What is the difference between philosophy and invariantology in answering the following questions?

Question

Nothing can be distinguished wihtout the criteria of self to distinguish things.
1. What are the criteria of self to ditinguish things?
2. Do the criteria of self to distinguish things vary?

Questions source: invarinatology at http://wwf.edula.com

Answer 1

The differences between Philosophy and Invariantology in answering the following questions :

1.
What are the criteria of self to distinguish things ?
In invariontology the following variants influence one to
distinguish things
Like 1) What do I relate to in my faith or belief will make one
religion or philosophy more true or appealing for me
thant the other
Like Invariant in me which acts on the variant of
my religious faith will make me look at Bible differently
than the other person who has a different variant
value of his or her religious faith

However the invariant that produce or derive or
are associated with these variants of a particular
religious faith are the same !!!

Like the invariants that define self (Criteria that define the self) could be 'a tie and a bound', 'a tie and a bound','a part and a whole','an intent and a fulfillment'. etc. are basic invariants.
Derivatives or instances of which define a particular self.

Philosophy :
hmm.... criteria of self seems to be a variant
but actually they are not.
however the if you go to the root of these variants
(from where the criteria of self are inherited) then
finally we reach an invariant
so from that invariant
the variants of criteria of self are derived
which are different
so depending on these criteria of self the
way things are seen and hence distinguished are
different.

What are the criteria of self that distinguish things ?
1) Brain, memory, intellect - which is influenced by
education, upbringing, social environment,
personal experiences
2) ego - one's pesonal preferences, biases,
likes and prejudices
3) mind - state of mind depending on the time
the quesion was asked on
distinguishing a certain thing
like same tickling can make a husband
laugh sometimes and angry at some
other time
In philosophy these are the variants that are derived
from an invariant (root invariant)
But in philosophy they treat them as variants since they see their instances. But since there 3 terms are constant irrespective of the self in study - They are invariants.

For the purpose of the present discussion in philosophical terms the criteira of self that define the self are basically the following invariants : intellect (with memory, reasoning, memories of all education, experience etc.),
ego and mind. Their derivatives or instances define a particular "self" hence vary.
But these 3 are the invariants according to the philosophy that define a "self" to distinguish things.

So both the theories illustrate the same principle in different ways.

2.
Do the criteria of self to distinguish things vary ?
In Invariontology :
what "I am" depends on several variants derived from some
basic invariants.
Thus the values of the criteria of self vary (variants)
But the basic invariants that define the criteria of self
remain invariants
like these invariants can be family, relatives, beliefs,
etc. etc.
So the criteria of self to distinguish things vary as far as we
see which criteria define a particular self.
But the "set of criteria" that define any "self" are invariants
they are invariants. They don't vary

Like the invariants like 'a tie and a bound', 'a tie and a bound','a part and a whole','an intent and a fulfillment'. etc. that can be used define any 'self' do not vary. But their derivatives or instances that have a particular values for these invariants or their derivatives vary and hence are variants.
Thus individuals differ due to instances (or values) of such variants which all are fundamentally derived from Invariants about the 'self'.

THUS CRITERA THAT DEFINE "SELF" ARE INVARIANTS AND DO NOT VARY.

In Philosophy :

hmm... you got me there
philosophy's criteria of self span from gross to subtle level
they go from mind to ego to intellect (and memory) to
the fundamental invariant

Thus answer to this question depends at which gross or
subtle level you are putting this criteria of self

at gross level they vary (like the variant values or instances
or derivatives of the invariant "set of criteria" that define the self)

at the most subtle level the "criteria of self" or "sets of criteria that define the self" are invarinat in Philosophy (just as in invariaontology)

But again for the present discussion the "Criteria" that will define a self are the same above 3 (in answer to Q 1) memory and intellect, ego and mind. They do not vary but their instances
vary. The instances of memory, ego and mind define a particular self. But these 3 are always same irrespective of the "self" under study.
So irrespective of "self" under study since according to the philosophy "the criteria of self to distinguish things" are
memory+intellect, ego and mind - they don't vary.
THESE 3 ARE INVARIANTS.

So though we try to answer this question from different routes we reach quite similar answers in Invariontology as well as in Philosophy.

Answer 2

Probably the concepts of your invariantology speaks of the findings of Quantum Mechanics only, in a philosophical fashion .. you should see whether there are any distinction between Q.M. and invariantology except in names ... this was probably already mentioned in one of your prev. Q.

luv and SAI RAM,
jk
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/athmavidya

edit :- If we try to integrate and then deduce we may also see the Dialectical Dianetics aspects with the Gross and Subtle, may be in the philosophical phase of Q.M.