Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5
M
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
M
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5
ALL IMPORTANT CONCEPTS REGARDING ORGANIZING ACTIVITY ARE INTEGRATED NATURALLY INTO A DOUBLE FEEDBACK CYBERNETIC LOGICAL SYSTEM IN CONFORMITY WITH A MODEL I NAMED: "THE UNIVERSAL MODEL OF ORGANIZATION". This model, a simple scheth, is a law of nature, always the same, wherever in univers: THE UNIVERSAL LAW OF ORGANIZATION. This law make our thinking more comprehensive, able to better understand everything, every phenomenon, generally the whole complexity of our world. In Romania, my book about its practical utility was sold very quickly (20,000 copies). Now I looking for a Publishing House to translate and sell it for you. www.organizationlaw.com [/URL] office@organizationlaw.com [EMAIL]


_ _____________ _
After a long practice as manager I discovered a law of nature: THE UNIVERSAL LAW OF ORGANIZATION: http://www.organizationlaw.com You can utilize its graphical model to an efficient organization and management of all yours activities.
.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
U
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
U
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Quote:
After a long practice as manager I discovered a law of nature
If you want to find the bottleneck, the first place to look is at the top of the bottle.


Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5
M
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
M
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5
Uncle Al, the text that appears below my message ("After a long practice ......"), as you see, isn`t a part of it. Is a rough copy text I was prepared as e-signature and that by mistake appears there. I have asked to delete it. Congratulations for your academic replay!


_ _____________ _
After a long practice as manager I discovered a law of nature: THE UNIVERSAL LAW OF ORGANIZATION: http://www.organizationlaw.com You can utilize its graphical model to an efficient organization and management of all yours activities.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 334
K
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
K
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 334
Thanks for your post Mihaescu. I was looking at your website and couldn't find the actual "law". Can you define what the "Law of Organization" is?

BTW, "Ethernal (sic) Cosmic Supreme Intelligence" is probably not the best opening gambit you could play in this forum. However, Uncle Al (and others) should display a little more patience for people who's first language is not English.

Look forward to seeing your law.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
Here is the law Kate: "All important concepts regarding organizing activity are integrated naturally into a double feedback cybernetic logical system in conformity with The Universal Model of Organization. This model is always the same, wherever in the universe."

What I want to see is the proof of this "law". Despite writing books since about 1986 (which BTW means that he should have a better command of the english language) he doesn't seem to know that organizational models can be represented mathematically. That organization can be defined/implemented in terms of feedback sytems, loops, is trivial, see Al's comment. That there are only two such loops for any type of organization, this is more complicated (if real). That this is indeed the case with all hierarchical systems in the universe, this is patently a conjecture, based mainly on nothing, to put it mildly.

So unless he proves his statements, beyond triviality, Baez's ranking remains valid.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
I gave it a thought.
==========================
ALL IMPORTANT CONCEPTS REGARDING ORGANIZING ACTIVITY ARE INTEGRATED NATURALLY INTO A DOUBLE FEEDBACK CYBERNETIC LOGICAL SYSTEM IN CONFORMITY WITH A MODEL I NAMED: "THE UNIVERSAL MODEL OF ORGANIZATION".
REP: What is meant by all important concepts?Who decides what is important and what is not?If you are talking about Organization of Life then
every cell , every atom and and every step was necssary for evolution.It was not possible to attain the concept of Molecule without acheiving Atomicity .Incremantal Organization demands equal importance of every step.And the result is that it takes millions of years to become humans.There is an inherent trade off betweeen
% full accomplishement of a task and the time and resources required to accomplish it.
Universe had plenty of resources and time to create this human city.
And what is meant by double feedback system?
As far as I can understand when we try to simulate a real world problem we end up creating a feedback system to achieve a solution.The discovery is related to a practical aspect of problem solving.
If you wish to replace Newton Laws with your feedback systems then you can do it .. control systems know how to map forces to boxes.
And what is so extraordinary about "Double Feedback Systems" ?
========================
In Romania, my book about its practical utility was sold very quickly (20,000 copies). Now I looking for a Publishing House to translate and sell it for you. www.organizationlaw.com [/URL] office@organizationlaw.com [EMAIL]
REP: Please send me one.
=======================
After a long practice as manager I discovered a law of nature: THE UNIVERSAL LAW OF ORGANIZATION: www.organizationlaw.com You can utilize its graphical model to an efficient organization and management of all yours activities.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
And i have question ..
If your idea is the reality and not an approximation then what is the goal of the systems (evrything is feedback based.. right?) present in Universe(before we call it Universal Law).

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5
M
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
M
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally posted by Pasti:

What I want to see is the proof of this "law"....That there are only
two such loops for any type of
organization, this is more complicated
(if real). That this is indeed the case
with all hierarchical systems in the
universe, this is patently a conjecture,
based mainly on nothing, to put it mildly.

So unless he proves his statements, beyond triviality, Baez's ranking remains valid.
Dear Pasti,

At the moment, I can prove the existence of The Universal Law
of Organization only by its concrete effects,
by an
experimental and inductive-deductive way, as in many other
cases of discoveries in an incipient stage.

The fact that in all systems working in univers there are
only two loops, each loop having three managing-functions I
showed, isn`t "a conjecture, based mainly on nothing", but
is patently a scientific conclusion based on concrete
numerous experiments and observations..

Nature "speak" to us, either denying/confirming a conjecture,
or even by images, in our experiments.

If you come a magnet near a iron filings particles,
you`ll see this particles sit always on the same curve linies:
the magnetic field`s force linies, revealing their existence.

In the same way, if you come the systemic-cybernetic
vision near all the principales concepts of organizing
and managing activities, this concepts will sit logicaly
along two feed-back informational loops, into always the
same system-sketch: The Universal Model
of Organization.
Based on my long theoretical and practical experience in
the matter, I think there is no alrternative as complete as
this model !

After you`ll see this model, you`ll be prepossessed
by its "simplicity in complexity", by its clarity, by
its general scientific character.

In the "Preface" of my book "CHESS AND CYBERNETICS"
(1986), page 12,
Professor Ph. D. Engineer Dolphi Drimer, member of academies
and of other international scientific organizations,
International Chess Master, the future Rector of The Ecological
University of Bukarest, wrote:

"In the beginning I came near to this work with the distrust
of the chess player and the hesitation of the man of science,
but I finished the reading of the book with the
joy of having
read an original text that proves how one can play chess
scientifically and how one can approach science through the
game.

I appreciate the praiseworthy initiative of the Sport-Turism
Publishing House to print a very present work, addressed to
a large number of readers."

I think this model is a law of nature, an universal law,
because it can be identified in all systems that work in univers,
in microcosm and in macrocosm alike.

You can see by yourself his logical governing force if you
want to build a system having a goal for you. If you have in
your hand this model, you don`t avoid its structure and
its work if you want that your builded system have a maximum
efficiency for long time. Nothing of The Universal Law
of Organization can be omited, nothing must be added moreover.

Paraphrasing you, unless you or someoane else doesn`t offer
a credible alternative to my theory, this theory can be valable
and can be teach in schools taking into consideration
its high proved practical value in systems analysis and
design, in organizing and managing of
all kinds of
activities.

Thank you for your interesting replay !

Yours sincerely,
Mihaescu
September 14 2005


_ _____________ _
After a long practice as manager I discovered a law of nature: THE UNIVERSAL LAW OF ORGANIZATION: http://www.organizationlaw.com You can utilize its graphical model to an efficient organization and management of all yours activities.
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
May I have a copy to review?

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Send one to me pls.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
MC:"At the moment, I can prove the existence of The Universal Law of Organization only by its concrete effects, by an experimental and inductive-deductive way, as in many other
cases of discoveries in an incipient stage."

You mean you have some proof that your law works in a few cases. Good. Now prove it works in all cases. And since your discovery is 20 years old already, this is not what one would call an incipient stage.

MC:"The fact that in all systems working in univers there are only two loops, each loop having three managing-functions I showed, isn`t "a conjecture, based mainly on nothing", but is patently a scientific conclusion based on concrete numerous experiments and observations.."

Well, as I said, you can mathematically formulate your theory. And as such, I would refer you back to your highschool math manuals for the definition and applications of mathematical proofs. Try the manuals before 1990.

MC:"Nature speak to us, either denying/confirming a conjecture, or even by images."

This would be the first time nature has spoken to management! laugh

MC:"If you come a magnet near a iron filings particles, you`ll see this particles sit always on the same curve linies: the magnetic field`s force linies, revealing their existence."

And yet there is a long way from seeing the iron fillings in magnetic field to the Biot-Savart laws or to Maxwell's laws.

MC:"In the same way, if you come the systemic-cybernetic vision near all the principales concepts of organizing and managing activities, this concepts will sit logicaly along two feed-back informational loops, into always the
same system-sketch: The Universal Model of Organization. "

"Near" all doesn't mean "universal" And once again, your statements do not stand for proof.

MC:"Based on my long theoretical and practical experience in the matter, I think there is no alrternative as complete as this model!"

This is very nice, but it still doesn't count as a proof of your statement.

MC:"After you`ll see this model, you`ll be repossessed by its "simplicity in complexity", by its clarity, by its general scientific character."

I will be "repossesed" much better by a proof! And I am quite sure you've already heard this before:"Verba volant, scripta manent".

MC:"In the "Preface" of my book "CHESS AND CYBERNETICS" (1986), page 12, Professor Ph. D. Engineer Dolphi Drimer, member of academies
and of other international scientific organizations, International Chess Master, the future Rector of The Ecological
University of Bukarest"

Bwa ha, ha! Old Dolphi is your reviewer! Oh boy. He is now an expert in organization and management too, isn't he? My advice is to actually get a good reviewer, someone hwo actually has some knowledge in the appropriate field (that would be probably economics, so try the ASE). Dolphi is just a crackerjack. It's fun to talk to him, I have to admit, but he is the epithome of an oxymoron. Especially in the international environment.

MC:"I think this model is a law of nature, an universal law, because it can be identified in all systems that work in univers, in microcosm and in macrocosm alike."

What you think might be interesting, but does not constitute a proof for your claims of universality.

MC:"You can see by yourself his logical governing force if you want to build a system having a goal for you. If you have in your hand this model, you don`t avoid its structure and its work if you want that your builded system have a maximum
efficiency for long time. Nothing of The Universal Law of Organization can be omited, nothing must be added moreover."

A 2-loop system is traditionally unstable, so I will stick for the time being with a simple 1-loop one, which is easier to control.

MC:"Paraphrasing you, unless you or someoane else doesn`t offer a credible alternative to my theory, this theory can be valable and can be teach in schools taking into consideration
its high proved practical value in systems analysis and design, in organizing and managing of all kinds of activities."

Constantin, it doesn't work that way. If you make a claim, the burden of proof IS ON YOU. It is for you to prove that you are right, not for others to prove you wrong. Maybe a more qualified reviewer could enlighten you in this matter.
Until then, your claim remains unsubstantiated in the form you stated it. And BTW, why don;t you apply it for your marketing purposes? According to your claims it should be sucessful. laugh

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5
M
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
M
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5
Motto:
"E pur si muove !"
GALILEO GALILEI


Replay to:
"You mean you have some proof that your law works in a few cases. Good. Now
prove it works in all cases"

Dear Pasti,

Easy to deny ! Hardly to state ! Much more hardly to prove !!

The Universal Law of Organization is A GRAPHICAL MODEL, A LOGICAL SKETCH into
that connections between the concepts ARE LOGICAL, NORMAL, NATURAL
REQUIREMENTS as a result even of its definitions in a sistemic-cybernetic vision.

This definitions are given in my site www.organizationlaw.com (see "Definitions" page) and
you can verify them logicaly. If they are OK, this means that the model is correct and can be
teached in schools for its practical performances.

A CORRECT LOGICAL SKETCH IS APPARENT, VISIBLE, EVIDENTLY TRUE AND
MUST NO TO BE SUPPLEMENTARY PROVED !

Nothing is left to me but to demonstrate only if this model is generalizable, OK ?

Do you believe in "stress" ? Yes ? But this concept haven`t a mathematical prove and to
your mind by this reason isn`t proved, although produces certain effects !

I repeat: I prove my theory by many observations, many experiments and by an inductive-
deductive reasoning.

"Induction is an reasoning that departs from part and reaches to the whole, from the particular
to the general or from individual to universal. Deduction is an reasoning that depart from
general to particular or from universal to individual." (pag. 316)
"They who object against inductive reasoning doesn`t realise that they deplore in fact the
unrighteous trust in a general law. To inspire trust, a generalization must be supported by as
much as possible observations. BUT ONCE WORDED BASED ON A CERTAIN
NUMBER OF DATES, THIS GENERALIZATION BECOME IN THE SAME MEASURE
A GENERAL LAW AND A GUIDE FOR CORRECT DEDUCTIONS." (PAG. 318) (Hans
Selye, From Dream to Discovery, On Being a Scientist, Ed. Medicala, Bucuresti, 1968).

Or, believe me, in last 20 years, ALL my many practical experiments have proved that the
organizing model I propose can`t be avoid in any system analysis or/and design. For this
reason I think, by induction, that this model can be generalizated at a universal level, as The
Mendeleev`s Periodic Table, for exemple - an other graphical scientific discovery with universal
character.

Please accept that for a very complex model as The Universal Model of Organization it is
very difficult to find a mathematical expression ! This doesn`t mean the model isn`t valid
and can`t be used with success until its mathematical expression will be proved !

At my turn, may I ask you a practical question ? "What are the management functions ?"

Of cause, I am sure you know the correct answer, but it allows me an interesting possibility
to continue this agreable dialogue with you. Agree ? Thanks !

Yours sincerely,
Mihaescu
September 16 2005


_ _____________ _
After a long practice as manager I discovered a law of nature: THE UNIVERSAL LAW OF ORGANIZATION: http://www.organizationlaw.com You can utilize its graphical model to an efficient organization and management of all yours activities.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
MC:"Easy to deny ! Hardly to state ! Much more hardly to prove !!"

Well, you stated it.So now work on the proof. What seems to be your problem? And remember, verba volant...

MC: "...This definitions are given in my site www.organizationlaw.com (see "Definitions" page) and you can verify them logicaly. If they are OK, this means that the model is correct and can be
teached in schools for its practical performances."

Well, let me put it this way. You claim some axioms, you state a theorem, but you don't give the proof. Remember geometry?

MC: "A CORRECT LOGICAL SKETCH IS APPARENT, VISIBLE, EVIDENTLY TRUE AND MUST NO TO BE SUPPLEMENTARY PROVED !"

Well, prove that it is ALWAYS correct. Otherwise you concept leads to the conclusion that anyone making any claim must be right.

MC:"Nothing is left to me but to demonstrate only if this model is generalizable, OK?"

You have to state the conditions under which you claim it works, and prove that it works under those conditions. Then you might think about generalizing it.

"Do you believe in "stress" ? Yes ? But this concept haven`t a mathematical prove and to
your mind by this reason isn`t proved, although produces certain effects !"

You are right, not all things/facts can fromulated in a mathematically rigorous manner. But in your case they can. So what is your point?

MC:"I repeat: I prove my theory by many observations, many experiments and by an inductive-deductive reasoning."

You are wasting your breath. Where is the proof that your theory works for all the possible conditions? Because you claim universality, don't you?

MC:"They who object against ...Hans Selye, From Dream to Discovery, On Being a Scientist, Ed. Medicala, Bucuresti, 1968)."

And thoose who don't know geometry should leave (Pythagora). Instead of quoting the wisdom of other people, better start working on the proof of you model, before making preposterous claims.

MC: "Or, believe me, in last 20 years, ALL my many practical experiments have proved that the
organizing model I propose can`t be avoid in any system analysis or/and design."

Instead os spending so much time defending it, you'd better have worked on the proofs.

"For this reason I think, by induction, that this model can be generalizated at a universal level, as The Mendeleev`s Periodic Table, for exemple - an other graphical scientific discovery with universal character."

This is not induction. Induction in the mathematical sense works a bit differently. You are making a conjecture, or an inference. That cannot and stands not as a proof in the general case.

MC:"Please accept that for a very complex model as The Universal Model of Organization it is
very difficult to find a mathematical expression !"

Oh phlease!You haven't even tried it. Systems with multiple feedback loops are current in say,electronics. Look for example for the construction of active filters. Not to mention the abundant mathematical literature in economics.

"This doesn`t mean the model isn`t valid and can`t be used with success until its mathematical expression will be proved !"

No, this means that your universality claim remains invalid until proved.

MC:"At my turn, may I ask you a practical question ? "What are the management functions ?"

You will have to be more specific. the management functions in what context?

Mc: "Of cause, I am sure you know the correct answer, but it allows me an interesting possibility to continue this agreable dialogue with you. Agree ? Thanks !"

Be my guest.

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5
M
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
M
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally posted by Pasti:

MC: "...This definitions are given in my site www.organizationlaw.com (see "Definition) and you can verify them logicaly. If they are OK, this means that the model is correct and can
be teached in schools for its practical performances."

Well, let me put it this way. You claim some axioms, you state a theorem, but you don't
give the proof. Remember geometry?

MC: "A CORRECT LOGICAL SKETCH IS APPARENT, VISIBLE, EVIDENTLY TRUE AND MUST NO TO BE SUPPLEMENTARY PROVED !"

Well, prove that it is ALWAYS correct.
Otherwise you concept leads to t. conclusion that anyone making any claim must be right.

MC:"Nothing is left to me but to demonstrate only if this model is generalizable, OK?"

You have to state the conditions under which
you claim it works, and prove that it works under those conditions. Then you might think about generalizing it.

"Do you believe in "stress" ? Yes ? But this concept haven`t a mathematical prove and to
your mind by this reason isn`t proved,
although produces certain effects !"

You are right, not all things/facts can fromulated in a mathematically rigorous
manner. But in your case they can. So what
is your point?

MC:"I repeat: I prove my theory by many observations, many experiments and by an inductive-deductive reasoning."

You are wasting your breath. Where is the
proof that your theory works for all the possible conditions? Because you claim universality, don't you?
...
You will have to be more specific, the management functions in what context?
Be my guest. [/QB]
Dear Pasti,

I think that if a theory is logically
correct, it is true and can provide valid solutions, even it isn`t mathematically formulated. You recognise: "You are right,
not all things/facts can fromulated in a mathematically rigorous manner"

If you say that my theory can be formulated
mathematically at your turn you must prove
it. I think that it is very, very difficult
having in view the extreme high level of complexity of the mathematical problem. It`s favourite level of problems solved by A. Einstein:

"I want to know how God created this world. I
am not interested in this or that phenomenon,
in the spectrum of this or that elementI want
to know His thoughts; the rest are details."

So, in vain you repeat: "Now work on the (mathematical m.n) proof" "Remember geometry"
"What seems to be your problem?"

Well, my problem is that I am not...Einstein!
For t. moment I will be content if scientists will accept at least that the practical value
of Universal Model of Organization is enough
to justify its teaching in schools.

In regard to the theoretical value I will try
to demonstrate by unmathematical but logical ways that The Universal Law of Organization
is true.

I maintain idea that if a theory is logical
it is true and can provide valid solutions.
The fact that a logical theory is alwais true
is a self-evident assumption. Generally, the
infinite in space and time character of logic
is a self-evident assumption that must no to
be demonstrated.

"Aristotle and Descartes would be pleased to hear Dr. William Hatcher proclaim that even
God Himself cannot defy logic.
Hatcher, who is a self-proclaimed Platonist philosopher with a Ph.D. IN MATHEMATICS, delivered a LOGICAL PROOF for the existence
of God before an over-filled auditorium in Warren Hall last night.
(see "Does God Exist? Yes,Mathematician Says"
By Kathy Gilsinan, Spectator Staff Writer,
February 17, 2004, http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/
display.v/ART/2004/02/17/4031d9166ab57)

If a mathematician uses the logical proof to
prove existence of a scientific solution of
a top high complexity problem as the God
existence, way this manner of problem solving
isn`t valid for me?

THE UNIVERSAL MODEL OF ORGANIZATION IS A
LOGICAL PROOF OF THE UNIVERSAL LAW OF
ORGANIZATION, I think in context.

Sorry, with all my sincere respect for you,
I think that if you defy logic, this is your problem, not mine!

P. "You will have to be more specific, the management functions in what context?"

No context. In general. As your opinion.

Thank you for your interesting replay.

Yours sincerely,
Mihaescu
September 17 2005


_ _____________ _
After a long practice as manager I discovered a law of nature: THE UNIVERSAL LAW OF ORGANIZATION: http://www.organizationlaw.com You can utilize its graphical model to an efficient organization and management of all yours activities.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
MC:"I think that if a theory is logically
correct, it is true and can provide valid solutions, even it isn`t mathematically formulated."

I will say it again.Your theory can be formulated mathematically, and as such your claim of universality could be rigorously proved or disproved. And BTW, I can give you examples of logic which are incorrect, despite their logic. Read Aristotle's Metaphysics.

MC:"If you say that my theory can be formulated
mathematically at your turn you must prove
it."

It ain't working that way, you know? But if indeed it contains two feedback loops, there is no need for me to prove it. Take any electronics book and you will see circuits involving several configurations involving multiple feedback loops. I think I already gave you another hint, like active filters, but you chose to ignore it.

MC:"I think that it is very, very difficult
having in view the extreme high level of complexity of the mathematical problem."

You simply don't know what you are talking about.You haven't even tried it and you are now persuading me it is impossible? You must be joking.

MC:"It`s favourite level of problems solved by A. Einstein:"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon,in the spectrum of this or that element I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details."

Well, I wouldn't worry aqbout Einstein, he has been talking to God for the last forty something years. As for you and God, I'll quote Rasputin: "Let's leave God alone for a moment. He is probably tired already from your prayers"

MC:"Well, my problem is that I am not...Einstein!"

Nor is your problem the theory of general relativity. And you have already wasted about 20 years. If instead of making unproven claims you had tried to learn what you needed, you could have solved your problem by now, one way or the other. So stop making excuses.

MC:"For the moment I will be content if scientists will accept at least that the practical value of Universal Model of Organization is enough to justify its teaching in schools."

So in your view, it is enough you came with an ideea. Someone else, under the generic name "scientists" must do the work to prove you right or wrong, because you are determined to have it taught in schools. Oh, boy!

If you want your ideea taught in school, then get working on it, get some papers published (in some international journal would be a good ideea), or at least get someone who knows more than you in the field to look at it. Maybe you'll get lucky.

"In regard to the theoretical value I will try
to demonstrate by unmathematical but logical ways that The Universal Law of Organization
is true."

As you have examples dating back from Pythagora and Plato, logic itself does not guarantee correctness.

MC:"I maintain idea that if a theory is logical
it is true and can provide valid solutions."

The Ptolemaic theory of the solar system was logical, and yet it was patently untrue. Let me know if you need more counterexamples.

"The fact that a logical theory is alwais true
is a self-evident assumption."

Tell that to Aristotle.

MC:"Generally, the infinite in space and time character of logic is a self-evident assumption that must no to be demonstrated."

Patently untrue in the general case. When you say that two parallels never intersect (euclidean geometry) this statement is true only in two dimensional euclidean geometry. In three dimensional euclidean geometry the statement is not true anymore.

Funny how your theory is based only on issues that need not be demonstrated.

MC:"Aristotle and Descartes would be pleased to hear Dr. William Hatcher proclaim that even
God Himself cannot defy logic."

Do not forget that they both got notoriously wrong results based only on logic.

MC:"Hatcher, who is a self-proclaimed Platonist philosopher with a Ph.D. IN MATHEMATICS, delivered a LOGICAL PROOF for the existence
of God before an over-filled auditorium in Warren Hall last night. (see "Does God Exist? Yes,Mathematician Says"By Kathy Gilsinan, Spectator Staff Writer, February 17, 2004, http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/
display.v/ART/2004/02/17/4031d9166ab57)"

Well, it seems that you are making my case with these examples. But I should point you to the fact that neither the Vatican, nor other religions have issued an appendix to the bible with the proof you mention. Maybe this will give you a hint.

"If a mathematician uses the logical proof to
prove existence of a scientific solution of
a top high complexity problem as the God
existence, way this manner of problem solving
isn`t valid for me?"

I would suggest you to take as your role model Moisil and not a hack like Hatcher. Who knows, you might learn something.

"Sorry, with all my sincere respect for you,
I think that if you defy logic, this is your problem, not mine!"

You can think whatever you like. But if you bothered to open a book on logics, the first thing you will learn is that a logical system is not necessarily correct, or realistic. It is just that. A logical system. But then that is indeed your problem.

MC:" (management functions)...No context. In general. As your opinion."

Well, here are about five of them: planning, organizing, staffing, directing, controlling. You claim six, but fro example regulation can be devised as part of the controlling process. and each of these fctions can have multiple fedback loops, so where on earth did you come up only with two?


Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5