what is transformation

[sushi]

what is transformation, how is it different from change?

does transformation= change, and change= transformation

when a object/thing changes from one form to another, it is transforming?'
'
perhaps change might imply increase and decrease in quantity, but transformation does not.

 

[Black Rose]

usually, it is a meta-perspective whereas change is different but not abstracted to a new level. transformation is meta. you become more than what was, and can do things once impossible for you in your current form at all levels.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I believe that when people say transformation they mean going from one particular form to another, whereas “change” is more of an aimless process which may or may not result in a particular final form.

 

[Pizzabeak]

People keep saying change is the only constant or that it’s about “change” (because DMT and the psychedelic experience “constantly changes”, so they try to base their life off that). But Plato’s Forms were unchanging, so as to be “immortal”, and to have an anchor to lay the logic on for consistency. Creativity isn’t that much of a key just because Einstein said imagination is more important than knowledge.

 

[Pizzabeak]

It’s also to appear more “N” or “intuitive” physically, to affirm their identity with other people.

 

[rlnb]

transformation is a noticeably big change that happened rather quickly or suddenly.

 

[gilliatt]

Change presupposes the concepts of what changes, from what and to what, that without the law of identity (A is A), no such concept as 'change' is possible. I am atoms, those atoms were here before I was born and will be here after I die. No change whatsoever.

 

[sushi]

so is change= transformation and transformation= change

are those two just describe the same process and phenomena?

 

[Black Rose]

so is change= transformation and transformation= change

are those two just describe the same process and phenomena?

Transformation implies change but change does not imply transformation.

 

[sushi]

so what is the difference between the two.

 

[Black Rose]

so what is the difference between the two.

I think I already gave the difference.

usually, it is a meta-perspective whereas change is different but not abstracted to a new level. transformation is meta. you become more than what was, and can do things once impossible for you in your current form at all levels.

 

[QuickTwist]

Things can change in terms of good/bad. That's pretty self explanatory. Take the wind for example. A breeze on a hot summer day can feel cool and nice to the body. But that same wind can cause hurricanes to happen to kill many people all in a short time.

Transformation is different. The way I see transformation is basically something that comes from nothing. Well, it's not coming from NOTHING, but it's coming from what you can't see. It's basically the same thing, but more of it and almost in a purified type of way. Think of jewelry making for a moment. There is a whole process with this. At the beginning the material is in a rock and hidden. Then someone finds it and takes a big chunk of rock to someone else. That person chips away at it. Then they give it to a blacksmith who will melts it down so it can be refined. Then you have the actual jewelry maker who takes the refined form and shapes it to their liking and creates something beautiful with it. That process from rock to adoned ornament is a transformation.

 

[Pizzabeak]

An equation

 

[sushi]

motion + form --> space + change, or death a+ change,

there maybe no such thing as trasformation.

 

[Rebis]

There is no core differences besides the tense.

Think of Affect and effect, Affect foreshadows effect.

"The law will come into affect" -This implies there will be an effect in the future.

"The law has been effected" -The implication is the law has already changed.

Similarly, change refers to a process that will happen without identifying x before the change, and x after the change.

"Change will come."

When we talk about transformation we have identified the form prior to transformation, and the transformed form.

"I have transformed from form1 to form 2."
The latin etymology of trans, the prefix of transform means changing.

 

[Marbles]

I think Serac pretty much wrapped it up. Words are just sounds. They can mean whatever you want them to, to paraphrase Wittgenstein. Transformation implies going from one defined state to another. Change simply means to leave the current state?

The latin etymology of trans, the prefix of transform means changing.

That's interesting, I didn't consider that. I suppose the distinction between transform and change is a modern one, and maybe context dependant.

 

[Rebis]

I think Serac pretty much wrapped it up. Words are just sounds. They can mean whatever you want them to, to paraphrase Wittgenstein. Transformation implies going from one defined state to another. Change simply means to leave the current state?

The latin etymology of trans, the prefix of transform means changing.

That's interesting, I didn't consider that. I suppose the distinction between transform and change is a modern one, and maybe context dependant.

To paraphrase wittgenstein, language is not full of atomic-linguistic ideas so it's inferred that there is duplicate words, particularly in the english language. Granted there's nuance in some.

 

[Marbles]

Nuance often develops over time, though, even if it wasn't implied at a word's conception, and connotations often vary between synonyms. For instance, transformation gives off a more intellectual, futuristic and pretentious vibe than change, to me. Connotations are almost as important to communication as definitions.

 

[Rebis]

Nuance often develops over time, though, even if it wasn't implied at a word's conception, and connotations often vary between synonyms. For instance, transformation gives off a more intellectual, futuristic and pretentious vibe than change, to me. Connotations are almost as important to communication as definitions.

Different words help with associative memory, I certainly unconsciously link specific words in the respective subjects, when really both words in different subjects could be reduced to one universal word. In actuality, words should transcend fields and be used interdisciplinary.

For example, the word node used in a Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and a neuron used in a Biological Neural Network (BNN): both are elements of a large cohesive system: BNN uses axons to communicate messages across a synaptic junction, ANN uses weighted links, each weight is attached to multiple nodes, to communicate messages across a hidden layer. Let's picture 3 islands, with the middle being connected to each island by a bridge in either direction. The middle island represents the synactic junction, the cars represent the message, the islands left and right of the central island are neurons, and the bridges transporting the cars are axons. We could reduce, for simplicity sake this terminology to a preceptor (sender), receptor (reciever), path between sender and receptor (bridge) and the middle point of the bridge (nexus/intersection).

It helps our understanding in terms of individualising abstractions from another as building blocks are fundamentally the same across fields of applied reasoning but ultimately a lot of core concepts in sciences, and increasingly in social sciences, are becoming logically similar in their reasoning where you could interchange logical states with another in a model, but that is not how the universe understands these processes. Birth, death, element of an object, connection, opposite, operation and so on. I would like to see a perfect logically functional language where you can transcend knowledge barriers with a simple, fit all-purpose language. When you think about it, that's how every computer in the world does it and while they're better at handling information, maybe it's because the computer's language isn't complex that it can easily process information. Maybe we could process information a lot faster if our language was atomical.

 

[Marbles]

I tend to agree. It would lend itself well to efficiency, if not poetry. I had a similar discussion with a friend last weekend. One of us suggested an AI might develop an axiomatic language for us, or perhaps one more efficient in other ways. It was probably me. Isn't that the INT modus operandi? "The AI will fix it...". We could have one language for science, another for art.

People express individuality and tribalism in language, though, so it is constantly adrift. The idea is only feasible in a totalitarian society.

 

[Rebis]

I tend to agree. It would lend itself well to efficiency, if not poetry. I had a similar discussion with a friend last weekend. One of us suggested an AI might develop an axiomatic language for us, or perhaps one more efficient in other ways. It was probably me. Isn't that the INT modus operandi? "The AI will fix it...". We could have one language for science, another for art.

People express individuality and tribalism in language, though, so it is constantly adrift. The idea is only feasible in a totalitarian society.

There is art in expression, but there is also a lack of art in the opinions people express. To visualise the world in its grandeur sure, use poetic terminology. To communicate effectively across disciplines, a formal language would be fantastic. I think another issue is personalised language is self-referential, meaning you're using the term because of a subjective meaning to yourself, so that meaning may not be communicated to the other user, yet they stumble at the communication barrier because they have to learn your nuanced word.

I see both points but I don't think a perfectly logical language exists yet, but english certainly does. So some pure mathematicial-linguist should disambiguate the world into the core concepts and employ them into a language. It won't be my undertaking, however.

 

[Marbles]

That pretty much sums up my relationship with a schizophrenic friend. It takes so much effort to learn his unusual definitions of common words, that I hesitate to get into deeper conversations with him.

I wonder if it is true that English has an unusual amount of words, and how that influences English cultures. Maybe English has had more linguistic influences than many languages, Celtic, Latin, Greek, French, Norse, but English speaking cultures have also had the resources to compile very exhaustive dictionaries.

Many foreigners say Norwegian is minimalist. There are rarely concepts I can't find Norwegian words for, that I can find English words for, though, even after research (there are many concepts I can neither find an English nor a Norwegian word for. Perhaps we should make a thread where people can suggest new terms for concepts? That'd be fun).

 

[Rebis]

That pretty much sums up my relationship with a schizophrenic friend. It takes so much effort to learn his unusual definitions of common words, that I hesitate to get into deeper conversations with him.

Met people like that, sometimes they get arrogant because you can't interpet what they mean. They can also hate your reductivism when you ask what they mean.