Posts Tagged ‘gilles deleuze’

Why An Event is Not a Collision

Tuesday, August 26th, 2008


If you search the Internet with the phrase “What is an Event” nobody is able to give an answer. Most of the time an Event is simply “Something that Happens“. If we look at the Dutch Language an Event is called a “Gebeurtenis“. The Dutch verb “beuren” means “to bear“. In Dutch an Event is a Bearing.

Bear: O.E. beran “bear, bring, wear” (class IV strong verb; past tense bær, pp. boren), from P.Gmc. *beranan (cf. O.H.G. beran, O.N. bera, Goth. bairan “to carry”), from PIE root *bher- meaning both “give birth” (though only Eng. and Ger. strongly retain this sense, and Rus. has beremennaya “pregnant”) and “carry a burden, bring”. Many senses are from notion of “move onward by pressure.” O.E. past tense bær became M.E. bare; alternative bore began to appear c.1400, but bare remained the literary form till after 1600. Past participle distinction of borne for “carried” and born for “given birth” is 1775. Ball bearings “bear” the friction; bearing “way of carrying oneself” is in M.E.

Strangely enough an Event is related to the Birth of Something. An Event is Happening when Something is Set into Motion by Pressure (Tension). An Event is an Act of Creation.

Most of the time an Event is associated with a Very Short Duration, an Explosion. An Event can take much longer. An Event can take one second or thousands of years. A Movie is an Event. The Great Pyramid is an Event. The Earth is an Event. You are an Event.

An Event changes its Intensity all the time. A Concert has a Start and an Apotheosis. The Great Pyramid was almost forgotten but at this moment many books are written about the mysterious background. An Event is a Wave or a Vibration and every Event has its Unique Pattern.

An Event has a Bearing (the direction or path along which something moves or along which it lies), it moves into a certain direction. An Event extends and compresses in Space/Time (A Hurricane). An Event is Born, Expands, Compresses, Dies and Dissepears. It follows a Life-Cycle.

If an Event is a Vibration it can be described by a combination of Harmonics and Sub-Harmonics. Dependent on the type of Vibration an Event “dies out” (Damping, converges to a limit) or never stops.

When Events are Vibrations or Waves they are able to Add Up. When an Event is “combined with” another Event a new Event is created. This is called Cause and Effect in the World of Particles.

The world of Particles was created by the Greek Philosopher Aristotle. He denied the existence of the Dynamic by stating ‘There cannot be motion of motion or becoming of becoming or in general change of change’. The Greek based their view on the world on Logic and Euclidean geometry. They considered the word As IT IS.

When you look at the Event of the”man who has just been run over” by a car, The Greek View is of two Colliding Parts. In this view somebody is Responsible for the Accident. When you look at the Event from the perspective of the Wave the Accident is an Addition of Two Waves that are producing a Peak of High Intensity. There is no one to blame. The accident “Just Happened”. It was an Act of the Force of Creativity, The Elan Vital of Bergson.

Let’s have a look at the Design of Information Systems.

A long time ago the Designers of the Computer left the path of the Analogue Computer. An Analogue Computer is based on Waves. A Digital Computer is unable to represent Real numbers and Irrational numbers (π). It is also unable to represent many rational numbers (1/3). Many “real” problems are happening in Real and Irrational Space.

Digital Computers are representing the Dynamic World in a Static Way. A Program and a Database are a Static Representations of Reality. The Static changes into the Dynamic because of the Regular Pulses of the Clock of the CPU (Central Processing Unit).

NIAM is still by far the most “advanced” way to define an Information System. It is hardly used because many designers don’t have the ability or have lost the ability to Listen to and to Analyze Sentences that are Spoken by the User of the System. The result of not-using NIAM is a highly chaotic internal structure of the Information System. The System is not representing Reality at all.

NIAM uses the concept of the Elementary Fact (an Elementary Event), A Man is-run-over-by A Car. An Elementary Fact is a connection between two Nouns (Man, Car) and a Verb (Run-Over-By). Mostly the Verb is forgotten. The Static is still Dominating the Dynamic. The Car (A Movement) and the Man (A Movement) are dominating The Accident, The Run-Over-By. Strangely Enough the Memory of the Car and the Man fade away much faster than the Memory of the Accident. A War is remembered. The Soldiers are forgotten.

I am afraid we have to wait a little while until the Very Strong Wave of the Particle has finally died out.


“What is an Event”, About Whitehead and Deleuze by Steven Shaviro

Bergson, Mathematics, and Creativity by Pete A. Y. Gunter

About Events by Jerymy Dunham

About NIAM


About Cradle to Cradle

Friday, August 15th, 2008

In 1998 William McDonough and Michael Braungart wrote an article called The NEXT Industrial Revolution. It was the start of a new sustainable design philosophy called Cradle to Cradle. Cradle to Cradle wants to restore the Natural Cycle.

Cradle to Cradle is based on three pillars: Equity (Social Justice), Economy (Market Viability), and Ecology (Environmental Intelligence).

 A citation out of the Next Industrial Revolution:

Many people believe that new industrial revolutions are already taking place, with the rise of cybertechnology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. It is true that these are powerful tools for change. But they are only tools-hyperefficient engines for the steamship of the first Industrial Revolution. Similarly, eco-efficiency is a valuable and laudable tool, and a prelude to what should come next. But it, too, fails to move us beyond the first revolution. It is time for designs that are creative, abundant, prosperous, and intelligent from the start. The model for the Next Industrial Revolution may well have been right in front of us the whole time: a tree“.

A citation out of Carl Jung, Prologue from “Memories, Dreams, Reflections“:

Life has always seemed to me like a plant that lives on its rhizome. Its true life is invisible, hidden in the rhizome. The part that appears above the ground lasts only a single summer. Then it withers away-an ephemeral apparition. When we think of the unending growth and decay of life and civilizations, we cannot escape the impression of absolute nullity. Yet I have never lost the sense of something that lives and endures beneath the eternal flux. What we see is blossom, which passes. The rhizome remains“.

In the introduction chapter of A Thousands Plateaus, Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, characterize the rhizome by six principles:

  • Connectivity

The capacity to aggregate by making connections at any point on and within itself.

  • Heterogeneity

The capacity to connect anything with anything other, the linking of unlike elements.

  • Multiplicity

Consisting of multiple singularities synthesized into a “whole” by relations of exteriority.

  • Asignifying rupture

Not becoming any less of a rhizome when being severely ruptured, the ability to allow a system to function and even flourish despite local breakdowns.

  • Cartography

A method of mapping for orientation from any point of entry within a “whole”, rather than by the method of tracing that re-presents an a priori path.

  • Decalcomania

Forming through continuous negotiation with its context, constantly adapting by experimentation

Cradle to Cradle (CtC) is a Design Philosophy. Design (Mapping Ideas unto A Model) is the first step in a Cyclic Process or even better a Spiraling Spiral Process.

I don’t know what the Philosphy of CtC is about the other “phases” of the Spiraling Spiral. I have not spend the time to read the Book. I am almost sure CtC is applying the Paradigm of the Age of Enlightment that lies behind the Industrial Revolution. Cradle to Cradle wants to CONTROL Nature by COPYING Nature.

The Question is Do We (and CtC) really Understand How Nature Works?

Is Nature Working at all?

Is Nature Functioning “like-a” Machine?

Are we able to Copy something we don’t Understand?

What are We Copying?

Is Copying without Insight perhaps a Way to Create something New?

Does it Matter if we are Creating Something New without Knowing what We are Doing”?

Is Life Itself not just a Creating Force exploring Every Possibility Available?

What is Wrong and What is Right?

The most interesting point in the article about the Next Industrial Revolution is the Use of the Tree Metaphor.

The Tree is a very old Symbol. It represents something that starts at the Bottom (Earth) and Moves Up. When it Moves Up is expands into a Hierarchical Network. At the top of the Tree of Life (or the Axis Mundi) the Ultimate Power, the Giver of Movement and Measure, is situated. Behind the New Industrial Revolution the Hierarchy (UP) and the Part (One;Tree) of the Whole (Many;Forest) becomes visible. If we are Moving UP we are Abstracting (or Imagining with Reason).

Jung, Deleuze & Guattari look at the The Down, the Primal Source, The Unknowable, the Invisible or the Unconsciousness. The Invisible is covered by Dark Earth. It is indestructible, connected, divers, not-linear, experimenting and adapting. The Invisible is the Rhizome. Every Year out of the Invisible Rhizome A Beautifull Rose Grows and Blossoms. “What we see is blossom, which passes. The rhizome remains“. (Jung).

If we Move Down we are Acting In The World instead of Looking at the World (The Observer).

When we move Down we have to become Practical.

What is the Practical Use, The Engineering Perspective, of the Rhizome?

There are Infinite Perspectives on our Reality and Engineering is just One of Them. We could add a Social Perspective and an Ecomic Perspective just like Cradle to Cradle is trying to do but there is more. We could add a Poetic and an Artistic Perspective but there is more. We could add an Animal perspective. We could look with the Eyes of the Ape, the Cat, The Fish, the Tiger, The Bacterium, The Sea, The Clouds, The Weather. We could use our Empathy to Imagine how the Earth, The Sun, The Universe, Molecules, Cells, Atoms, Higgs Particles, Cars, Aeroplanes, Ipods are “looking” at the Ecology of My Garden, Our Village, Your Country, Their Culture. We could even Look at Ourselves.

Are we able to Unite all of these Perspectives? Yes and No.

No: they are Different.

Yes: They are Perspectives and Perspectives are Looking at the Same Thing.

They are looking at the Whole but the Whole is not a Thing. It is a interconnected Adapting Diversity. It is a highly Complex Dynamic Network of Networks of Events. We cannot detect Causality because Causality is related to a Liniair Perspective.  Every Act is the Cause and the Effect of any other Act.

If we look from a Distance (the Observer) we See Repeating Cyclic Patterns that are Self-References.

If we Find these Patterns (Frames of Reference) we Know where the Flow of Nature is moving to for a little while. The Pattern becomes Repetitive. At a sudden moment the Flow moves in another Way and we have to Observe again. If we Move with the Flow we will know Where we are “Allowed” to Build and to Grow. If we Feel the Field we will See that A Building or an Engine is already Designed and wants to Move to Reality. We don’t have to Design. The Design is Immanent. We just have to help to Materialize.

The most interesting Self-Reference to explore is I (You).

I am in the World and the World is in Me.

About Ontology

Tuesday, August 12th, 2008

magic chaldrounMetaphysics is a theory of being in itself, of the essence of things, of the fundamental principles of existence and reality.

A major part of Metaphysics is concerned with the Static Part of the Reality, Being (Ontos, Ontology). The main issues of Metaphysics can be simply derived by playing with the verb to-be.

Behind Ontology (Being) is the verb to Be. The noun Being is-a-State-of to Be. When we take the first-derative, the difference of Being, Being becomes Becoming.

When you apply Causal Reasoning you have to find out Who is the Cause of the change of Being to Becoming. You also have to find out how a Static System changes into a Dynamic System.

A solution is to Imagine an Ultimate Being (The Absolute) who changed his Being into Becoming. This Absolute Being is the One. The change from the Static to the Dynamic is called Creation.

There are two possibilities. The Creator is Outside the Becoming or the Being is part of the Becoming. In the first case we are talking about an Ultimate Being, God, the Void, who is the creator of the Dynamic System.  In the second case God IS the Dynamic System. Let’s call this Being “All That Is“.

The Difference between God and “All That Is” is the way the Act of Creation takes place. The Act of Creation of God is an Explosion, a Unique Act. The Act of Creation of “All That is” is an enfolding. Creation as an Enfolding moves slowly. Every new Expressions of the Unfolding show itself at the Right Time and the Right Moment.

The distinction between Being and Becoming has resulted in a major Fight on every Scientific Battleground we can imagine.

Let’s have a short look at Information Technology.

Data-oriented methodologies emphasize the representation of the Static relationships between the parts of the whole, the Data or the Database. On the other hand, process-oriented methodologies emphasize the actions Performed By a software artifact, a Program.

When we dig a little deeper into this subject we see that A Program (something written in a Programming Language) is a Static (Stored) Representation of a Process. When the Computer Executes a Program it Becomes a Process.

So the Dynamic is Stored in the Static and the Static becomes Dynamic because something called a Computer (An Actor, the Operating System) activates the Static. Interesting Enough the Computer is also a Program that is stored in itself. The basic part of the Computer is the Clock. The Clock generates a Rhythm.

So the Static is really a Dynamic and the Essence (The Metaphysics) of the Computer is a Clock, A Rhythm.

The Dynamic Structure of the Computer is an Enfolding of the Basic Structure of the Computer Itself which is Stored in Itself, which is a Rhythm. During the Rhythm the Computer moves through a Cycle.

I don’t want to dig deeper but I hope you see that the Computer Metaphor is a representation of the idea of “All What Is”.

The interesting point is that in the Reality of the Computer Metaphor there are Many Beings (Monads).

If we dig a little deeper we see that the Many Beings Communicate (by the Internet Protocol). They Unite on a deeper Level and transform into a Network. The Network is What it Is.

To a Human Observer the Network makes no Sense. We are unable to understand the essence (The Metaphysics) of the Network. We understand our Part but don’t see the Whole.

The Whole, the One, is beyond our Understanding. It is Unknowable (“neti neti“, “not this, not that“).

Language is a Static Representation of the Dynamics of Speech. A Human executes Language to perform the Process of Speech but Speech is not captured by Language. Human Speech is constantly adapting to Practice and Language is adapting to Practice. New (Computer) Languages are created all the time.

A Computer Language is a sub-set of Human Languages called Logic. Logic is a sub-set of Human Speech called Reasoning but Reasoning is not able to Understand the Whole.

Theory is a Static Representation of the Dynamics of Practice. A Human executes a Theory to perform the Process of Practicing. But Practice is not able to Understand the Whole so When a Practice fails we create a new Theory. Theory is adapted Practice and Practice is applied Theory. Being is adapted Becoming.

Being changes in Time because we are Experiencing (Being (t) = Being (t-1) + Experience). Experience is the Difference of Being is Becoming. The Becoming who is The One is generating Experience.

God is the Experience of God.

roseAs You see it is possible to create many concepts and theories of Metaphysics just by Playing with the Verb To Be.

There is one more Language Game to Play. If we Play this Game we are entering the World of Deleuze.

Deleuze was fascinated by the Mathematician and Philosopher Leibniz. Leibniz invented a new Mathematical Game called Differentials. When you calculate a differential you calculate the way a function is changing in time.

Leibniz found a way to move from being to becoming and his formula is very easy. Becoming = Lim (t -> 0) (Being (t+1)-Being (t)). Find the smallest distance between two moments of Being. The smallest distance between two Beings is an Event.

The basis Structure of our Reality is not a Substance (The Static) but something that Moves Us (Emotion). The basic Structure of our Universe are Moments, Nows.

We are Points of View that are Experiencing a Beautifull Fluent Crystal, a HyperDiamond. Every Point of the Multi Dimensional Diamond is an Event.

 We are trying to explain the Beauty of this Crystal to the other Points of View but we are unable to do this because we are only able to see a very small part and we are looking from our own angle.

 We will never See the Whole until we are able to become a Circular Point of View, A Communion.


A Website about Ontology

About Events, Time, Being and Becoming in Physics

About Leibniz and Differentials

The Relationship between Events and Free Will

Deleuze and Events

Why the Universe is a Configuration of Nows

 About Spinoza, The Philosopher of the Emotion

About the Relationship between Events and Creativity, the Ontology of Deleuze



About Morality and Ethics

Tuesday, August 5th, 2008

Eyal Weizman wrote an article about the Isreali Army. To his surprise they are using the work of Deleuze and Christopher Alexander to define “Post-Modern” tactics. When you read the article you will see how clever the Army uses the insights of people who never had an idea that their insights should be used to kill and terrorize innocent people.

Somehow you Feel that it is Wrong that a “Killing-Machine” is using the theories that were developed to bring Harmony and Beauty (Christopher Alexander) to the world.

Ethics shows itself in two ways Norms and Values. The first part is about Morality. People have developed Rules to determine what is Good and what is Bad Behavior. Rules are prohibiting the Freedom to Act. Every time people override these rules because they have a different theory about Good and Bad or are Forced to Act in a certain Context. Most of the time We Act without Thinking.

There is no reason to subject all the actions we undertake to the criterion: Is it free or not? Freedom is only for certain acts. There are all sorts of acts that do not have to be confronted with the problems of freedom. They are done solely, one could say, to calm our disquietude: all our habitual and machinal acts. We will speak of freedom only when we pose the question of an act capable or not of filling the amplitude of the soul at a given moment” (Deleuze).

Values are part of the Emotions. They are “personal rules” that determine the behavior of humans. Most of the time the values are not known to the person that uses the “rules“. A person = “his values“. They show themselves when he (or she) is Acting.

When we observe a person for a long time or the person observes himself (introspection) the values show themselves. If the values show themselves the person develops a personal ethics, an inner voice, the conscience.

The fundamental question of ethics is not “What must I do?” (which is the question of morality) but rather “What can I do, what am I capable of doing (which is the proper question of an ethics without morality). Given my degree of power, what are my capabilities and capacities? How can I come into active possession of my power? How can I go to the limit of what I “can do“? (Daniel Smith).

The astonishing thing is not that some people steal or that others occasionally go out on strike, but rather that all those who are starving do not steal as a regular practice, and all those who are exploited are not continually out on strike” (Deleuze) .

People are driven by their Emotions AND they are capable to Control their Emotions. They control their Emotions when they apply Norms (Thinking, Morality) or when they use their Conscioussness.

The Primary Emotions, are those that we feel first, as a first response to a situation. If we are threatened, we feel fear or anger. When we hear of a death, we may feel sadness. They are un-Thinking responses that we have. The Primary Emotions are not controlled by our Thinking or our “Inner Voice”. The Primary Emotions are sometimes called Desires or Drives.

The System We Live In has created many situations where our Desires are activated. All the efforts of Marketing are directed at overriding the Consciouss. All the Efforts of Propaganda are used to motivate Soldiers to Kill out of Anger.

“Reason is always a region carved out of the irrational-it is not sheltered from the irrational at all, but traversed by it and only defined by a particular kind of relationship among irrational factors. Underneath all reason lies delirium and drift” (Deleuze).

The Personal Values are overridden when something or someone activates the Desires. Everybody is Able to Kill or Harm another Being if the Right Situation is Created.

Everything that helps me to preserve my existence I take to be Good and everything that goes against my existence or the I take to be Bad. What is good is what is useful, relative to my existence, and what is bad, is what is dangerous, relatively speaking, to my continued existence. My existence or the existence of my family or group is a major priority when I act. The problem arises when different groups are trying to exist in the same context.

Are people doing something Wrong when something is activating something they are not controlling? Are we Responsible for our Desires? I don’t think so.

When we look at the “causal chain” we can see that there are somewhere consciouss people (the “architects“) who have created and perfected “killing-machines” to secure the existence of their people (The Jews). They have used their rational abilities to find a reason why they are doing this. A reason might be to protect their family and their children. They fear (a primary emotion) something is going to happen. They develop technology, methods and scenario’s to prohibit “this” from happening. Again they are “deep within” activated by something they don’t control.

Are they doing something Wrong when something is activating something they are not controlling? The Causal Chain does not give an answer. Everywhere we find the Invisible Power of Desire. Underneath all reason lies delirium and drift. We are a Body and a Soul. In this World we have Live with the Body, the Perfect Desire-Machine.

Pushing to the utmost what one can do is the properly ethical task” (Deleuze).

All one must do is experiment with what is, to create the new. Are the architects of the Army doing their utmost best to prevent a conflict? Are they able to use their technology to make a better use of the available resources?

The principles of Alexander identify the character of Living Systems. The principles are not there to Kill but to make a Living. I am sure the military architects did not fully understand his books. Perhaps they can ask him to help.


The 15 principles of Alexander to Create a Living System


About Total Madness

Monday, August 4th, 2008

I have never believed reason and the final implementation of reason, the Computer, would help mankind. Reason is a terrible trap. It compresses our reality to a single point in which we finally will vanish. 

The Reason We are Here is not reason but non-reason. We are here to fight reason until it finally disappears.

The weapon with which we have to fight reason is reason itself. If we understand the simple fractal pattern behind everything we are ready to experience the spectacular effects of the simple pattern.

When you look at my blog about the Limits of Reason you can see that the solution is easy to find.

The solution is to move to the level the computer and reason never can reach, the world beyond Point Ω of Chaitin into Total Madness. It is the place where the Creative Force creates unique patterns that nobody can explain. The only thing we can do is Experience them.

The step into the world beyond Ω is in essence a step into madness. We have to leave everything we know behind. We have to skip all our patterns.

There are many types of madness but the madness I am talking about is named schizophrenia or psychosis.

I have experienced Psychosis when I suddenly jumped into the Unknown two years ago. I did not know my state was named this way. I experienced the state and tried move out of it because it was killing me. It was killing me because I received too much information. My brain was unable to find a pattern and the effect was almost total madness.

Luckily I did not go to a psychiatrist and I also did not take any pills. I just started to use the Internet to find out what was happening to me. Finally I knew I was the “victim” of something the old scientists call “Kundalini Rising“. I was experiencing something the Old Scientists call Enlightment.

When you are moving into the state of Enlightment you know there is another world behind this world and you know this world is real. It exists but the majority of humans are not aware of this world.

When you have experienced this state you suddenly understand what other enlightened humans are trying to tell. You understand the Gnosis but you also understand certain Philosophers who are trying to grasp the Reality behind our Reality.

One of them is Gilles Deleuze. Deleuze worked together with the psychiatrist Félix Guattari. One of their “Inventions” is the Plane of Immanence.

A few citations:

Here, there are no longer any forms or developments of forms; nor are there subjects or the formation of subjects. There is no structure, any more than there is genesis.”

We will say of pure immanence that it is A LIFE, and nothing else” [...]

A life is the immanence of immanence, absolute immanence: it is complete power, complete bliss

There are only relations of movement and rest, speed and slowness between unformed elements, or at least between elements that are relatively unformed, molecules, and particles of all kinds. There are only haecceities, affects, subjectless individuations that constitute collective assemblages. [...] We call this plane, which knows only longitudes and latitudes, speeds and haecceities, the plane of consistency or composition (as opposed to a plan(e) of organization or development

Deleuze and Guattari are using very difficult language but what they are trying to grasp is the experience of Union that occurs when your kundalini is moving. Many other people that have experienced this state of pure love have tried to find all kinds of metaphors to explain something you cannot explain.

The first time in my life the state of Union took only 30 minutes because somebody was able to drag me out of it. I wanted to stay there for ever. The second state lasted more than a week and because I was alone nobody was able to help me. It was much stronger and it came with huge flashes of Insight.

What will come in the near future is total Madness. Many people are already moving inside to find a state to cope with the Madness. The Total Madness has many names. Terrence McKenna calls it Point Omega. Funny enough the state when we pass the Limits of Reason carries the same name.

What is the Reason We are Here

I think Leibniz was not far away from his statement that Our Universe is “the most simple in hypotheses and the most rich in phenomena“. There are just a few rules that determine the Game of Life. It does not take a long time to find these rules. We can spend our whole life to prove these simple rules are not there. In this case Reasoning detracts us from the real thing. 

If we want to move beyond Omega we have to stop Reasoning. At that time we are ready to Create and Experience the Unique Events of Life itself.


About the Deleuze and Events

About Deleuze and Leibnitz

About Deleuze and Ethics

About Deleuze and Creation

About 2012 and Point Omega

What willl happen at Point Omega


About The Limits of Reason

Sunday, August 3rd, 2008

You can always find an infinite amount of equations that fits a finite set of points.

When the set of points changes the equation changes. This represents a major problem when you want to find a general pattern. The solution is to assume that the pattern behind the set of points has to be a Simple Equation (or a Simple Law).

A  theory has to be simpler than the data it explains, otherwise it does not explain anything.

To define Simplicity we have to define a tool that measures the simplicity of an equation. Mathematicians have tried to solve this problem in many different ways. The problem seamed unsolvable until computers and software-languages were invented.

A law of nature is a piece of software, a computer algorithm, and instead of trying to measure the complexity of a law via the size of an equation, we now consider the size of programs, the number of bits in the software that implements a theory.

If every theory is represented by a string of bits we are able to analyze what a computer (our “thinking mind”) is able to represent. The problem is transformed to the problem of representation. Behind this problem lies the problem of Compression.

Our Reality is represented by the simplest equation (the shortest (most compressed) binary set) that when it is expanded represents the most complex binary set that represents our reality.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

One of the conditions we have to add is the condition of “understand ability”. Perhaps the expression exists but we are unable to grasp the law. Leibniz calls this law the principle of sufficient reason.

Leibniz formulated this principle as follows: “Dieu a choisi celuy qui est… le plus simple en hypotheses et le plus riche en phenomenes” (God has chosen that which is the most simple in hypotheses and the most rich in phenomena)”. “Mais quand une regle est fort composée, ce qui luy est conforme, passe pour irrégulier” (But when a rule is extremely complex, that which conforms to it passes for random)”.

The interesting point in the statements of Leibniz is de term “irrégulier“. It is translated by the term “random“. This term can be interpreted in many ways. In the world of Statistics it means that a certain event is unpredictable. In algorithmic terms it means that we are unable to find a pattern behind the pattern we observe. A random pattern is an essential pattern. It cannot be compressed.

Science ends when we have found randomness and have reached the Limits of Reason.

Everybody has a Limit of Reason and this limit expands in time but for every mind that will be born there is an absolute limit of Reason. When we have reached this limit we will know there are still patterns to find but we will be unable to prove they are real patterns.

Gregory Chaitin
Gregory Chaitin

Gregory Chaitin is the expert of the Limits of Reason and he is highly influenced by Leibniz.

By running a program you can eventually discover that it halts, if it halts. When it halts you have found a theory. The problem is to decide when to give up on a program that does not halt.

A great many special cases can be solved, but Turing showed that a general solution is impossible. No algorithm, no mathematical theory, can ever tell us which programs will halt and which will not.

We are never certain that we have found a theory because when we wait a little longer (collect more facts) we find the final theory that explains what we want to explain (if we understand the theory).

We could use a computer to search for patterns (this happens already) but the computer presents an incomprehensible theory (this happens already) or it has to search a little longer. A computer could run “for ever” when there is enough energy but a human has a fixed lifetime. The halting problem shows that we will not know how long “for ever” is. We also will not have enough minds to analyze the output. The Halting problem is proved to be unsolvable.

Chaitin defined a constant Ω that shows our progress in reaching the Limit of Reason. It shows our progress to reach the Incomprehensible.

We still have a long way to go.

The Halting Problem cannot be solved because we (the Humans) are unable to define the Limits of Reason. Even the Brightest Minds will not be able to understand all the patterns that are available in Our Universe. Even Mechanical Devices programmed by the Brightest minds will not solve the Mystery. Somewhere we will make a Mistake.

The Mistake will start a new process of Inquiry and New Theories will be created that will always contain a Mistake. We will be Busy until Enternity to Create because we are not perfect. Only Perfect Solutions are Impossible.

I want to close this blog with a statement of Leibniz: ”Sans les mathématiques on ne pénètre point au fond de la philosophie. Sans la philosophie on ne pénètre point au fond des mathématiques. Sans les deux on ne pénètre au fond de rien”(Without mathematics we cannot penetrate deeply into philosophy. Without philosophy we cannot penetrate deeply into mathematics. Without both we cannot penetrate deeply into anything)”.


George Chaitin about the Principle of Sufficient Reason

About  Geometry and Fractal Patterns

About Formal Languages and Mistakes 

About the Quest for the perfect language (A Talk of Chaitin about the book of Umberto Ecco)

Leibniz forgot to mention the role of the Artist

About Leibniz and Deleuze

About Turing Machines

About Leibniz and Deleuze

Saturday, August 2nd, 2008

deleuzeGilles Deleuze was a French Philosopher who lived between 1925 and 1995. Deleuze’s main philosophical project concerns the relationship between Identity and Difference.

Until recently Difference was seen as a difference between two Identities. Deleuze attempts to reverse this situation, and to understand Difference-in-Itself. In his Quest for Difference Deleuze is highly inspired by Leibniz.

 Identities are constructs of many Differences that were Identies until Someone of Something United them. Our Reality is an Expanding Infinite Serie of Differences.

I found Deleuze on the Internet because I was searching for more information about Leibniz. Deleuze was an admirer of Leibniz and dedicated his last book, The Fold (Le Pli) to him. One of the major projects of Leibniz was the Analysis of Infinite Series of Differences and Differential Equations. It is not strange that Deleuze was a fan of Leibniz. Leibniz created the Concept and Deleuze was the Artist who started to Play with the Concept.

The true character of the Leibnizian game is the game of inventing principles. It is a game of filling holes, in which emptiness is imagined“.

I started to explore the website about Deleuze and discovered that he also admired Spinoza, the Philosopher of the Emotion and Nietzsche, the Philosopher of the Will.

After reading some of his teachings I decided to buy his books.

This blog is a first impression of Deleuze.

I want to start with a few Citations.

In creativity lies the secret: to bring into existence and not to judge. If it is so disgusting to judge, it is not because everything is of equal value, but on the contrary because what has value can be made or distinguished only by defying judgment. What expert judgment, in art, could ever bear on the work to come?”

Philosophers introduce new concepts, they explain them, but they don’t tell us, not completely anyway, the problems to which those concepts are a response. [...] The history of philosophy, rather than repeating what a philosopher says, has to say what he must have taken for granted, what he didn’t say but is nonetheless present in what he did say.”

When someone asks ‘what’s the use of philosophy?’ the reply must be aggressive, since the question tries to be ironic and caustic. Philosophy does not serve the State or the Church, who have other concerns. It serves no established power. The use of philosophy is to sadden. A philosophy which saddens no one, that annoys no one, is not a philosophy. It is useful for harming stupidity, for turning stupidity into something shameful. Its only use is the exposure of all forms of baseness of thought. . . . Philosophy is at its most positive as a critique, as an enterprise of demystification”.

One must ask, what does a woodworker create? What does a musician create? For me, a philosopher is someone who creates concepts. This implies many things: that the concept is something to be created, that the concept is the product of a creation“.

If philosophy has a positive and direct relation to things, it is only insofar as philosophy claims to grasp the thing itself, according to what it is, in its difference from everything it is not, in other words, in its internal difference

It’s just like theology: everything about it is quite rational if you accept sin, the Immaculate Conception, and the incarnation. Reason is always a region carved out of the irrational-not sheltered from the irrational at all, but traversed by it and only defined by a particular kind of relationship among irrational factors. Underneath all reason lies delirium, and drift.

Spinoza is the Christ of philosophers and the greatest philosophers are hardly more than apostles who distance themselves from or draw near to this mystery“.

The great theories of the Ethics . . . cannot be treated apart from the three practical theses concerning consciousness, values and the sad passions

When we stop obeying God, the State, our parents, reason appears and persuades us to continue being docile because it says to us: it is you who are giving the orders. Reason represents our slavery and our subjection as something superior, which makes us reasonable beings“.

That identity not be first, that it exist as a principle but as a second principle, as a principle become; that it revolve around the Different: such would be the nature of a Copernican revolution which opens up the possibility of difference having its own concept, rather than being maintained under the domination of a concept in general already understood as identical“.

History progresses not by negation and the negation of negation, but by deciding problems and affirming differences. It is no less bloody and cruel as a result. Only the shadows of history live by negation“.

This world does not exist in itself; it exists only in the individual notions that express this world“.

We are points of view on the world. It is not the subject that explains the point of view; it is the point of view that explains the subject“.

The Idea that Identity is Difference can be easily proved by the fact that if Identity is One Every Thing would be the Same. The Identity who is Difference is an always-differentiating process always folding, unfolding, and refolding. Deleuze calls this Identity The Fold (Le Pli).

An Identity is the Sum of many Differences which are or were Identities of their own until someone started to “fight” the Identity. Fighting Identity is the task of the Philosopher. He (or she) has to break the Unity by creating a new Concept.

A philosopher creates a concept and the artists create new qualitative combinations of sensation and feeling. They give Life to the concept because Life is Emotions and Sensations. In the last phase science creates quantitative theories based on fixed points of reference.

They will never find the Unifying Central Point of Reference. This Point moves when the Creative Power opens up new Points of View of the Fold.

The world is a Body of infinite folds and surfaces that twist and weave through compressed time and space (The Chronotope).

Humans are the Observers and the Creators of the Fold.

An Independent Thinking Consciousness is an Illusion. We think that our thoughts are the cause of our Actions but they are the Effects of our own Actions and the Actions of Others.

We are experiencing beings and our experience generates novelty (difference).

Novelty is the seed of an idea.

Good and Evil are the illusions of a moralistic worldview that does nothing but reduce our power to act and encourages the experience of the sad passions.

We are In the World and not Alone in the Universe.

Our engagement with others determinates our power to Act and our ability to experience Joy.

To live well is to fully express one’s power, to go to the limits of one’s potential“.


A Short Introduction to the Work of Deleuze

About Points of View

About Deleuze and the Limits of Reason

About Deleuze and Morality