#protophysics | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

blu3mila · 4 years

Text

i’m making a book on whatever I and Daniil had, presenting it as a uni project too. the story has it’s own mythology, my prof used the term protophysics but i’m not taking it as i don’t know of its fucking context. even if it sounds sexy and infinitely better than stumbling over my meta-meta-metaphors.

for all the talk of its reality... i can’t deny it is all real anymore, very real to me, like haha i’m hahhhh i’m not joking about Daniil. like i’m serious about calling him an ex, laugh if you will. it’s also not a fan-to-character situation, none of these power dynamics fit. but it is interaction.

anyway FOR all the talk i admitted my urge to make myself sound reasonable, my work logical and trough that prove its right to exist. like defending a project before a commission, like framing your symptoms and thoughts before a psych, all that. but well.

i thought before “how much am i asking of the viewer?”. thought so bitterly, responded: “like sure let me just *puts self through a meat grinder for your comfort*. yeah, i also systemize and explain for my own pleasure, but i’m rethinking now just how much of this could’ve been internalized.

and then like. let’s get pragmatic for a sec: i explain it all, draw a scheme of what and how for myself but in reality as if for others (or maybe just the concept of Other, shadow of someone who once demanded) but i still like go on w/ the flow and frame it as if i Needed it... well, here comes the punchline: nobody gets it anyway

no one is obliged either! no blame or expectations, just pure comedy of it all. ok i feel this thing so i Write it down and Share but there’s also the context: i’m writing it from a perspective of my self in a different world, in a world where i got who i needed and loved and i’m writing this about my physical self here who is as foreign to that self as fulfilment is to me. here. i mean i do feel like people engaging with me here feel this particular: “what the fuck is th- what do you even want lol. but ok you do you”

nothing criticizing here from me, i’m just acknowledging your confusion. if you’re invested enough to be confused, that is.

youtube

a page from the book featuring herbert west + my palpable desire to write on it "но ты бесчувственна как рыба и холодная как лёд и мне приходится дрочить и дни и ночь напролёт" about Daniil

#writing #book projects #godspeed

23 notes · View notes

conza · 8 years

Text

A priori & Euclidean geometry

Further, the old rationalist claims that geometry, that is, Euclidean geometry is a priori and yet incorporates empirical knowledge about space becomes supported, too, in view of our insight into the praxeological constraints on knowledge. Since the discovery of non-Euclidean geometries and in particular since Einstein’s relativistic theory of gravitation, the prevailing position regarding geometry is once again empiricist and formalist. It conceives of geometry as either being part of empirical, aposteriori physics, or as being empirically meaningless formalisms. Yet that geometry is either mere play, or forever subject to empirical testing seems to be irreconcilable with the fact that Euclidean geometry is the foundation of engineering and construction, and that nobody there ever thinks of such propositions as only hypothetically true. [61]

Recognizing knowledge as praxeologically constrained explains why the empiricist-formalist view is incorrect and why the empirical success of Euclidean geometry is no mere accident. Spatial knowledge is also included in the meaning of action. Action is the employment of a physical body in space. Without acting there could be no knowledge of spatial relations, and no measurement. Measuring is relating something to a standard. Without standards, there is no measurement; and there is no measurement, then, which could ever falsify the standard. Evidently, the ultimate standard must be provided by the norms underlying the construction of bodily movements in space and the construction of measurement instruments by means of one’s body and in accordance with the principles of spatial constructions embodied in it. Euclidean geometry, as again Paul Lorenzen in particular has explained, is no more and no less than the reconstruction of the ideal norms underlying our construction of such homogeneous basic forms as points, lines, planes and distances, which are in a more or less perfect but always perfectible way incorporated or realized in even our most primitive instruments of spatial measurements such as a measuring rod. Naturally, these norms and normative implications cannot be falsified by the result of any empirical measurement. On the contrary, their cognitive validity is substantiated by the fact that it is they which make physical measurements in space possible. Any actual measurement must already presuppose the validity of the norms leading to the construction of one’s measurement standards. It is in this sense that geometry is an a priori science; and that it must simultaneously be regarded as an empirically meaningful discipline, because it is not only the very precondition for any empirical spatial description, it is also the precondition for any active orientation in space.[62]

— Hans-Hermann Hoppe, ESAM 62. On the aprioristic character of Euclidean geometry see Lorenzen, Methodisches Denhen, chapters 8 and 9; idem, Normative Logic and Ethics, chapter 5; H. Dingler, Die Grundlagen der Geometrie (Stuttgart: Enke, 1933); on Euclidean geometry as a necessary presupposition of objective, i.e., intersubjectively communicable, measurements and in particular of any empirical verification of non-Euclidean geometries (after all, the lenses of the telescopes which one uses to confirm Einstein’s theory regarding the non-Euclidean structure of physical space must themselves be constructed according to Euclidean principles) see Karnbartel, Erfahrung und Struktur, pp. 132-33; P. Janich, Die Protophysik der Zeit (Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institute, 1969), pp. 45-50; idem, “Eindeutigkeit, Konsistenz und methodische Ordnung,” in F. Karnbartel and J. Mittelstrass, eds., Zum normativen Fundament der Wissenschaft.

Following the lead of Hugo Dingler, Paul Lorenzen and other members of the so-called Erlangen school have worked out a system of protophysics , which contains all aprioristic presuppositions of empirical physics, including, apart from geometry, also chronometry and hytometry (i.e., classical mechanics without gravitation, or “rational” mechanics). “Geometry, chronometry and hytometry are a-priori theories which make empirical measurements of space, time and material ‘possible’. They have to be established before physics in the modern sense of fields of forces, can begin. Therefore, I should like to call these disciplines by a common name: protophysics.” Lorenzen, Normative Logic and Ethics, p. 60.

#Hoppe #Geometry #Protophysics #Euclidean #Paul Lorenzen #rationalism #knowledge #Einstein #A priori #Empirical #Empiricism #measurement #Lorenzen #Dingler #chronometry #hytometry #aposteriori #formalist

5 notes · View notes