What do you think?
Rate this book
Laws of Form
Libro usado en buenas condiciones, por su antiguedad podria contener señales normales de uso
202 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1969
26 people are currently reading
1084 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
July 14, 2017
I read this in the late 70s, when I was into formal logic, and thought it was a con job. Most of it is standard stuff dressed up in a fancy new notation, and at the end he has a weird innovation of very dubious value. As far as I know, it's never led anywhere.
If you want the real deal, check out Robinson's Logic: Form and Function.
If you want the real deal, check out Robinson's Logic: Form and Function.
August 27, 2021
One of the most amazing and original studies of human thought ever written. This book could be seen as the basis for describing the Mahayana Buddhist philosophy of dependent origination and nonduality. The implications of Spencer-Brown's work have yet to be appreciated because a) western philosophy is still caught in some form of dualistic-essentialist thought, and b) because eastern nondualist thought has yet to appreciate his completely formal-secularist approach.
The people who've come closest to understanding Spencer-Brown were the early cyberneticists and systems theorists such as Gregory Bateson, Heniz von Foerster, and Francisco Varela.
Most of the book is formal mathematical-like notation describing how worlds get started or originate, but the first parts of the book give a conceptual-philosophical sense of what he's trying to do. The Laws of Form describes something like the basis of all thought, all perception, all distinction - all form - and how any of it can arise-happen-ex-ist in the first place. First principles of first principles. Dependent origination formalized. Wild!
Please also read Jeroen's review of LoF posted here too. Jeroen offers the best specific explanations I've ever read of what the book is about and why it matters. It gives you a better idea of where LoF resides in the world of mathematical logic and philosophy. And on that note, if you are interested in exploring non-traditional logic, by all means look into the work of Graham Priest, a champion of dialetheism and paraconsistent logics (a dialethia is a principle in logic that allows things to be both true and false, to self-contradict, under certain precisely-given conditions). Many of Priest's books are excellent but this one is my favorite: . You can read my review of it here on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ.
Updated August 2021
The people who've come closest to understanding Spencer-Brown were the early cyberneticists and systems theorists such as Gregory Bateson, Heniz von Foerster, and Francisco Varela.
Most of the book is formal mathematical-like notation describing how worlds get started or originate, but the first parts of the book give a conceptual-philosophical sense of what he's trying to do. The Laws of Form describes something like the basis of all thought, all perception, all distinction - all form - and how any of it can arise-happen-ex-ist in the first place. First principles of first principles. Dependent origination formalized. Wild!
Please also read Jeroen's review of LoF posted here too. Jeroen offers the best specific explanations I've ever read of what the book is about and why it matters. It gives you a better idea of where LoF resides in the world of mathematical logic and philosophy. And on that note, if you are interested in exploring non-traditional logic, by all means look into the work of Graham Priest, a champion of dialetheism and paraconsistent logics (a dialethia is a principle in logic that allows things to be both true and false, to self-contradict, under certain precisely-given conditions). Many of Priest's books are excellent but this one is my favorite: . You can read my review of it here on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ.
Updated August 2021
April 9, 2007
One of the greatest books of all time. The dude has Bertrand Russell, Stafford Beer, and Heinz von Foerster raving about his book. It can't get better than that.
July 25, 2018
This book of Spencer-Brown is fascinating and a must-read for everyone interested in fundamental questions about our universe, matter and time and our own existence.
To be honest, I found the book hard to read and understand because of its fundamentally different approach than what I'm used to. At the start I was completely lost reading the first chapters, due to Spencer-Brown's way of carefully phrasing his ideas. Reading the part where he applies his theorems, rules and consequences, the magic unfolded. I was taken by surprise because his demonstrations were just that simple when he was using the machinery he had set up.
My understanding so far is that "Laws of Form" is a theory of logical reasoning capable of handling self-referencing expressions. Our own convential logic is not capable of that, leading to paradoxes and true theorems that cannot be proven (as shown by Godel). The LoF theory is complete and can be considered as an extension of boolean algebra similar to extending real numbers to complex numbers. Logic based on LoF extends the set of logical values expressions can have, in such a way that self-referencing is handled well, thereby leading to the completeness of LoF logic.
To quote Spencer-Brown:
“What is fascinating about the imaginary Boolean values, once we admit them, is the light they apparently shed on our concepts of matter and time. It is, I guess, in the nature of us all to wonder why the universe appears just the way it does.�
The interpretation of these imaginary logical values is an oscillatory value (wave-like), where the logical value switches from true to false over an "imaginary" time-dimension. This suggests a kind of quantum logic, where next to the value true and false there is a value that oscillates between true and false.
What is it good for? In classical physics a particle is there or is not there. But to explain our own universe one needs a cosmological theory that should be background-independent and therefore self-referencing. So in such cosmological theory, next to these two classical states of a particle, based on LoF, there should be a state reflecting the oscillatory logical state. This suggests that LoF would be a solid ground for building a cosmological theory of quantum physics.
To be honest, I found the book hard to read and understand because of its fundamentally different approach than what I'm used to. At the start I was completely lost reading the first chapters, due to Spencer-Brown's way of carefully phrasing his ideas. Reading the part where he applies his theorems, rules and consequences, the magic unfolded. I was taken by surprise because his demonstrations were just that simple when he was using the machinery he had set up.
My understanding so far is that "Laws of Form" is a theory of logical reasoning capable of handling self-referencing expressions. Our own convential logic is not capable of that, leading to paradoxes and true theorems that cannot be proven (as shown by Godel). The LoF theory is complete and can be considered as an extension of boolean algebra similar to extending real numbers to complex numbers. Logic based on LoF extends the set of logical values expressions can have, in such a way that self-referencing is handled well, thereby leading to the completeness of LoF logic.
To quote Spencer-Brown:
“What is fascinating about the imaginary Boolean values, once we admit them, is the light they apparently shed on our concepts of matter and time. It is, I guess, in the nature of us all to wonder why the universe appears just the way it does.�
The interpretation of these imaginary logical values is an oscillatory value (wave-like), where the logical value switches from true to false over an "imaginary" time-dimension. This suggests a kind of quantum logic, where next to the value true and false there is a value that oscillates between true and false.
What is it good for? In classical physics a particle is there or is not there. But to explain our own universe one needs a cosmological theory that should be background-independent and therefore self-referencing. So in such cosmological theory, next to these two classical states of a particle, based on LoF, there should be a state reflecting the oscillatory logical state. This suggests that LoF would be a solid ground for building a cosmological theory of quantum physics.
February 28, 2021
A worthy contribution, but frustrating. Spencer Brown has fashioned here what might be the closest thing to a "first philosophy" for second-order cybernetics. The opening moves of the book are cryptic and profound. When he turns to fashioning a Boolean algebra out of his calculus of distinctions, however, my interest wanes, because it seems as though this could be done with any binary cypher. In the concluding reflections there are further flashes of originality that suggest deeper possibilities, but which are insufficiently developed here for me, at least, to take them any further. The secondary literature on the book is very sparse, so little help can be expected from that quarter.
June 15, 2011
An excellent book. From a single symbol which he calls a "Mark of distinction," Spencer-Brown manages to discern and derive principles of symbolic logic, number, topology and even a calculus of logic. I believe the form he uses is referred to as a "Lambda Calculus." This book is written for the layperson and the mathematician alike. It is quite readable by anyone with a decent high school education. This book should appeal to anyone in a technical or engineering discipline.
June 14, 2016
Profound, strange and fascinating. Spencer-Brown invents a mathematical formalism that is even more basic than Boolean logic, but at the same time more powerful. Parts of it, in particular the beginning, reads like a religious text about the creation of the universe.
October 22, 2012
My math is a little rusty so it was a little hard to follow but there is some interesting stuff with some powerful applications.
May 17, 2023
Apparently Bertrand Russell loved this book in his twilight years, as the author is so giddy to tell you, saying on the first page (in the Preface to the fifth English edition) how it "was the only work in the entire history of the planet to which Russell gave his unqualified approval." He claims Russell asked him, "Do you think I wasted ten years of my life writing Principia [Mathematica]?" and that Russell "knew [Principia] was useless because it was wrongly based on logic, and that I had written the Laws to correct it."
Very haughty language indeed, topped off by this a page later: "Having achieved my life's ambition of composing and publishing a nearly perfect work of literature by the age of 46, I was suddenly confronted by the problem of what to do with the rest of my life."
Although he could use a bit more humility, it's understandable why he's trying so hard to bolster his ethos by referencing Russell and others: he wrote a masterpiece across genres. The subject matter is essentially a new form of logic (Spencer-Brown says is somewhere closer to Brownian than Boolean), but the language is nearly perfect: it's concise yet overflowing with meaning, dry yet poetic.
Spencer-Brown steps outside of our normal logic systems to examine logic from a meta-perspective, and he manages to make what (as far as I can tell) is a logic that can deal with this meta-perspective itself, along with the complexities that arise from this sort of "stepping out" of the system that usually occurs by self-reference, so often associated with Gödel &co.
The "as far as I can tell" from above is important: I am far from a professional mathematician and only a novice at formal logic, but it seems to be at least somewhat true and useful, even if I cannot understand some of the deeper mathematical implications. Some real smart people have praised it, and most of the attacks on it that I've encountered seem to miss the important point of this being a brilliant book. Sure, there are conflicting logic systems that are more dominant in the marketplace of ideas, or that play a more obviously productive role in society, but this book outlines in less than 80 pages of content (Prefaces, Notes, and Appendices add another 200ish pages) an entirely novel system capable of putting to bed some millennia-long concerns that commonly plague logic systems.
If it's not genius it's brilliance.
If you can't appreciate its complex math, maybe you can appreciate its simple math. Or maybe its (beginner-level) logic. Or maybe the metaphysical implications, the underlying philosophy. At least for its supreme mastery of the English language.
Spencer-Brown was obsessed with the Oxford English Dictionary, and you can tell. To understand what he means in any given sentence, just read the dictionary definitions of the words (and any earlier in-text clarifiers). The terms are precise and rich with significant implications.
Until I find something supremely wrong with the logic system he created, I'll be awestruck by this work. But even when (or if) that day comes, I'll still be able to appreciate the book for being a great work of literature.
Very haughty language indeed, topped off by this a page later: "Having achieved my life's ambition of composing and publishing a nearly perfect work of literature by the age of 46, I was suddenly confronted by the problem of what to do with the rest of my life."
Although he could use a bit more humility, it's understandable why he's trying so hard to bolster his ethos by referencing Russell and others: he wrote a masterpiece across genres. The subject matter is essentially a new form of logic (Spencer-Brown says is somewhere closer to Brownian than Boolean), but the language is nearly perfect: it's concise yet overflowing with meaning, dry yet poetic.
Spencer-Brown steps outside of our normal logic systems to examine logic from a meta-perspective, and he manages to make what (as far as I can tell) is a logic that can deal with this meta-perspective itself, along with the complexities that arise from this sort of "stepping out" of the system that usually occurs by self-reference, so often associated with Gödel &co.
The "as far as I can tell" from above is important: I am far from a professional mathematician and only a novice at formal logic, but it seems to be at least somewhat true and useful, even if I cannot understand some of the deeper mathematical implications. Some real smart people have praised it, and most of the attacks on it that I've encountered seem to miss the important point of this being a brilliant book. Sure, there are conflicting logic systems that are more dominant in the marketplace of ideas, or that play a more obviously productive role in society, but this book outlines in less than 80 pages of content (Prefaces, Notes, and Appendices add another 200ish pages) an entirely novel system capable of putting to bed some millennia-long concerns that commonly plague logic systems.
If it's not genius it's brilliance.
If you can't appreciate its complex math, maybe you can appreciate its simple math. Or maybe its (beginner-level) logic. Or maybe the metaphysical implications, the underlying philosophy. At least for its supreme mastery of the English language.
Spencer-Brown was obsessed with the Oxford English Dictionary, and you can tell. To understand what he means in any given sentence, just read the dictionary definitions of the words (and any earlier in-text clarifiers). The terms are precise and rich with significant implications.
Until I find something supremely wrong with the logic system he created, I'll be awestruck by this work. But even when (or if) that day comes, I'll still be able to appreciate the book for being a great work of literature.
March 16, 2021
A formal logical way on how to create something from nothing.
Read
January 11, 2022Ok, well - I read the whole thing...
I don't get it.
Please help me Leon Conrad:
I don't get it.
Please help me Leon Conrad:
July 22, 2024
Brown's 'Laws of Form' presents a new calculus that models the emergence of form from formlessness with a simple mathematical and psychological 'wire-frame' system of inferential rules and theorems. The details are tricky and require some knowledge of basic mathematics, but leaving these aside Brown conveys the simplicity of the process of creation. He describes the emergence and evolution of form as a process of distinction-making, which correlates neatly with the 'symmetry-breaking' process described by physics. It certainly not a book for everyone. Brown's friend Bertrand Russell praised the calculus but failed to understand its meaning. But for anyone trying to grasp the logical and metaphysical scheme of 'non-dualism' or the 'Perennial' philosophy this may, if they can see what Brown is getting at, be an important and useful book.
May 7, 2015
"Lass es mich nochmals sagen: Überhaupt nichts kann durch Erzählen gewusst
werden.
Und dennoch fährst du fort, mich zu beschwatzen: sag es mir, sag es mir!
Oh ja, ich kann. Aber ich will nicht. Doch wenn du zu mir in die Schulung
kommst, werde ich dich unterweisen.
Nur so kannst du jemals wissen.
Der Text von 'Laws of form' stellt keine einzige Behauptung auf: nirgendwo
erzählt er dir irgendetwas und doch wirst du, folgst du seinen Anweisungen
absolut, ohne Frage oder Erklärung oder vorgefasster Meinung, an seinem Ende
alles Nötige wissen."
Wenn das mal so einfach wäre. Auch wenn man sich Mühe gibt und mit einem Minimum
an mathematischem und philosophischem Verstand und einem gewissen Vorwissen sich
diesem Text zu nähern bemüht, kann man schnell an der Begrifflichkeit scheitern.
Und man fragt sich: Verstehe ich unter "Kreuzen" wirklich dasselbe wie du? Auf
Seite 7 (d.h.: noch in den einführenden Kapiteln) schreibt er: "Lass es von
jedem gegebenen Raum sn heißen, er
durchdringe ein beliebiges Arrangement, worin sn
der seichteste Raum ist." Ich habe ja eine Vorstellung, was
Spencer-Brown hier meinen °ìö²Ô²Ô³Ù±ð, aber wenn ich versuche, per
Internetsuche "seichter Raum" mich zu vergewissern, spuckt die Maschine eine
anatomische Beschreibung der Klitoris-Gegend und eine Beschreibung kalkalpiner
Gegenden aus, sowie die Information, "Dr. Sabine Seichter Raum: 2.308".
Ja, ich weiß: Du sollst nicht googeln, wenn du Spencer-Brown liest. Genau das
will er ja sagen mit dem Eingangszitat. Es macht die Lektüre nur sehr, sehr
langsam, mühselig.
Warum also lobe ich ihn? Spencer Brown, den ich, wie wohl viele deutsche
Leser, über Luhmann kennengelernt habe, schärft den Blick für Formen, für
Beobachtungen, für Unterscheiden und Unterschiedenes, für Operationen und
Relationen. Vielleicht muss man mal ein paar Seiten frustriert überspringen,
dann wird man erstaunlicherweise mit kleinen Erkenntnissen etwas später belohnt.
August 20, 2014
A little too offbeat for my taste. I'll need to return to it after some more practice with set theory.
July 9, 2014
A real great book! Change thinking....
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.