Anatta In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit: अनात्मन्) refers to the perception of "not-self", recommended as one of the seven beneficial perceptions,[1] which along with the perception of dukkha, and anicca, is also formally classified among the three marks of existence. Anatta in the Nikayas[edit] The ancient Indian word for self or essence is attā (Pāli) or ātman (Sanskrit), and is often thought to be an eternal substance that persists despite death. Hence the term anatta is often interpreted as referring to the denial of a self or essence. Taken together with the perceptions of anicca (impermanence) and dukkha (imperfection), anatta (not self) perception is the last of the three marks of existence, which when grasped strategically, leads to dispassion (nibbida). Karma and Anatta[edit] Skillful action[edit] Because most philosophers focus on asserting or rejecting a self,[3] when people approach Buddhism, they assume it is answering the same questions. Views on self[edit]
State-space representation In control engineering, a state-space representation is a mathematical model of a physical system as a set of input, output and state variables related by first-order differential equations. "State space" refers to the space whose axes are the state variables. The state of the system can be represented as a vector within that space. To abstract from the number of inputs, outputs and states, these variables are expressed as vectors. inputs and outputs, we would otherwise have to write down Laplace transforms to encode all the information about a system. State variables[edit] The internal state variables are the smallest possible subset of system variables that can represent the entire state of the system at any given time.[3] The minimum number of state variables required to represent a given system, , is usually equal to the order of the system's defining differential equation. Linear systems[edit] Block diagram representation of the linear state-space equations inputs, outputs and where: ). .
Bundle theory According to bundle theory, an object consists of its properties and nothing more: thus neither can there be an object without properties nor can one even conceive of such an object; for example, bundle theory claims that thinking of an apple compels one also to think of its color, its shape, the fact that it is a kind of fruit, its cells, its taste, or at least one other of its properties. Thus, the theory asserts that the apple is no more than the collection of its properties. In particular, there is no substance in which the properties inhere. Arguments for the bundle theory[edit] The difficulty in conceiving of or describing an object without also conceiving of or describing its properties is a common justification for bundle theory, especially among current philosophers in the Anglo-American tradition. Whether a relation of an object is one of its properties may complicate such an argument. Objections to the bundle theory[edit] Compresence objection[edit] See also[edit] References[edit]
Dynamical system The Lorenz attractor arises in the study of the Lorenz Oscillator, a dynamical system. Overview[edit] Before the advent of computers, finding an orbit required sophisticated mathematical techniques and could be accomplished only for a small class of dynamical systems. Numerical methods implemented on electronic computing machines have simplified the task of determining the orbits of a dynamical system. For simple dynamical systems, knowing the trajectory is often sufficient, but most dynamical systems are too complicated to be understood in terms of individual trajectories. The systems studied may only be known approximately—the parameters of the system may not be known precisely or terms may be missing from the equations. History[edit] Many people regard Henri Poincaré as the founder of dynamical systems.[3] Poincaré published two now classical monographs, "New Methods of Celestial Mechanics" (1892–1899) and "Lectures on Celestial Mechanics" (1905–1910). Basic definitions[edit] Flows[edit]
Object (philosophy) The pragmatist Charles S. Peirce defines the broad notion of an object as anything that we can think or talk about.[1] In a general sense it is any entity: the pyramids, Alpha Centauri, the number seven, a disbelief in predestination or the fear of cats. In a strict sense it refers to any definite being. A related notion is objecthood. Objecthood is the state of being an object. The notion of an object must address two problems: the change problem and the problem of substance. An attribute of an object is called a property if it can be experienced (e.g. its color, size, weight, smell, taste, and location). Because substances are only experienced through their properties a substance itself is never directly experienced. Some philosophies[which?] In the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā Nagarjuna seizes the dichotomy between objects as collections of properties or as separate from those properties to demonstrate that both assertions fall apart under analysis. Russell, Bertrand (1948).
Laplace transform History[edit] The Laplace transform is named after mathematician and astronomer Pierre-Simon Laplace, who used a similar transform (now called z transform) in his work on probability theory. The current widespread use of the transform came about soon after World War II although it had been used in the 19th century by Abel, Lerch, Heaviside, and Bromwich. From 1744, Leonhard Euler investigated integrals of the form as solutions of differential equations but did not pursue the matter very far.[2] Joseph Louis Lagrange was an admirer of Euler and, in his work on integrating probability density functions, investigated expressions of the form which some modern historians have interpreted within modern Laplace transform theory.[3][4][clarification needed] akin to a Mellin transform, to transform the whole of a difference equation, in order to look for solutions of the transformed equation. Formal definition[edit] The parameter s is the complex number frequency: with real numbers and ω. instead of F.
Personal identity What does it take for individuals to persist from moment to moment—or in other words, for the same individual to exist at different moments? Generally, it is the unique numerical identity of persons through time.[3][4] That is to say, the necessary and sufficient conditions under which a person at one time and a person at another time can be said to be the same person, persisting through time.[note 5] In the modern philosophy of mind, this concept of personal identity is sometimes referred to as the diachronic problem[note 6] of personal identity.[5] The synchronic problem[note 7] is grounded in the question of what features or traits characterize a given person at one time. Identity is an issue for both continental philosophy and analytic philosophy. A question in continental philosophy is in what sense can the contemporary conception of identity be maintained, while many prior propositions, postulates, and presuppositions about the world are different.[6][7] Bodily substance[edit]
THE GENERAL SYSTEM? REVIEWED by Charles Francois, Editor, International Encyclopedia of Cybernetics and Systemics By Thomas Mandel "A human being is part of the Whole...He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest...a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. "My friend, all theory is gray, and the Golden tree of life is green." It is time we, especially we in the systems movement, stop fighting amongst ourselves. "In contrast to the mechanistic Cartesian view of the world, the world-view emerging from modern physics can be characterized by words like organic, holistic, and ecological. The subject of a General Principle, a.k.a. But some others go on to create an entire new general system of their own, which they attain by particularizing the general definition somewhat, in effect creating a "sister" GST. The former derivative process results in the same thing being said but in different ways. The idea of a General System is not necessarily new. By Tom Mandel
Eschatology Eschatology i/ˌɛskəˈtɒlədʒi/ is a part of theology concerned with the final events of history, or the ultimate destiny of humanity. This concept is commonly referred to as the "end of the world" or "end time". The word arises from the Greek ἔσχατος eschatos meaning "last" and -logy meaning "the study of", first used in English around 1550.[1] The Oxford English Dictionary defines eschatology as "The department of theological science concerned with ‘the four last things: death, judgment, heaven and hell’ In the context of mysticism, the phrase refers metaphorically to the end of ordinary reality and reunion with the Divine. History is often divided into "ages" (aeons), which are time periods each with certain commonalities. Most modern eschatology and apocalypticism, both religious and secular, involve the violent disruption or destruction of the world; whereas Christian and Jewish eschatologies view the end times as the consummation or perfection of God's creation of the world.
Systems Thinking, Systems Tools and Chaos Theory © Copyright Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD, Authenticity Consulting, LLC. Adapted from the Field Guide to Consulting and Organizational Development and Field Guide to Consulting and Organizational Development with Nonprofits. Three of the biggest breakthroughs in how we understand and successfully guide changes in ourselves, others and organizations are systems theory, systems thinking and systems tools. To understand how they are used, we first must understand the concept of a system. Sections of This Topic Include Basics -- Definitions - - - What's a System? Also seeRelated Library Topics Also See the Library's Blogs Related to Systems Theory, Chaos Theory and Systems Thinking In addition to the articles on this current page, also see the following blogs that have posts related to Systems Theory, Chaos Theory and Systems Thinking . Definitions: Systems, Systems Theory, Systems Thinking, Tools What's a System? Systems range from simple to complex. A pile of sand is not a system. Personal Mastery
Phenomenology (philosophy) Phenomenology (from Greek: phainómenon "that which appears" and lógos "study") is the philosophical study of the structures of experience and consciousness. As a philosophical movement it was founded in the early years of the 20th century by Edmund Husserl and was later expanded upon by a circle of his followers at the universities of Göttingen and Munich in Germany. It then spread to France, the United States, and elsewhere, often in contexts far removed from Husserl's early work.[1] Phenomenology, in Husserl's conception, is primarily concerned with the systematic reflection on and study of the structures of consciousness and the phenomena that appear in acts of consciousness. Hicks writes, "In effect, the Structuralists were seeking subjective noumenal categories, and the Phenomenologists were content with describing the phenomena without asking what connection to an external reality those experiences might have