The idealizations, so essential for physics and other sciences, are often seen as reflecting the original conditions, before any pollution, so to speak: the things how they really are.
But actually these things show their supposed “true colors” not before they appear in a very special environment. In a space that often needs lots of efforts to be produced. Only there they can multiply and so come into appearance.
But then, in this environment, under these arranged (laboratory) conditions, only those phenomena can flourish and be observed that fit into it.
Anything else is then regarded as scientifically not verifiable.
To understand that repetition and propagation are fundamental moments of all being is decisively important. They mark the ground state, so to speak, from which all others can be deduced somehow, as special cases appearing under particular circumstances.
This is fairly opposite to the common approach, which generally presumes isolated static entities — without being concerned about how, for example, those objects might be subject to our perception and knowledge if they really were so inactive and closed.
Things appear again and again. That’s it. We cannot give a deeper reason for that. Things simply could not be called things, there would not even be anything, if there were no such constancy and continuance in their appearances. Only so they can be identified in any way, as something. Thus repetitive appearance is a logical need.
We can also take it the other way round, just as well, and say that because we have repeating experiences we conclude that there must be something, some things we interact with.
Without a certain constancy in our perceptions and thoughts we would not perceive or know anything. There would be neither perception nor knowledge. There would be nothing — if ever…
Every thing has more than one property. It is specified in multiple ways, interacting with many other things.
In the sciences this multitude is often considered disturbing. It makes the things incalculable, unpredictable in their behavior.
Scientific theory always covers only a — partial — aspect of the real things. These therefore appear as idealized things in theory, reduced to what is essential — in that context.
But also on their practical side, sciences normally need to preclude disturbing influences. This is done by spaces which are closed exactly in this sense, thus providing a context that fits the theory.
The space of a measurement device may be called “measurement space” or “property space”. There all other objects are specified relative to the measurement device, mostly in form of measured values of a characteristic property of that device.
At each point of this space the measuring instrument takes a specific form when interacting with the object to be measured; normally it displays a certain value.
By that value, by that form, this point of this space is defined. The entirety of all these points make up the space of that measuring instrument, the corresponding measurement- or property-space.
In this sense, our common three-dimensional space is a special measurement space. The associated measurement device is traditionally a measuring rod, a ruler or so.
The X-Logic describes how different things melt into one that multiplies. This is a principle that could have been taken from biology, for it is perhaps most clearly realized in the propagation of life, especially in sexual reproduction. But it finds itself everywhere, even in the core of matter. It may be named the principle of two, of pairing.
The logic of knowledge is a logic of creative fusion. The central act of knowing is an act of love.
Maybe the most obvious distinction between computers and traditional media is denoted by activity.
For a start, computers must be switched on. They require energy. Processes are running inside of them that have to be maintained permanently. Under the surface there is ongoing activity.
But also on the surface, especially on that of the screen, there is motion — not only when movies are playing.
Such motion pictures preceded computers, thus heralding the age of new media, so to speak. They already had strong influence on our world view and, for example, gave rise to a fairly new notion of time — not least in physics.
Computers, however, are new and outstanding mostly due to their interactivity, which allows the user to launch and manipulate various kinds of actions.
Computers are part of what is nowadays usually called “new media”. As such they may be seen in contrast to traditional (or “old”) media. Both allow communication and conservation of knowledge, though in rather different manners.
Surely we are inclined to say that computers are much more capable than, for instance, books; for with the aid of computers it is easy to store and, if required, to recall thousands of books — together with uncountable additional informations, pictures, movies, learning programs and so on.
It is typical that, as soon as we get acquainted with something new, we cannot but see it standing head and shoulders above all the old. The scope of the new seems infinitely wider, enclosing the old at best as a somewhat primitive special case. A poor predecessor, maybe a toy for children…
Yet, not always and everywhere can computers replace a book really equivalently.
A lot of what is said here, about knowledge spaces and so, would have been impossible without computers — and, probably, there would have been no need for it.
Computers make it different. They open a new approach to knowledge. Not only does the quantity of available informations grow explosively, but also, by and by, a new quality of knowledge becomes visible, prospects of a land we are just going to explore — though we live there all the time.
The output — is it caused by the program? Or by the user input? Or by the computer? Or by the electric current?
Each of these things — if not quite another one — may be referred to as the relevant cause, depending on context.
In physics it has become common practice to take the laws of nature as fundamental causes. If we describe an event in a way that clearly shows the effective laws of nature, then we explicate it physically.
So we say, in the framework of mechanics, that a body principally moves linearly uniformly, as long as no forces act upon it. Nobody reasonably involved in that matter still asks “why?“.
But here, in the framework of these investigations, we take the next — maybe just small — step. We declare the moving body to be a special case of a thing, saying that every thing multiplies.
This is a law — and cause of all kinds of events.
There is always something there, we cannot start with nothing. We always move in a — non-empty — space of knowledge. There is always something that we know, that we are certain about, that we rely on.
That is what we call “knowledge”.
X-Logic is about very simple basic principles of thinking and knowing. We consider them elementary. They are to be found everywhere, in every area of life and matter and so.
This may be explained by the fact that all we can know about the world is exactly this: known. Even experience, however direct, is somehow interiorized and so might have passed some sort of filter.
On the other hand, however, it might also be possible that the principles of X-Logic can be found in the mental for the reason that it inherited them, so to speak, from its material roots. These may be searched in structures and functions of the brain, or even deeper, maybe on a so-called “quantum scale”.
Yet generally applicable logical principles do not really have to be based on whatever reasons. Instead, these principles can serve as a basis, for describing and explaining material as well as mental phenomena, for instance.
Things appear in their spaces. A thing is made of its appearances, it exists in them.
A thing’s appearances may be different instances of one and the same thing; or they are supposed to be different states of one single thing; sometimes different parts of a thing may be regarded as its appearances; or just different views, showing the thing’s different sides, for example.
All these are possible appearances of a thing. They all constitute – on their own specific way – somthing we can call the space of the thing.
Every (partial) space is associated with a corresponding thing. However, there is probably an inifnite number of ways to define a thing’s space. Extremely different pictures may be used, no single one can display every aspect of this relation — because in the end every possible explanation has to stay in its own space, which is necessarily partial.
It is actually this plentitude of different views, together with their apparent inconsistency, that are able to give a vivid impression of what matters. It is a kind of movement, a certain activity, that transforms the thing into its space (and vice versa). While occuring in various environments, it takes various respective forms.
Things emerge from space. Although somehow invisible, they have been there all the time. This shall be true even if a thing appears for the first time, newly created.
Yet, for this purpose, the notion of space has to be taken much wider than usual. And that is exactly what we do; this is our conception.
That way our ordinary three-dimensional space becomes a simple sub-space, one part of the whole. A hugh bunch of such partial spaces may be distinguished, as there are a special space of physics, for example, or that of mathematics, as well as a social space, a psychological, a biological, an ecological, and so on.
Each of these spaces relates to a specific point of view, often a scientific one, and may be called “knowledge space”.
The whole, however, the unification of all spaces, we usually refer to as the “space of knowledge” or simply “space”.
Continual reappearing is necessarily accompanied by continual disappearing. Between a thing’s occurances, even infinitesimal, there have to be gaps. Though these gaps are traditionally no theme in physics, they are actually of crucial importance. They allow outer forces to interact and so to change the otherwise uniform linear motion of a body. Only because this motion is everywhere interrupted, it can flexibly react on everything, conform to everything.
However, if the motion is interrupted again and again — how does it manage to stay normally the same all the time? And where does the body intermittently disappear to? — Well, both questions have in principle the same answer: the thing dissolves into its space, but this is a very special one, with a specific structure that makes the same thing reappear constantly.
The space is the program, so to speak. And the structure is, maybe, a certain short routine being continually initialized and producing always the same output, the same thing. But in between the program permanently resumes control, in order to listen for new user input, for instance, that may affect the routine.