2006-03-05T08:07:00.000-08:00

Philosophy of the hypothesis

a)Le time of the trade

b)Le time of sciences

Ex nihilo nihil

Expression whose author loses himself in the mists of time who results
in nothing does not come from nothing.

Source: Elementary treaty of philosophy of Paul Janet edition of 1881.

The legend wants that Antoine Laurent de Lavoisier is the father of
modern chemistry and that alchemy was swept by its work. It makes of
him a solitary man carrying out a scientific revolution vis-a-vis at an
institution linked against him and the author of the famous law
"nothing loses himself, nothing is not created". However, if it is well
at the origin of the fall of the theory of the phlogistique one, it
seems not very probable that he is the author of the "law of
Lavoisier". Moreover, according to certain historians, it rather seems
a scientist established well in the scientific community where it has,
obviously, of combined and the enemies. It does not remain about it
less than work of Lavoisier was of great importance in the history of
chemistry.

infoscience.fr/histoire/portrait/lavoisier

I think that ex nihilo nihil or nothing is lost, anything is not
created can result in the zero does not exist.

It is what pushed me to seek a mathematical model where the zero do not
exist.

Even if to believe is to be mistaken, one of the characters of the man
is to believe; not to believe is always to believe not to believe.

Since we are obliged to believe, and since I think that the zero in
sciences do not exist, I observe what is in opposition to what could be.

If I analyze a physical phenomenon using a commercial logic, I will
make an inventory of what is and of what is not. Thus I will have
actions which do not exist and which will be represented by zero value.

If I analyze a physical phenomenon while observing what is, which was
is what is in another form thus the past always exist but changed
representation.

(the affirmative demonstration is higher than the negative
demonstration). A mushroom is not however seen before its ground exit
it exists. Using a demonstration by the effect (imperfect) we can say
that this mushroom existed even if we do not see it.

ANDRE pierre jocelyn 1993

The principal laws established by Aristote are:

1)La universal demonstration is higher than the particular
demonstration.

example: The fact that the horizon corresponds to a rule does not prove
that the ground is punt, to see the article on Innovation Health.

2)La affirmative demonstration is better than the negative
demonstration.

3)La affirmative demonstration and even the negative demonstration is
better than the reductio ad absurdum.

Always according to Aristote one distinguishes two kinds of
demonstration:

1)La perfect demonstration, or demonstration by the cause.

2)La imperfect demonstration, the demonstration by the effect

Analyze Greek geometricians:

Definition of analysis and synthesis according to Pappus.

The analysis is the way which, on the basis of the thing requested,
that one grants for the moment, carries out by a succession of
consequences from something of known before or put at the number of the
principles recognized for truths: this method thus makes us go up of a
truth or a proposal to its antecedents, and we let us name it analysis
or resolution, i.e. solution in opposite direction.

In the synthesis, on the contrary, we leave the proposal which is the
last of the analysis: then ordering according to their nature the
antecedents which higher were presented in the form of the consequent
ones and combining them between them, we arrive at the sought goal,
which we had left in the first case.

Concept of thing and phenomenon.

Work of P. Janet:

"When with science, or sciences of what does not live division is more
delicate.

We will say initially that in nature one can distinguish two points of
view: or things themselves, or phenomena. Thus a stone is a thing, a
metal is a thing; water the air are things, but the sound, the light,
heat are only phenomena. So that there is its, light, heat, is needed
that there are sound things, luminous, overheated. Thus the phenomena
are not by themselves and suppose things. However they can be observed
and studied independently of the things ".

Thus we have the things or matter, and the phenomena. The principal
difference between the two is that one persists and that the other is
an image which appears or disparait. If I continue the reasoning, I can
say that time is a phenomenon, and even as it goes us apparaitre or
disparaitre according to the things on which it will carry its image.

Characteristic of time on a physical system in evolution:

example on the man: one hour for a ten hour old child, it is a tenth of
its life; whereas one hour for a sixty twelve year old person does not
represent certe not a tenth of its life. The poets knew to say it as
Pagnol which speaks about the summers of its childhood.

Andre P.J.

CRITICAL OF COMPARATIVE LOGIC

1° Définition: Comparative logic is that which enables us to
differentiate two particular objects, under quite precise criteria.
Deductive logic is that which uses the reasoning following an inventory.

2° Objections against comparative logic:

a) Comparative logic introduces the concept of zero into the
differences. In example, Paul does not have an euro, I give him two
euros, which it gives at once to a passer by. How much does it remain
of euro with Paul?

b) Comparative logic introduces an empirical system in science, and
inhibits pure deductive logic. In example by analogy, a man equipped
with an arrow of harpoon wants to catch a fish. If it follows a pure
comparative logic, it will follow an empirical system. In other words:
in first it will send the arrow of its harpoon to the top at the place
where it is; that perhaps in its living room. Without result, it will
note "I sent the arrow of my harpoon upwards and I did not catch a fish
in my living room". Concerned of the detail, it will be able to note
that it carried such type of shirt, such type of trousers, that it was
one Sunday, etc... ad infinitum. If one day the chance makes that this
man catches a fish, it is not certain only the elements which it will
note is the essential characters of the sought object, namely to catch
a fish. Moreover certain laws as that which wants than certain fish
migrate make the method empirical not easily applicable in science.
Now, if the person uses a deductive logic; it will start by thinking
and putting the question: Which are the essential characters of the
required object. To know, where the fish are? When are it there? And
how can I ensure myself some? With these conditions the shooting of the
arrow of the harpoon will be done in a way sure and effective.

c) comparative logic generates a perpetual competition, which appears
by a search for being able with the detriment of others. This
established fact directs our company towards a perpetual vicious
circle. In other words, following a perfect revolution, all the men
start again with the quite equivalent ones. According to competences'
of each one, some will have more richnesses, until they have almost all
the richnesses; at this time by spirit of justice a new revolution
bursts putting all the meters at zero for a turn.

Andre p.j.

Hypothesis on time