Sunday, January 14, 2018

Part 04: Seldon Presents Series -- Moments of Maximal ‘Homeomorphic Defect’.











Part 04:  Seldon Presents Series -- Moments of MaximalHomeomorphic Defect.







Dear Readers,




It is my pleasure, and my honor, as an officer of the Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.] Office of Public Liaison, to share with you, from time to time, as they are approved for public release by the F.E.D. General Council, key excerpts from the internal writings, and from the internal sayings, of our co-founder, Karl Seldon.

The fourth such release in this new series is entered below [Some E.D. standard edits have been applied, in the version presented below, to the direct transcript of our co-founder’s discourse].


For more information regarding, and for [further] instantiations of, these Seldonian insights, please see --


-- and, in particular, please see --










ENJOY!




Regards,


Miguel Detonacciones,

Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison,
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.








... The moments -- the finite time values -- at which “singularities” erupt in the nonlinear total differential equation models, and, especially, in the nonlinear partial differential equation models, that provide our so far best analogues for various aspects of our observed -- of our experientially and experimentally revealed -- physical reality -- are moments of absolutely maximal homeomorphic defect for those models.”


“I say “absolutely maximal” because the modeled states of reality -- or, if you prefer, as I do, because the modeled ‘dynates’ of reality -- calculated for those moments, from those models, deviate egregiously from actual, physical reality, because they become of infinite magnitude, and therefore become infinitely erroneous, at, and, typically, also after, those moments.  That is so because mathematical infinity is, to all observations to-date, aphysical, contra-empirical, in general, and because, in particular, the measured reality that those models supposedly model, remains finite throughout, before, during, and after those moments of “singularity”.  Such models’ predictions, at their moments of “singularity”, are thus infinitelywrong.”


“However, and nevertheless, this is not to say that the realities so misleadingly modeled at such “singular” moments, and after those moments as well, are not, well, momentous.”


We characterize the kinds of changes that do occur at and after such moments of “singularity” as never “infinite”, but, still, as ‘metafinite’.”

“Such changes include qualitative changes, as well as, and in coordination with, quantitative changes.”

“Indeed, such moments -- which the prevailing mathematical models describe as “infinite” singularities -- and their aftermaths, typically correspond, in physical actuality, to ‘ontological revolutions’ -- to irruptions of new and unprecedented ontology, at least locally unprecedented, if not globally, cosmologically unprecedented.  They correspond to the emergence of new qualities -- of new kinds -- of being.”

“Unfortunately, some mathematicians and, even worse, some mathematical physicists, seem to “take their models for reality”, or, as we would be wont to say, take their mathematical ideo-ontology’ for physio-ontology’.”

‘They fail to recognize the “infinite singularities” in their mathematical equation models as symptoms of a reality, of a ‘‘‘real time’’’, progressing beyond a boundary at and after which their mathematical models lose validity, reach a limit of their ‘descriptivity’ with respect to physical reality, and break down as maps of real, physical, empirical, observational human experience, including of human experiment.”

“If we want to find a metaphor for such “breakdown”, while staying wholly within the ‘ideo-ontological’ realm of “pure” mathematics itself, we might consider an algebraic “diophantine equation”, in the context of the “Natural” numbers, of the form ‘2x - 1  =  0’, or, to make its “paradox” plain, of ‘2x  =  1’.  This is a “well-formed” diophantine equation within the “Natural” numbers algebra.  But its solution cannot be expressed within the “language” of the “Natural” numbers -- within the axiomatic system, or within the number “space”, of the “Naturals”.”


“But instead of recognizing the dynamical ‘‘‘incompleteness’’’ of the ontological commitments of their implicit “model specification”, and the limits of the mathematical “language of description” that this specification and that these commitments allow for a given mathematical model, some mathematicians, and some mathematical physicists, project “purely”-mathematical constructs, which are mental fictions and ‘ideo-artifacts’ with respect to physicality, onto actuality.  E.g., they start to faithfully believe that, at the hearts of the [cumula of] ultra-collapsed stars that they call “[“supermassive”] black holes”, there actually exists an “infinitesimal [mass-]point”, exhibiting “infinite [mass-]density”.”

“And, e.g., some start to believe that another such “point”, again of infinitesimal volume, and of infinite mass-density, formed the original state of our universe as a whole.”


“But, in practical truth, we have never experienced physical “infinities”, or physical “infinitesimals”, in all of our eons of recorded empirical, observational, including experimental, experience.”




“Such ‘infinitary’ beliefs constitute a kind of contra-factual, contra-empirical, contra-actual, and therefore contra-rational RELIGION, or, were no ‘deificatory’ intent to be operating in such beliefs, a contra-scientific IDEOLOGY, and a mystification and degeneration of science, into religion or ideology.”


“The real job, in relation to such “singularities”, is to craft new, descriptively richer, and more apt, mathematical models, and even to craft a new mathematical language in which to express such, richer, models. ... .







Thursday, January 11, 2018

Part 03: Seldon Presents Series -- A Dialectical Theory of ALMOST Everything.











Part 03:  Seldon Presents Series -- A Dialectical Theory of ALMOST Everything.







Dear Readers,




It is my pleasure, and my honor, as an officer of the Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.] Office of Public Liaison, to share with you, from time to time, as they are approved for public release by the F.E.D. General Council, key excerpts from the internal writings, and from the internal sayings, of our co-founder, Karl Seldon.

The third such release in this new series is entered below [Some E.D. standard edits have been applied, in the version presented below, to the direct transcript of our co-founders discourse].


For more information regarding, and for [further] instantiations of, these Seldonian insights, see --




ENJOY!




Regards,


Miguel Detonacciones,

Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison,
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.







...Our original dialectic of Nature meta-equation --



-- as an ontological-categorialmeta-model of the known history of Nature to-date, fell short of fully qualifying as an ontologically ‘‘‘Everything’’’-embodying meta-model, not only, as is well known among us, due to its non-capture of the “recombination” of nuclei and electrons, but also in that it --

1.  Abstracts from detail, explicitly expressing only the highest level ontological categories [e.g., those of Taxonomy Levels 0 and 1 per the Encyclopedia Dialectica Universal Taxonomy];

2.  Presents only an abstract model of TIME, via a discretized epoch-variable, as denoted by "t2. [Even if actual time is notReal time”’, “t”, i.e., is not continuous, we experience real time as more continual than something that moves in discrete epochal-unit jumps];


3.  Completely omits SPACE/space-time, explicitly addressing only our various ontological
sub-categorizations of modern sciences single, abstract category for all mass-energy ‘‘‘content’’’, as that which is ‘‘‘contained’’’ within space[-time].”

4.  Completely omits dark energy and dark matter, which, while not truly known as yet to modern science -- which, so far, are mostly UNknown  to modern science -- are known enough to warrant at least some speculative hypothesizing as to what a Whole-Cosmos-History meta-model that included them might look like.”

Thus, in all of these many ways, Meta-Model #1 exhibits homeomorphic defect of ‘Type a.’.



“The homeomorphic defect of that original meta-model with respect to “recombination” can be redressed by a revised meta-model, Meta-Model #2 in this recounting, a meta-model which “lumps” non-composite and composite bosons and fermions into a single revised «arché» category, that of:  pre-atomicparticlesas «arché»-«monads»--


-- but this redress obviously comes at the cost of removing the first known «aufheben» meta-«monad»-ization -- namely, that of the «aufheben» meta-«arché»-ization from non-composite to composite bosons and fermions -- to off of the main-line of the Taxonomy Level 1 dialectic of Nature, and, thus, at the cost of relegating that «aufheben» process to a sub-dialectic, located one further Taxonomy Level down, inside that revised «arché» category, i.e., to a sub-dialecticamong its first three sub-categories.


“This cost makes it all the more exciting that an alternative Whole-Cosmosmeta-model --Meta-Model #3 in this recounting -- that we have been considering, may concurrently redress defects 2., 3., and 4. of our original Whole-Cosmosmeta-model.”

“The first triad of this third meta-model is x + c + r.” 

“The first term, above, at left, in this highly speculative Whole-Cosmosmeta-model, namely x, represents our new, hypothetical «arché» ontological category for our cosmos.  It stands for our hypothesis as to the nature of dark energy.  Per that hypothesis, dark energy may turn out to be characterizable, not only as the first born of our cosmos [first bornwithin the limits of a future-present knowledge], but also as pureTIME, in the form of the accelerated self-expansion of [initially empty] SPACE.” 

Its new contra-«arché»’, and second, cosmo-ontologicalcategory, denoted by c, represents dark matter.  Dark matter may turn out to be characterizable as reaction against and resistance to the self-expansion /self-inflation of space that x expresses; as the tendency to contract space, or at least to slow down spaces self-expansion, an ontology that is engendered by, and meta-genealogically born out of, dark energy itself.”

Its third ontological category is, once again, r, which is the «arché» ontological category for Meta-Model #2.  It still incurs, but this time for Meta-Model #3 also, the cost described for Meta-Model #2, above.  In Meta-Model #3, r is hypothesized to be the product of a [dialectical] synthesis, or ‘‘‘complex unity/unification’’’, of x and c:  r |-= qcx.   

Meta-Model #3 is [partially] summarized in the image below.



 However, this alternative meta-model must remain highly speculative for as long as the more detailed natures of dark energy and dark matter continue to elude science.






Friday, December 29, 2017

How Is It That Deep, Qualitative, Ontological Change Is Possible At All in Our Cosmos?







How Is It That Deep, Qualitative, Ontological Change Is Possible At All in Our Cosmos?







Dear Readers,




FYI:  The text, by Karl Seldon, sharing its title with the title of this blog-entry, has been posted to the Briefs Page of the www.dialectics.org web site, as E.D. Brief #10.

I have also pasted-in, below, images of this text, for your convenience. 

ENJOY!




Regards,


Miguel Detonacciones,

Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison,
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.






















Thursday, December 28, 2017

Part 02: Seldon Presents Series -- human[oid] life -- ¿Ubiquity or Ubiety in our Cosmos?










Part 02:  Seldon Presents Series -- human[oid] life -- ¿Ubiquity or Ubiety in our Cosmos?







Dear Readers,




It is my pleasure, and my honor, as an officer of the Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.] Office of Public Liaison, to share with you, from time to time, as they are approved for public release by the F.E.D. General Council, key excerpts from the internal writings, and from the internal sayings, of our co-founder, Karl Seldon.

The second such release in this new series is entered below [Some E.D. standard edits have been applied, in the version presented below, to the direct transcript of our co-founder’s discourse].


For more information regarding, and for [further] instantiations of, these Seldonian insights, see --




ENJOY!




Regards,


Miguel Detonacciones,

Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison,
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.







... We expect that life, and not only biological life, but intelligent life, including human[oid] intelligent life -- self-reflexively [self-]aware life -- not only exists at some one otherwhere, somewhere else in our cosmos than herewhere, i.e., at but one otherwhere in relation to Earthwhere herewhere, and not even that it exists in but a few otherwheres than herewhere, but, instead, we expect that it exists in a vast many otherwheres than herewhere, i.e., in manywheres besides Earthwhere. ...