain how?

Sure, are you familiar with symmetry? (I get it, anthropomorphic geometry, etc. BTW, if you're going to respond with, 'it's just our senses and human bias creating perception,' you should log off the computer and give up technology, because it's just your senses and human bias creating this thread)

Deep Design


Please note: I subscribe to the theory of transculturalism: Transculturalism is defined as "seeing oneself in the other". Transcultural (pronunciation: trans kul′c̸hər əl or tranz kul′c̸hər əl) is in turn described as "extending through all human cultures" or "involving, encompassing, or combining elements of more than one culture". Since space is not empty and everything is connected. Thus Pythagoras may not be the 'original,' but he's is now a human archetype (compressed figure containing ideas).

"Pythagorean triples" are integer solutions to the Pythagorean Theorem, a2 + b2 = c2. I like "triplets," but "triples" seems to be the favored term. For a right triangle, the c side is the hypotenuse, the side opposite the right angle.

The Mystery of Numbers
Of all shapes, the circle is the parent of all following shapes. When a circle is mirrored, two mirrors are created. These two circles side by side build a foundation for all numbers. The overlap of the circles allows each one to share the center of the other. This shaped created is called the vesica piscis (Latin for “fish’s bladder”). From this shape, a triangle, square, and pentagon can be produced. And the relationship between these figures justifies the existences of further number principles.


The triad represents the number three. It is the first born and the eldest number. The equilateral triangle serves as its geometric representation and is the first shape to emerge from the vesica piscis. The triangle contains the smallest area within the greater perimeter. The number three is the only number equal to the sum of the previous numbers. For instance, one plus two equals three. And three is also the only number whose sum also equals their product. Or, one plus two plus three equals one times two times three. The triad signifies prudence, wisdom, piety, friendship, peace, and harmony. The triangle represents balance and is a polygon of stability and strength.
http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/EMAT6680Fa06 ... goras.html

The Frequency is the Message
Pythagoras's musical rules deserve, I think, to be considered the first quantitative laws of Nature ever discovered. (Astronomical regularities, beginning with regular alternation of night and day, were of course noticed much earlier. Calendar-keeping and casting horoscopes, using mathematics to predict or reconstruct positions of the Sun, Moon, and planets, were significant technologies before Pythagoras was born. But empirical observations about specific objects are quite different from general laws of Nature.)

Bucky Fuller
The geodesic dome is one of R. Buckminster Fuller’s most utilized inventions. With the goal of creating a structure that would cover the largest area with the least amount of material, Bucky applied the calculations of Kepler, which ascertain that the planets are held in orbit by tensional forces. Just as Pythagoras delineated that the “music of the spheres” resonate from singularity in the phi ratio scale, Plato accurately mapped out the orbits of the planets using the resonant geometry of the platonic solids and Kepler discovered the planets are held by an invisible resonant unified field generated from singularity as well.
http://www.nwbotanicals.org/vault/writi ... pEarth.pdf



Visualize sound. I've been saying the same thing over and over again in multiple threads and I'm getting bored.

What do you not understand?

[Besoeker]

Sure, are you familiar with symmetry?

Of course I am.

[RhetoricThug]

Of course I am.

Of course you are.

[jakell]

I must admit to being impressed by this forum. Several members seem to be 'on to' Besoeker's routine, which has been almost impenetrable (or at least produced a stalemate) in other environments.

Even RT here has resisted the urge to direct another stream of consciousness at him. Signs of continence maybe where I had originally perceived a dearth of it.

[Besoeker]

Of course you are.

And a lot of other things besides.

Examples of symmetry are all around us, some obscure, some mundane. But that doesn't make it magic.

[RhetoricThug]

But that doesn't make it magic.

Care to explain why?

I must admit to being impressed by this forum. Several members seem to be 'on to' Besoeker's routine, which has been almost impenetrable (or at least produced a stalemate) in other environments.

Even RT here has resisted the urge to direct another stream of consciousness at him.

You're impressed by one-line posts? By stalemate, do you mean lack of engagement?

Or 1 or 2 or e.

Just being pragmatic.

Agree. Euler didn't just lubricate moving parts............

You could say that about any number - or numbers in general.
If any one is "magic" then they all are or none is.

Care to explain how?

Of course I am.

And a lot of other things besides.

Let's replace Besoeker with a chatbot. We'd get the same result.

[political]

Visualize sound. I've been saying the same thing over and over again in multiple threads and I'm getting bored.

What do you not understand?

That was awesome. I would like to recreate that.

[Lexington]

3 is indeed a 'magic number', just like 0, 1, 7, pi, e or i (the square root of -1). The equation e^(i*pi) = -1 is probably the most 'magical' in all of mathematics.

I'd say elegant over magical.

It's like having a toolbox, a problem, and set of screws. Do I need 0, pi, or e to solve this (or more probably) the arithmetic, trigonometric, or other transcendental functions to solve this?

C.S Pierce

Whoops, I spelt his name wrong. Lol. He is, of course, Charles Sanders Peirce (pronounced "purse"). Lol.

Good boy.

[Besoeker]

Care to explain why?

The examples of symmetry abound. If you draw, for example, a three sided figure. Usually called a triangle. That incorporates the "magic" number three.
Make it an isosceles triangle and is an example of symmetry about an axis drawn from the apex of the two equal sides and bisecting the third. Nothing macic about it. Just simple geometry.

There are countless examples of symmetry in pretty much all fields. Nature, archictecture, science, mathematics, engineering. No magic involved.