:: "I" exists outside of time?
English translation: Luisa M. Matallana
Author: Agnès SOFIYANA, Luisa Margarita Laverde Matallana, professeur de mathématiques
didacticienne
Author: Agnès SOFIYANA, Luisa Margarita Laverde Matallana, psychanalystes (Bogota, Colombia)
Web Sites: Associations Abréactions Psychanalyse-Paris.com - 11 rue Fénelon - 75010 Paris / Tel: 01 45 08 41 10 Psychoanalysis - Mathematics - Translation
Online Publication Date: Tuesday December 16, 2008
"" I "1 exists outside of time?
"Compared to these considerations about time," Could this be the time to ask in which one (s) time (s) applies the Cartesian cogito? "I think, therefore I am 'does that mean' I think 'and' I am 'exist in the same" now "? "Or," I think "and" I Am "come in two" nows "different from each other? Or even 'I think' and 'I am' exist in two different reference? In the latter case, we would then be impossible to obtain any knowledge about their simultaneity "
been last seen, how the ghost could be regarded as axiomatic, patterns of truth in the universe of discourse, as a word that would give itself a promise.
'axioms, as the foundation of the writing rules of the universe of discourse, then, are the promises to himself, as types of ghosts founders or instranscriptibles unmentionable in the current word. "I had said. Do
promises? According to our friend Robert4, it can be a commitment, an obligation to do or say, a hope, a word, as they say. What happen if, after this word, it will evaporate over time, leaving an indelible trace in the order of that motivates us? What would, then, if the whole edifice of our person had a foundation forgotten and lost? Forgotten, indeed, by the effect of repression, but not irretrievably lost! This is what my personal reading of Lacan in LdF5 has led me to tell you the last time. The axiom is not totally lost, as it is, the way the ghost, built by feedback, from the dynamics of the significant and logical rules governing the speech, not constrain those who ignore that mathematical logic has been the beginning a tool for linguistic and semantic then become an instrument purely mathematical structure.
Lacan tells us the lesson of December 7, 1966 (LDF), "the foundation of logic is not to take it elsewhere in the articulation of language in the signifying chain. "
recall the origins of logic: logos, is to begin in ancient Greece, the word. For the Presocratics, logos is the Word revealed to man, and the sophists, the logos is the instrument of the speaker, more próximp the rhetorical reasoning, where Zeno of Elea (490-430 BC) was inspired to found the dialectic ( understood techne 6, art of debate.)
The logos then has an origin linked to the discourse. It is with Socrates and PLATON logos that will become the road to reality intelligible and rational World of Ideas, where abstract mathematical thinking will be the pattern, and opposed to the sensible reality. "For Plato, every mathematical question has an answer, possibly unknown, affirmative or negative. It is thought that the origin of bivalent logic and the principle of excluded middle. [1]
Therefore, the thought and the speech he argues are at the origin of logic. Sure, the story does not stop there, since Aristotle, tutor of Alexander the Great, write the Organon (instrument), all works logic in which Aristotle opens the use of symbols, becoming thereby the founder, early, formal logic. He also defined the axiom, the principle of non-contradiction, the universal and existential sentences, affirmative and negative propositions, the rules of denial, the syllogism, the absurd reasoning, reasoning by induction. In short, almost everything that will be picked up and symbolically formalized by logicians of the late 19.
With the Stoics, the logic becomes a precision instrument in the trials, the dialectic, reasoning, definitions, concepts, notions, the logotropos, etc ... You can
then finding simply logic, be it mathematics, Aristotelian or Stoic, is an instrument that is in the articulation of signifiers in the universe of discourse, both in the literary discourses - Our favorite lawyer can testify.
Articulation of significant involvement ...
entoces Lacan agrees to follow an introduction to mathematical logic, where he is going to show that it is appropriate to reveal certain processes misleading. Lacan
first considers the relationship of involvement. It has been hinted last time with the classic symbolism and the famous example of William of OCCAM [2], leading to more structural relationship of inclusion. It is also what is called the Stoics, the "modus ponens" generic name hipotéticocategóricos syllogism: "If A then B, or A, then B". It Chrysippus (c. 281-208 BC) who first called this syllogism involvement. Lacan takes
then, the lesson of December 7, 1966, the example of time between the protasis understood (first time) and apodosis (second half) of the Stoic implication, in which he analyzes the value of truth. He says: "To return that first step concerning the involvement, it is necessary to see emerge that joint between the truth and the letter, namely that which can be written and why it can not be. [...] The only limit placed on the functioning of modern logic an alphabet in a certain system, the only limit being that of the word, and initial axiomatic. "
retrieved from the beginning: the implication is scored" P implies Q "where P and Q are two propositions either. The truth value of this involvement depends on the truth values \u200b\u200bassigned to propositions P and Q (initial axiomatic value): If P and Q are true, then "P implies Q 'is true, ie "True implies True 'is invalid. If P is false and Q is true, then P implies Q is true, ie "False implies True 'is invalid. If P and Q are false, then "P implies Q 'is true, ie" false implies false "is valid. If P is vedadera and Q is false, then "P implies Q 'is false, ie" True False means "is not valid.
There are then certain implications that can be written and others not. Lacan asks, "what do you mean 'can not'? There is a sense of the word given the initial injunction. But what is it that can be written? The problem of denial is presumed level of writing as a logical operation rule. "Attention, denial is not a contradiction! The unconscious knows no contradiction, but it integrates nicely into denial, which is next to the ban, you can understand "international jurisdiction" between what people say. What is that that is said between what people say? What is that which is spoken in the utterance, the statement does not say? DENIAL.
Denying the involvement is well represented, as if it is hidden: "P implies Q" is equivalent to "not Q implies not P", that is - called the counterparty.
the end of the Lesson 7 December 1966, finally introduces Lacan the Cartesian cogito, while involvement, "I think, therefore I am ', ie' I think means I am." Why, if we consider the logical counterpart, equals: "I do not think, therefore I do not think." Lacan
then asks: "Can we get used to the idea that when we speak of non-being, this is the thing that would be the outline of the bubble be? Does the non-being, is all the space on the outside? Is it possible to suggest that is what we mean, this non-being that I would rather headline: "The place where I am '?
Indeed, denial regarded as complementary, part of the principle of the excluded: either I am, is I'm not. Undecidability No, no third possibility. As in the times of Heraclitus or Parmenides, Lacan asks the question about the relationship between being and nonbeing. It is considered that Heraclitus 'being and non-being "is, and that for Parmenides' being and non-being" is not. But Heraclitus and Parmenides, based on the principle of excluded middle: there is no third case to consider outside of being and nonbeing. Lacan
then the fundamental question, certainly one that leads to the analysands to lie on the couch of a psychoanalyst: "Once listed in this direction is very clear that the question does not take a step, since enlisting in the opposition as if it were considered cuttable between the self (moi) and the non-self (non-moi) with the only limit to a denial also containing the third excluded, he is always out of bounds, that it is the only important issue, namely if I (je) me (moi). "Doubt Freudian
is then a consequence of the Cartesian cogito: 'I think therefore I am" and "I'm not then I do not think", but what if the word is axiomatic and initial is' I do not think "or" I'm not? "
The problems introduced by Lacan can be returned to enigma of knowledge on the other. In other words, if I do not think, how I can I know whether I am or if I'm not? But I think, is true then I am? Could it be that I think and I'm not at the same time? YES Lacan. Besides, if I am, I can also conclude that I think?
So what happens on the couch? I speak and as speaker, I think I think. And as I think, then, according to the cogito, I am. Thus speaking, I can believe that I am. But is this a certainty or belief? In other words: I'm not thinking that way I am? And if so, am I really? Do think that the fact that I am simply to certify that I am? Maybe I'm not really here that I think ...
But suddenly, I callus. The silence that is imposed on me by a resistance or repression "stops my thinking? Listening to my analyst tells me "think aloud", I continue to think, however, quietly or out loud (?). Two cases are then: I do not think or I do not hear my thoughts, and yet I am ... that's where I do not think. Impossible then any thought to form a verbalize. I thought nothing of wrapping the completeness of my being. I am, but I do not think.
Or actually I think quietly or without voice, but if I must verbalize this thought impossible. So am I really in the process of thinking? And in this suspension of the word, could say that I am not? If my mind can not be deployed more in words, can be because I do not follow (seguir7) plus my thoughts? So where am I, if I am not there where I think?
could reproof that this is not logic but rhetoric. However, Paul 9 I had highlighted a certain afternoon, I do not know what I said, not knowing this, I told him though. So is there some ternary display: I am, I think, I say. Three dimensions links the word and to which she gives a semblance of consistency.
Is there time?
Finally, what Lacan questions here, with this outline of the analysis of the Cartesian cogito, resembles the enigma of knowledge and being, that is, philosophically, the two main philosophical ontology and epistemology. But the fundamental issue is brewing in the Cartesian cogito and what Lacan tries to show, it seems to be the question of the existence of time.
sure, Heidegger, Kant, Husserl, Bergson and many other philosophers placed a stone on the building to [give] an answer to the riddle of time. But what will keep my attention here is how relativistic physics and mathematics ancestral addressed this issue, particularly as Kurt Gödel, logical genius, developed a mathematical theory of time, compatible with relativity, which strangely seems to coincide with what Lacan teaches us about the cogito Cartesian.
Indeed, Gödel was a serious fan of the theory of relativity of Einstein. Both were professors at Princeton University between 1942 and 1955, Einstein's disappearance. During those thirteen years, they made the journeys back and forth between home of the father of relativity and the Princeton campus. What
they said during those long marches? We do not ever know. All I can surmise is that they talked about their jobs, their ideas on cosmogenesis, on ontology and epistemology ... meteorology, women and politics also without doubt.
What remains of these exchanges? Not much, if not an article in a magazine in the special issue was devoted to Einstein and Gödel, entitled "A remark about the Relationship Between relativity theory and idealistic philosophy" (PA Schilpp, 1949). Gödel's ambition in this article was' re-examine the great philosophical quest the reality of time in the light of this that the theory of relativity teaches us on this issue "[3].
is said, the theory of relativity of Einstein, 1905, that spacetime is a four-dimensional mathematical space, which is curved and matter in motion that determines the shape of space-time. It also says that there is nothing that can be called "present state of the universe": "relativity of simultaneity implies that what is" now 10 "relatively to an inertial reference differs from that which is" now "in another reference inertial motion relative to the first "[4]. But then Which is where this theory, the intuitive concept of time? Gödel is interested in building an "experience of thinking that distinguishes the two notions mathematically [5].
In his paper, Gödel constructs, from the equations of general relativity, a model of the universe where the geometry of space-time can not reasonably interpret the temporal component of space-time as an intuitive representation of time. He shows mathematically that, in their model universe possible consistent with the theory of general relativity, you can construct the continuous world lines and closed timelike linking any two events, so that it is possible for him in this universe, time travel - as well as traveling along a continuous line and closed space genre.
This demonstration was a resounding effect among fans of science fiction and other supporters of Jules Verne, but also the fact that Gödel had built a world in which travel is possible in time, simultaneously had shown no Intuitive time!
In other words, "since this is no more real than the past and I lie (lay) on the beach last summer, why identify only the "I" which now trembles in the cold? Am I just in the process of making a mistake? Or are both "self" as moments in time? And if so, do all these "I" are all I (moi), or only parts of me (moi)? [6]
Another way to explain, mathematically, the difference between the existence of both "now" is as reference and time, is to consider that "time of relativity has a" geometry "different from that of spatial dimensions, rather than [time] is a qualitatively different, ie something that "disappears" [7].
Compared to these considerations of time, can this be the time to ask in which one (s) time (s) applies the Cartesian cogito? "I think, therefore I am 'does that mean' I think 'and' I am 'different from each other? Or even "I think" and "I Am" are two references - tions different? In the latter case, we would then be impossible to obtain any knowledge about their simultaneity.
Unless you 'I think' and 'I am' not of the same nature? Given a gender duty to each of these two propositions, would you say 'I am' is a genre space, that 'I am' exists in a while intuitive, fading, and will not tolerate a return trip to the past and that which is finite, and that 'I think' is a timelike, that "I think "There is a time that is but a" now "continuously curved, depending on the particular distribution of matter and its motion, and whereby a time travel possible?
Gödel goes further. "For the Gödel universe is in fact the real universe, but only one possible universe. Can you really deduct the non-existence of time in our universe of their absence in a just world possible? The answer is yes, at least according to Godel. And this is the last step, the subtlest and most elusive, their reasoning, one that leads as possible to the real. [8]
borrowed Plato, that God will stop playing dice, then used by St. Anselm, Descartes and Leibniz, the reasoning is radical, "if a mathematical object is at least possible at all, it is then necessary and real. This is because what necessarily exists can not exist unless it exists in all possible worlds. [9]
Thus, the test is done: time does not exist in the real world or should I say, in reality. "Each observer has its own set of "Now," and each of its various systems of layers can not claim to represent the passage of time target. Relativity is not exist in the same "now"? "Or," I think "and" I Am "come in two" nows "then simply" incomplete "in relation to time intuitive, it is incompatible with the reality of time intuitive. "
Now, an observation: it appears that Einstein and Gödel were interested in identifying while physical time (the" t "that contain the equations) and time philosophy as being the same time intuitive. But is this really well? Time studied and argued by Einstein and Gödel is not the time or the quantum scale astronomical scale? Certainly. But, as Godel has shown us, which is necessary in a world exists in all possible worlds.
Finally, if the 'I am' is mired in an intuitive time, heard, and if the 'I think' is mired in a "now" that exists at every moment, we might suggest that the unconscious has a quantum dimension , in which the laws governing the world of being no longer in progress, and that he should us to observe, to remember that distinguishes quantum physics Newtonian physics, namely the questioning of the fundamental axioms that underlie our apprehension of reality. In other words, since he is subjected to the "now" and at the same time intuitive, since it is dynamic, structured and indeterminate, the unconscious has certain qualities found in the quantum world. He walks in some way, a probabilistic mechanism.
Notes [1] Lanc ELOT Pecquet, informatique cours de logique, 2003
[2] Major Premise: All men are mortal / Minor Premise: Socrates is a man / Conclusion: Socrates is mortal
[3] Palle Yourgrau, Einstein / Gödel, Éditions Dunod, 2005, p, 142
[4] ibid. p.159
See online: Psychoanalysis - Mathematics - Translation
P.-S.
1 Hereafter, "je" translates as "I" and "moi" like me (moi) in order to make the distinction clearer. (N. of T.)
4 Our friend Robert, is a joke between us. One of our major dictionaries of the French "le Robert." Instead of saying "according to the dictionary," he said amused "by our friend Robert." (Ref. - Le Petit Robert - N. of T.)
5 LDF - Seminar: The logic of the ghost 1966-67
6 Techne or techne, extend this concept may consult the following Web address: http://serbal.pntic.mec.es/ cmunoz11/techne.html # five
Translator's Note Je suis
7, first person singular of verbs follow / perguir, and also to be / being (être) and follow / pursue (suivre)
9 Paul PAPAHAGI, psychoanalyst.
10 The French word is maintenant, which translates: now this, today, today.
N. T. About Einstein and Gödel, see also: "Time Bandits" by Jim Holt - What WHERE Einstein and Gödel talking about? http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/28/050228crat_atlarge
0 comments:
Post a Comment