- 30 Apr 2017 19:23
#14801424
That was very gentlemanly of Niels Bohr to acknowledge his inspiration. It is the mark of the plagiarist to studiously fail to do this, clearly Bohr was better than that.
Dualist metaphysics is easy and it seems to fit as a model so well for so many things: hot vs cold, alive vs dead (cat!), strong vs weak, nadir vs zenith, friend vs foe.. and anything that is not of the extreme looks like graduations in between the extreme: warm is somewhere that is both of hot and cold, sick or wounded is both of alive and dead etc.
It is so easy, one might even say facile or specious, that those too much in love with dualism become like the man whose only tool is a hammer and so to whom all the world looks like a nail. Yet this metaphysics is a cypher that fails as a metaphysical model of far too much on scrutiny...
Let's take the temperature dialectic, hot vs cold. Is that all we need to model this phenomena? Actually no, really pressure and volume have something to say also. So for gases a better description will be this: PV=nRT and this is not a duality. How about phases of matter? How to make that a duality? Solid vs Fluid? Yet that doesn't capture the reality at all so we have to say there are four phases: solid, liquid, gas and plasma.
Let's consider friend vs foe. We can apply this dualism to everyone, everyone has friends and everyone has foes, so this dualism works for everyone? Except no because there are n entities each with x friends and y foes and each of those friends and foes are entities with different friends and different foes. Meaning really friend vs foe is not a duality but a plurality.
Marxists like to make a duality over social castes, they take the poly factional reality and make it into a dualism of proletariat vs bourgeoisie in their minds. Yet something as complex as society needs an n-dimensional model and indeed the classic indian model of society as poly-factional mix of warriors, priests, merchants, workers, and criminals while far more descriptive with its five vectors it is still too crude.
Diamat has the virtue of simplicity but the vice of wild inaccuracy. Hence the time has come for a polyist metaphysics to replace the lameness of diamat.
The solution to 1984 is 1973!
Potemkin wrote:They also invented the 'complemtarity principle' of modern quantum mechanics first too. Fun fact: when Niels Bohr, the guy who came up with the standard 'Copenhagen Interpretation' of quantum mechanics, was knighted by the Danish government for his contributions to science, he chose to place the Chinese yin-yang symbol in a prominent position on his coat of arms, to signify his intellectual debt to Chinese Taoism.
That was very gentlemanly of Niels Bohr to acknowledge his inspiration. It is the mark of the plagiarist to studiously fail to do this, clearly Bohr was better than that.
Dualist metaphysics is easy and it seems to fit as a model so well for so many things: hot vs cold, alive vs dead (cat!), strong vs weak, nadir vs zenith, friend vs foe.. and anything that is not of the extreme looks like graduations in between the extreme: warm is somewhere that is both of hot and cold, sick or wounded is both of alive and dead etc.
It is so easy, one might even say facile or specious, that those too much in love with dualism become like the man whose only tool is a hammer and so to whom all the world looks like a nail. Yet this metaphysics is a cypher that fails as a metaphysical model of far too much on scrutiny...
Let's take the temperature dialectic, hot vs cold. Is that all we need to model this phenomena? Actually no, really pressure and volume have something to say also. So for gases a better description will be this: PV=nRT and this is not a duality. How about phases of matter? How to make that a duality? Solid vs Fluid? Yet that doesn't capture the reality at all so we have to say there are four phases: solid, liquid, gas and plasma.
Let's consider friend vs foe. We can apply this dualism to everyone, everyone has friends and everyone has foes, so this dualism works for everyone? Except no because there are n entities each with x friends and y foes and each of those friends and foes are entities with different friends and different foes. Meaning really friend vs foe is not a duality but a plurality.
Marxists like to make a duality over social castes, they take the poly factional reality and make it into a dualism of proletariat vs bourgeoisie in their minds. Yet something as complex as society needs an n-dimensional model and indeed the classic indian model of society as poly-factional mix of warriors, priests, merchants, workers, and criminals while far more descriptive with its five vectors it is still too crude.
Diamat has the virtue of simplicity but the vice of wild inaccuracy. Hence the time has come for a polyist metaphysics to replace the lameness of diamat.
The solution to 1984 is 1973!