Dear Readers,

A new introduction to

**F**.**E**.**D**.'s historic discovery of

**algebraic dialectical logic** has just been posted to the

www.dialectics.org
website, written by a non-member student of that website, who has
produced an

**8**-page overview of the

**F**.**E**.**D**. discovery that may be

*more
accessible *than anything ever written by

**F**.**E**.**D**., or -- I am sorry to
admit -- by me [so far].

See --

http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Briefs.html
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Briefs_files/Joy-to-You,%20Toward%20Understanding%20%27%27A%20Dialectical%20Theory%20of%20Everything%27%27,%2004JUN2012,%20as%20posted.pdf
Here it is, rendered into the fonts available to this blog-entry --

**"**Toward Understanding *“*__A Dialectical Theory of Everything__*”*
*A General Summary of Theory, Purpose, Application*
**About this document: a self-tutorial**
Since my teen years, this mathematician/human has sought a way to give mathematical structure to ideas, concepts, beliefs,

*etc.*, under a “more humane way of thinking/acting” (a better “logic”). Soon after discovering

*“*__A Dialectical Theory of Everything__,

*” *I
recognized its depth and beauty, its comprehensiveness and
applications, and its potential to assist in Mankind’s growth,
especially in the peaceful ways sought / mandated by its founders. This
theory provided an “Answer” to my search, and this model has become a
real Joy to me (as it may be to You).

In seeking to understand the theory and application from all the
information provided, I began this document as an attempt to clarify the
concepts to myself and any interested others (perhaps via a website).
This document is an independent effort, dedicated to providing
information about this new worldview, in language that, I hope, speaks
to a wide audience.

The worldview, or

*dialectical model*, that has been developed by Foundation

__Encyclopedia Dialectica__ [see

**About** **F**.

**E**.

**D**. section below], might be called a

*“Dialectical Theory of Everything”*
in that it encompasses virtually every aspect of our Universe:
cosmological natural history as a whole, including human history,
science, philosophy,

*etc.* The Foundation’s stated goal is to
communicate this model/methodology through various channels, and to
encourage its application. This document is an attempt to serve that
goal, in ways the author deems appropriate.

As a basis for “self-tutorial,” the Background and Summary/Item
sections below are intended to give the reader (or student) sufficient
grounding in the theory so as to be able to continue his/her own
research/use of the model. Only after understanding the Summary/Items [

**1**-

**12**], do I recommend accessing the guideline URL’s (indicated by

** [Ref-xx**]) given in the

**[References]** section below. The

**[Quick Primer]** section at the end may also aid the reader “come up to speed” quickly with the key concepts of the theory.

__Note__: This author (not F.E.D.) is solely responsible for any “errors of understanding” in presenting the theory.

About F.

**E**.

**D**.

F.E.D., or Foundation

__Encyclopedia Dialectica__, is a
private, independent organization, established for the purpose of
developing methodologies which may greatly assist HumanKind, in terms of
both human survival and human flourishing. Its stated goal is to
communicate these methodologies through various channels, and to
encourage their application to understanding / resolving a vast variety
of human and scientific issues.

Towards this goal, F.E.D. extends an “Omni-Copyright” to anyone seeking
to use its methodologies, and also refuses to accept any “profit” (in
financial terms, or in terms of intellectual credit,

*etc.*) or
“outside gifts” in return for its efforts, other than the revenues from
sales of its books/media to cover its production costs. Much of the
F.E.D. literature is available for free download from two websites.

**[Ref Z]**
__Note__: F.E.D. has offered interpretations of its models,
including some which have economic and political implications,
resulting in its advocacy of views/beliefs on how best to proceed
economically and politically. These views are not explored here, since
this document is dedicated to explaining this new methodology and to
encouraging its use, without bias.

Background
The dialectical model stems from F.E.D.’s intensive and extensive
research into human thought and history, especially that of the ancient
Greek philosophers Heraclitus, Pythagoras and Plato.

The latter two valued the role of “Number,” not only in its
widely-understood quantitative sense, but in a qualitative sense in
which a “different kind of number” reflects universal ideas and the
[self-]interactions of those ideas. The mutual and self-interaction of
such “quality numbers” or “qualifiers” on themselves produces a
qualitative expansion of the universe of ideas as its natural effect.
This self-repeated [self-]interaction

*(dialectic) *is seen as responsible for all growth and progress.

A dialectical process is “self-correcting” in that its results are
continually fed back into itself and re-adjusted / re-evaluated.
Plato’s contention is that real knowledge can be obtained, and
sustained, only by continual dialogue / dialectic.

Most crucially to me, this theory goes beyond the Boolean logic of
true/false, i.e. a logic which preserves the current system (when that
system

**S** interacts with itself):

**S ****x S = S**, and which implies only “all or nothing” like possibilities:

**{1**,** 0}**.

*In essence, any system based on Boolean logic can’t lead us to any Newness *(

**S ****x S = S**)

* beyond its Oldness *(

**S**)

*.
It represents a narrow true/false logic that is great for designing
airplanes and electrical circuits, but not-so-great for showing us how
to “think out of that ‘Old’ *[

**0/1**]

*box!” Needed is a “contra-Boolean logic” to show us how to think/act in a richer, more inclusive way!* And this is what the F.E.D. model provides and helps us to do.

In this spirit of dialog and a more-inclusive way, this theory/model is offered for your consideration and use.

Terminology Used
F.E.D. has developed its own language: Special technical terms and
other neologisms for communicating (describing) the worldview embodied
in its model. Such terms are often “dense with meaning,” and are meant
to convey both etymological history as well as a healthy interplay of
ideas. It is through such “neologisms” that new, deeper meaning is
conveyed. [This document will use these neologisms only where they are
essential to convey meaning that cannot otherwise be conveyed.]

If the reader finds the terms difficult [when viewing F.E.D. documents],
we recommend that he/she patiently “glance over” such terms – reading
for the real content expressed or implied. Your patience will most
likely be rewarded with a truly new and remarkable worldview!

** [Ref-T]**
__Example__: As a contraction of “event” and “entity”, the
term “eventity” is used (perhaps first by Prof. Archie J. Bahm in his
1976 book,

*Polarity**,** Dialectic and Organicity*).
This use is not meant to be cute, but rather to convey how process
(verb) and subject/object (noun) can be thought of as one “eventity”
which possesses subject-verb-object relationships, thereby
suggesting/defining a new manner of perceiving and/or thinking.

Summary:

** A Brief Look at the Model**
Out of a concern regarding the limitations of the existing discourse
and progress in which mankind is presently engaged, F.E.D. has
documented (critiqued) several issues in our existing mathematics,
science, philosophy, history, politics, economics,

*etc.*, that it contends constitute a “barrier” to the further progress that it considers desirable.

**[Ref-S1]**
Its critique in this regard constitutes not an “external” one, based
upon criteria which are foreign to those fields, but a dialectical one,
i.e., an “immanent” critique,” a critique internal to a given system’s
own self-view, that leads to the self-view of a richer system, as in
what the Foundation calls “The Goedelian Dialectic”.

**[Ref-S2]**
Having carefully researched the philosophies of the ancient Greeks,

*et al.*,
the theory’s founders have resurrected Plato’s principle of dialog and
dialectic, and have rediscovered a form of his “idea numbers”. More
recently, the dialectic principles offered by the “early modern” German
philosopher G. W. F. Hegel (early 1800s) suggest that a given Thesis
gives rise to its AntiThesis, which together interact to form a
SynThesis, which then constitutes a NewThesis on the next-richer level
of concreteness. [Such “levels” are referred to as “fractal scales”.]
Hegel further mentions an «

*aufheben*» process by which the original thesis/idea is not only

**1)** “conserved”,

**2)** “negated, canceled, or annulled”, but also

**3)**
“elevated” into a new resulting thesis. These principles serve as the
basis for the model, which has been rigorously mathematically-formulated
in F.E.D. publications, and is interpreted below.

**[Ref-S3]**
**Summary Items (1-12):**
**1. **__The Fundamental Equation of the Dialectic____:__** Qualitatively [Self**-**]Expanding Universes of Discourse**
The model first considers a given initial finite set or system,

__S__**0**, based upon a “

__U__niverse of Discourse”, or initial “

__U__niversal Set” of [non-set] “logical elements”,

__U__ (

__S__**0 **=

**2^**__U__, the “set of all subsets” of

__U__ ), and the notion of

__S__**0** interacting with itself (“dialoguing with itself”, if you will). This interaction is defined by a “multiplication” (

**x**) operation as

__S__**0**** x **__S__0 (

__S__**0** “of”** **__S__0 )**. **
Under the dialectic principle, this

__S__**0**__(____S__0) product is not only the same system

**2^**__U__ =

__S__**0** again, but that system

__S__**0** plus a key added qualitative, ontological increment to that system:

__delta__(__S__**0)**, forming the new system:

__S__**1** =

__S__**0** + __delta__(__S__**0)**.

Thus, the

*Fundamental Equation of the Dialectic *for any growth-stage (“epoch”

**t**) is:

__S__**t+1 ****:= **** **__S__t **x**** **__S__t **= **** **__S__t **+**** **__delta__(__S__t).
Thus, Boolean logic (represented by

**S ****x S = S**) is “conserved” via the

__S__**t** term of “

__S__**t**** +**** **__delta__(__S__t)”, but that “logic of

__S__**t**” is also “annulled” and “elevated” by the

__delta__**(**__S__t) term.

The reconciliation of Old (

__S__**t**) and the implied Newness (

__delta__**(**__S__t)) is accomplished in their sum:

__S__**t**** +**** **__delta__(__S__t)”, which represents the New system (

__S__**t+1**).

[This reconciliation process employs Hegel’s

Thesis

**x** AntiThesis

**=** Thesis

**+** AntiThesis

**+** SynThesis

notion and his general

* ***aufheben** process.]

The underlined

__S__**t** signifies a “quality number”, i.e., it exhibits the “trans-Boolean” characteristic (

__S__ **x **__S__ **= **__S__ **+** __delta__(

__S__), where

__delta__(

__S__) is not null), while the underlined

__delta__**(**__S__t)
signifies a qualitative increment -- an increment of ontology (“kind of
being”) of a new kind –- but still derived from the initial

__S__**0 ****= ****2^**__U__.

**[Ref-01]**
**2. **__New Kinds of Numbers to Model Expanding Ontologies__
Here, the words “ontology” or “ontological” refer to “kinds of being.”
In order to capture or contain “the (ontological) qualities or ideas
of such an expanding universe of discourse”, a new set of “generalized
numbers” is postulated by F.E.D. Such numbers are referred to as
“ontological qualifiers”, or as “quality numbers” by this author. The
set or space of such qualifiers is:

(“

**:=**” denotes “is equal to by definition”) which corresponds to the Natural Numbers,

**N** **:= ****{1**,** 2**,** 3**,** …}**.

Each such qualifier behaves more like a “set of qualities/ideas/beliefs/

*etc.*” rather than like a single “element of a given quality”. Just as

**N** is a general set of symbols that can be applied to quantities of any specific kind of object (e.g., apples),

**N**__Q__
is a general set of symbols that can be applied to the defining quality
(ontology) of any specific kind of object, or subject of discourse
(e.g., qualities of/ideas of/beliefs about apples).

**[Ref-02]**
**3. **__Name for these new numbers____:__** The Meta-Natural Meta-Numbers**
Because these “quality numbers” correspond to the Natural Numbers but
are beyond them in that they account for qualitative matters only,

**N**__Q__ is referred to as the space of Meta-Natural Meta-Numbers.

__Notes__: Plato’s term «Arithmoi Eidetikoi» literally
translates as “Numbers of Idea Units”, wherein «Arithmoi» translates as
“Assemblages” [of qualitative Ideas-as-Units]. Therefore, “quality
numbers” represents this author’s attempt to capture this meaning.

**[Ref-03]**
**4. **__These New Kinds of Numbers are ____“__**Purely**-**Qualitative**”(**unaddible**)
Since adding the same quality to itself does not change that quality
(as in set-union), each such qualifier has this simple “non-additive
property”:

__q__**n ****+**** **__q__n := ** **__q__n for any __q__**n** in **N**__Q__

but the sum of two different qualifiers,

__q__**m****+**** **__q__n, exists but is not in

**N**__Q__, whenever

**m** is not

**n**. Any two distinct qualifiers are

*not quantitatively comparable* to one another. However, within

**N**__Q__ there is the

*total quality ordering* in which two distinct qualifiers are always considered to be

*qualitatively comparable*.

**[Ref-04]**
__Note__: F.E.D. asserts an order principle for the

**N**__Q__, and a “total order relation” for the

**N**__Q__ sequence, a sequence of increasing qualitative determinateness (here

__q__**3** represents greater qualitative “determinateness” than

__q__**2**, which represents greater qualitative “determinateness” than

__q__**1**).

**5. **__The Additive/Multiplicative ____“__**Open-ness**”** of **“**Open Qualifier Space**”
In

**N**__Q__, the sum of any two different qualifiers is not another qualifier within the set

**N**__Q__. Likewise, the product of any two

**N**__Q__ qualifiers is not in

**N**__Q__. In the case of either operation, the result goes outside of – beyond – the

**N**__Q__ space. There is no compelling need for “closure of addition,” nor for “closure of multiplication”. Thus, with the

**N**__Q__ number system, an “operationally open system” of arithmetic emerges. In short,

**N**__Q__
keeps us in “pure idea space” (or “Meta-Natural ontologies space”)
exclusively, without worry as to its “closure of ideas”. This openness
“creates room” (at every stage) for qualitative, ontological increments
of new ideas to emerge from the interactions among already existing
ideas! This open space, I call “

**Open Qualifier Space**”.

**[Ref-05]**

__Note__: “Open Qualifier Space” is somewhat analogous
to the Natural Numbers under division: The resulting “open system”
produces a different kind of set, the Fractions (Rational Numbers),
which is a qualitatively different set from the set of the “whole”
Natural numbers. Thus, in Open Qualifier Space, whenever an idea-sum
occurs, we can qualitatively, connotatively [“intension-ally”]
“interpret it”, rather than definitively [“extension-ally”] “define it”.
Such “openness” will be desirable when interpreting the resulting
mathematical findings that express “expansions of idea ontology”, or
“expansions of physical ontology”.

**6. **__Ontological Multiplication__
Again, the words “ontology or ontological” refer to “kinds of being” –
the “kinds of physical things” and “kinds of ideas” that actually exist
in any given epoch

**t** (the “

**t**” of the

__S__**t**). The dialectic principle is also reflected by the non-commutative multiplication (“

**´**” interaction) of such “ontological qualifiers” in

**N**__Q__ as defined by:

__q__**m** “of” __q__**n**: __q__**m**** x**** **__q__n := ** **__q__n **+**** **__q__n+m

__q__**n** “of” __q__**m**: __q__**n**** x**** **__q__m :=** **__q__m **+**** **__q__m+n

where the

__q__**n**** +**** **__q__n+m sum might be viewed as an “elevation of the

**n**-ontology, by the

**m**-ontology, into the (

**n****+****m**)-ontology.”

This definition reflects Hegel’s «

**aufheben**» process [

**Quick Primer **section].

** [Ref-06]**
**7**.

** **__Arithmetic to model ____“__**The Goedelian Dialectic**”
In this model, “a [transient] closure of resulting ideas” is implied
via a dialectic and interpretation of the resulting products/sums. An
important result of logician Kurt Goedel’s completeness/incompleteness
theorems of the 1930s is:

If an existing system cannot solve a problem that arises within it, then
that system can be expanded to form a larger system in which that
problem can be solved.
That larger system will also allow the formulation of new problems,
which did not exist for its predecessor systems, but which both exist
for it, and which are unsolvable within it, thus giving rise to
additional system enlargement, and so on.

This continual process of enlargement Goedel famously termed “the inexhaustibility of mathematics.”

Thus, the F.E.D. model also embodies a “Goedelian dialectic,” which
allows a system to expand qualitatively and “idea ontologically” so that
it can solve any of the problems which arise within any of its
predecessor systems, but still not some of the problems which arise
within it (the new system) for the first time.

**[Ref-07]**
**8**.

** **__Arithmetic to model the ____“__**Autokinesis**”** of the **“**Set of All Sets**”__:__** **__delta__ __as ____“__**qualo-operator**”** on**** **__S__t
The expansion increment

__delta__**(**__S__**t****)** was discussed earlier for a “universe-of-discourse” or “universal set”

__U__ such that

** **__S__0 =

**2^**__U__.

But exactly what is this increment?

In general, this increment is defined to be all the subsets of

__S__**t** (i.e., “all combinations generated by elements within

__S__**t**”), denoted as

**2****^**__S__t.

Thus, “

__delta__” *is itself a quality-function, or “qualo-operator” on quality set*__ S__**t**,

* which together create *__delta__**(**__S__**t****)***, the power set of *__S__**t**.

So, initially,

__delta__**(****S0****)** =

**2****^**__S__0 which helps define the next epoch’s (

**t = 1**) “set of all discourse”:

__S__**1** =

__S__**0** “union”

**2****^**__S__0.

[The

__delta__**(**__S__**0****)** =

**2****^**__S__0 can be large or small, depending on the nature of the problem(s) to be solved].

delta**(**__S__**t****)** **:=** the “set of all subsets of

__S__**t**”

**:=** **2****^**__S__t,

which, when combined with the set for time epoch

**t**, namely

__S__**t**, then forms the new system/discourse set

__S__**t+1** for the new period (epoch

**t****+1**).

Thus, this general set-content expansion formula serves as

*the Fundamental Equation of the Dialectic*:

S**t+1** =

__S__**t** union

**2****^**__S__t,

or

__S__**t+1** =

__S__**t** **+** __delta__**(**__S__**t****)**,

as originally mentioned in Item

**1**.

Each new “

**t**” represents an attempt to
complete the system by obtaining the “set of all sets” (all discourse
universes), which can never fully be attained (completed), as explained
in the Note below.

**[Ref-08]**
__Note__: This “set of all sets” movement, which is the
“extensional” definition of the concept of a “set” itself, is not the
result of any external need for content-expansion, but of an “internal”
need for such expansion.

It is a “self-movement”, or “

**Autokinesis**”.

As given in its very name – “the set of ALL sets” – its nature drives its content-expansion (via the

__delta__**(__)** = “power set” operator), which is therefore a “SELF-expansion”. Any set

__S__**t** always excludes all of its own subsets, including its “improper” subset – itself – so it fails to be “the set of ALL sets”.

The move to “

__S__**t** ‘union’

**2****^**__S__t ” puts the missing sets,

**2****^**__S__t, “back” into

__S__**t**, but that changes

__S__**t** into a new, qualitatively different, qualitatively expanded set, named

__S__**t+1**, which, again, fails to be “the set of ALL sets”.

The qualitatively new subsets that are added in each “try” at the “set of all sets”,

__S__**t**, represent the “extensions” of progressively ever more subtle qualities, represented by the elements of

**2****^**__S__t.

**9. **__“__**Meta-Linearity**”** of **“**Qualitative Sums**”
The Dialectic Equation is saying (assuming) that any ontological value/quality/discourse set

__S__**t**, interacting with, or reflecting upon, itself, yields itself again, but also plus some “

__delta__”, representing a solution set which “solves” old problems, or creates new “possibilities”, in the

**t+1** epoch (via set

__S__**t+1**). Thus, the Equation always expresses the

S**t x** __S__t **= ** __S__t^2
product as a linear “sum”, or “union”, of qualitatively unequal sets, of “apples”

**+** “oranges”

**+** “pears”

**+** … . This process “[meta-]linearizes” the “nonlinear [squaring] interaction,”

__S__**t ****x** __S__t **= ** __S__t^2, into a “qualitative sum”,

S**t** **+** __delta__**(**__S__**t****)**,

which serves as the basis for the “self-iterative” algorithm behind F.E.D.’s Mathematics of Dialectics.

The prefix ‘meta-’ is used because this linearity is at/on the “level of addition of ontological

__qual__ifiers”

, rather than on “the level of addition of pure, unqualified

__quant__ifiers”.

**[Ref-09]**
**10. **__Breaking through ____“__**The Nonlinearity Barrier**”
As the Dialectic Equation indicates, the (ontological) product is a
linear sum of qualifiers, and this points toward an answer to -- or
breakthrough of -- the “Nonlinearity Barrier” which plagues present-day
modern science.

**[Ref-10]**
**11. **__Connotational Calculus with an Algorithmic Underpinning__
To become specific to a given universe of discourse, the (F.E.D.)
dialectical model requires “interpretations” (“assignments”) of the new
ontology expansion terms (the

__delta__
terms) that result from repeated interaction (multiplication) of the
previously-posited sums of ontological qualifiers. It is these
interpretations which can make-or-break any such dialectical model’s
results in the non-science sphere of discourse.

**[Ref-11]**
**12. **__New Method for Hypothesis-Discovery in the Sciences__
However, when this F.E.D. Dialectic approach is applied to “subjects
of scientific discourse”, it results in a sweeping new understanding of
Science, e.g., from subatomic particles to atoms to molecules,

*etc.* It also results in a new

__universal taxonomy__ of the “fractal” layers of … sub-«

**species**» to «

**species**» to «

**genos**» to super-«

**genos**» …,

*etc.*
(ontological categories), thereby dramatically re-organizing our
knowledge of the ontology of the cosmos! All this emerges from
successive application “epochs” of the F.E.D. dialectical,
“self-iterative” algorithm – rather appropriately called:

*"***A **__Dialectical__ Theory of Everything".

**[Ref-12]**

[References] Links to greater detail on each item or topic
Below are URL references to F.E.D. publications which explain each above concept in detail, in “F.E.D. terminology”.

We recommend that these URLs be used for self-tutorial only after
becoming thoroughly familiar with the Background and Summary/Item
sections of this document.

The reason these links are not placed directly where they are first referenced is:

*The tutorial asks that the student engage *__in a conscious “going to the link”__, rather than almost unconsciously clicking on the link immediately after reading the summary item.
Unless the viewer attains a good “Overview” understanding first,
“clicking on a link” will open him/her to greater detail than is
recommended. Thus, the general and tutorial presentation philosophy of
this site/document is:

*“See the forest first, understand “the lay of its land,” then study the trees in as much detail as you wish* using the “links” provided below.

Also, the reader may wish to study the last section

**[Quick Primer] on the Math of Dialectics** before accessing the links below.

**[Ref**-

**T]**:

http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/Eventity/Eventity.htm
**[Ref**-

**S1]**:

http://www.adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/DiaRith/Intro/Dialectical-Ideography_An-Introductory-Letter.htm#The_Nonlinearity_Barrier
**[Ref**-

**S2]**:

http://www.adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/DiaRith/Intro/Dialectical-Ideography_An-Introductory-Letter.htm#Example_0
**[Ref**-

**S3]**:

http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Correspondence_files/Letter17-06JUN2009.pdf
**[Ref**-

**01]**:

*Pages 111 through 112 at*
__http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Dialectic_Ideography_files/7_Dialectics-Part1c-MetaBrief_OCR.pdf__
**[Ref**-

**02]**:

*Page I-141 at*
__http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Dialectic_Ideography_files/6_Dialectics-Part1c-Briefing_OCR.pdf__
**[Ref**-

**03]**:

*Pages I-6 through I-10 at*
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Briefs_files/_Brief2-29JUL2008_OCR.pdf
and

http://www.adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/DiaRith/Intro/Dialectical-Ideography_An-Introductory-Letter.htm#The_Dialectic_According_to_Plato
and

http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Glossary_files/F.E.D.,%20A%20Dialectical%20%27%27Theory%20of%20Everything%27%27,%20Volume%200.,%20FOUNDATIONS,%20Edition%201.00,%20first%20published%2010DEC2011,%20last%20updated%2017AUG2011,%20Definition,%20ARCHE%27,%20JPEG_1.jpg
**[Ref**-

**04]**:

*Page 111 at*
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Dialectic_Ideography_files/7_Dialectics-Part1c-MetaBrief_OCR.pdf
**[Ref**-

**05]**:

*Page I-148 at*
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Dialectic_Ideography_files/6_Dialectics-Part1c-Briefing_OCR.pdf
**[Ref**-

**06]**:

*Page I-145 at*
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Dialectic_Ideography_files/6_Dialectics-Part1c-Briefing_OCR.pdf
**[Ref**-

**07]**:

http://www.adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/DiaRith/Intro/Dialectical-Ideography_An-Introductory-Letter.htm#Example_0
**[Ref**-

**08]**:

http://www.adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/DiaRith/Intro/Dialectical-Ideography_An-Introductory-Letter.htm#The_Dialectic_of_Set_Theory
**[Ref**-

**09]**:

http://www.adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/DiaRith/Intro/Dialectical-Ideography_An-Introductory-Letter.htm#An_Ideography_for_Example_5
**[Ref**-

**10]**:

http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Correspondence_files/Letter24-22JFEB2010.pdf
**[Ref**-

**11]**:

*Page 1 at*
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Briefs_files/_Brief1-29JUL2008_OCR.pdf
**[Ref**-

**12]**:

*Pages B-7 through B-37 at*
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Primer_files/4_F.E.D.%20Intro.%20Letter,%20Supplement%20B-1,%20v.2_OCR.pdf
**[Ref**-

**Z]**:

*Two websites offering F.E.D. texts for free download are --*
www.dialectics.org (includes blogs and outside correspondence)

and

www.adventures-in-dialectics.org (includes blogs and detailed documents presenting F.E.D. concepts)

**[Quick Primer] on the Math of Dialectics**
This section is an attempt to provide a quick background on the math of dialectics, as currently understood by this author:

**a)** the “Meta-Naturals” set of increasing ontologies,

**N**__Q__ **:= ** **{ **__q__1,** **__q__2,** …**,** **__q__n },

**b)** the ontological multiplication of elements in this set, and

**c)** some applications of the theory.

In

**N** **:= **** {1**,** 2**,** 3**,** …}**,

**<****1****+****>** “

**n** times” generates any

**n**, but (

**1****x**) generates only itself.

In

**N**__Q__,

**<**__q__1 **+****>** generates only itself, but quite significantly,

**<**__q__1 **x****>** “

**n**-times” generates the “

**n**-th

__C__umulum”,

__C__**n**** := **** (**__q__1)^n **= **** q1 ****+**** q2 ****+**** … ****+**** qn**.

Using this result, it is possible to show an “isomorphic” correspondence between the Naturals (under

**+**) and “Cumula space” (as I call it) under multiplication (

**x**) of cumula.

Let

**h(n) :=**** (**__q__1)^n :=** **__C__n, then

__C__**n**** x**** **__C__m **= **** **__C__n+m, or

**h(n+m) ****= **** (**__q__1)^(n+m) **= **** (**__q__1)^n **x**** (**__q__1)^m **= **** h(n) ****x**** h(m)**, which makes

**h(n) ****= **** (**__q__1)^n, quite analogous to “

**exp(n) ****=**** e^n**” in the Reals:

**e^(n+m) ****=**** e^n ****x**** e^m**, and the “Cum” or “Sum” notion is analogous to “Integration” (in the Reals) as

*Note*’d below [for

**W**__Q__ **&** **Z**__Q__, s.t.

**W** **:= **** {0, 1, 2, …}** **&** **Z** **:= **** {…, ****-****2, ****-****1, ****±****0, ****+****1, ****+****2, …}**], in the advanced

*“*__Special__ __Note__”.

__Special Note__: In one key sense, “

__q__**1**” is like a “qualitative

**e**”, where

**e^x :=**** exp(x)** quantitatively!

Map

**h**:

**W --->** **{**** W**__Q__ Cumula

**}**, where

**h(w) ****= **** (**__q__1)^w **= **** **__C__w means that the cumulum “sum[marize]s all ontologies from

**q0** to

__q__**w**”.

This seems analogous to integrating the quantitative function “

**exp(x)**” over the interval

**[0**,** n]** (epochs

**0** to

**n**), where [using '

**S**' as the sign for the integration operation -- M.D.]

**S****exp(x)dx** [from

**t ****=**** 0** to

**n**] “sums up” (is the

*“cumula*tive result” of) all historical (exponential) growth during those epochs!

So, “In sum”,

*on* **[t ****=**** 0**,** n]**,

*in quantitative space*:

** e^n ****=**** e^0 ****+ ****S****(e^t)dt**;

*in qualitative space*:

** (**__q__1)^n **=**** (**__q__1)^0 **+ **__SUM__**(t=0**,**n)**__q__**t**, with

__SUM__ signing

__non__*-***amalgamative** summing, and given that, for

**Z**__Q__ space,

**(**__q__1)^0 **= **** (**__q__1/__q__1) **= **** **__q__**-****1**** x**** **__q__**+****1**** =**** (q0/**__q__1) **x**** (**__q__1/q0) **=**** **__q__1**^(****-****1****) x**** **__q__1**^(****+****1)**** = **** **__q__1**^(****-****1****+****1****) = **** -**__q__**1**** x**** +**__q__**1**** =**** q0 ****= **** **__q__**-****1 ****+**** **__q__**+****1 ****+** __q__**+****1****-****1**** =**** q0 ****+**** q0 ****=**** q0**, by the more symmetric,

*‘meta-genealogical product rule’*:

q**z****1**** x** __q__z**2**** :=** __q__**z****1**** +** __q__z**2**** +** __q__z**2****+****z****1**,

for

**z1**,

**z2** in **Z**.

Interestingly,

**N**__Q__ is neither closed under

**+** nor

**x**.

Any

__q__**n**** +**** **__q__n **= **** **__q__n, but when

**m** *is not* **n**,

__q__**n**** +**** **__q__m *is NOT* in

**N**__Q__, since these are “unaddible numbers” (Plato) or “non-amalgamative” sums (MusÃ¨s), i.e.,

*ontologies don’t really mix*.

Instead one is usually “subsumed” by another, as the defined multiplication indicates:

__q__**m** “**of**”** **__q__n **:= **** **__q__m **x**** **__q__n := ** **__q__n **+**** **__q__n+m.

This multiplication represents the

*“***aufheben**” process suggested by Hegel, where ontology

__q__**n** (thesis) is

**1)** “preserved or conserved” via “

__q__**n**** +**”, and

**2)** “negated/cancelled” as

__q__**n** is subsumed by

**+**, and

**3)** “elevated” to

__q__**n+m** by the antithesis (

__q__**m**) to form the synthesis, or new thesis (product/sum):

__q__**n**** +**** **__q__n+m. (

*At least this is “close”*.)

Any universe of sets

**2****^**__U__ **=**** **__S__0 (ontology) acting on itself under an Hegelian (and Goedelian) Dialectic is said to obey

*the *__F__undamental __E__quation of the __D__ialectic ( “the F.E.D.”

):

__S__**t+1**** := **** **__S__t **x**** **__S__t **=**** **__S__t **+**** **__delta__(__S__t), or

__S__**new**** := **** **__S__now **x**** **__S__now **=**** **__S__now **+**** **__delta__(__S__now).

Thus, the

__delta__**(**__S__now) is the “elevation” to the new ontology (

__S__**new**), which, sub

__sum__ed with the existing

__S__**now**, forms the new thesis

__S__**new**.

The

__delta__**(**__S__now) also represents the “power set” of

__S__**now**, which represents a new framework or possibilities for solutions to problems within

__S__**now** that are not solvable within

__S__**now**.

S**now** union

__delta__**(**__S__**now****)**, or “

__S__**now** **+** __delta__**(**__S__**now****)**”, represents including Goedel’s next higher “logical type”, which permits solution of the unsolvable problem in

__S__**now**.

Thus, “

__delta__*” is itself a quality-function, or “qualo-operator”, on quality set *__S__**t***, which together create *__delta__**(**__S__**t****)***, the power set of *__S__**t***.*
So,

__delta__**(**__S__**t****)** **:= ** the “set of all subsets of

__S__**t**”

**=** **2****^**__S__t.

The “

**+**” represents a “meta-linear” addition (to the next/subsuming ontological level of “epoch

**t**”).

This is a “linearization” of

__S__** x**** **__S__
that embryonically solves the “Non-Linearity Barrier”, which the
Foundation contends is an obstacle to growth not only in Science, but to
growth in our Civilization in general.

Under Boolean logic in “Quantitative” space,

**S ****x**** S ****=**** S**, with no non-zero delta term, and our solution set is only the Boolean possibilities:

**{****0**,** 1****}** since

**S(1 ****-**** S) ****= ****0**.

* *

In essence, Boolean logic represents a narrow true/false logic that is
great for designing airplanes and electrical circuits, but not-so-great
for showing us how to “think out of that **[****0/1]*** box!” We need a “contra-Boolean logic” to show us how to think in a richer, more inclusive way!*
With the

__delta__ increment or “operator on the ontology (

__S__**t**)”
in open “Qualifier” space, this non-zero increment yields a
“contra-Boolean” solution set, thus posits a “contra-Boolean logic”.

__Note__: By way of contrast, in Lawlor’s book,

*Sacred Geometry*, he mentions the equation for the Golden Mean:

** x^2 ****= **** x ****+**** 1**, where that Mean (“reconcilor”) is seen as a kind of universal growth factor. There, only a constant “positive unity

**delta**” (

**+****1**) exists, so the non-Boolean “linearized” alternative suffers from a “constant”

**delta(x)** **= ****1**, which in no way depends on the limitations imposed within the system (since “

**1**” is a constant).

Thus, applying this methodology to the ontological development of math systems, we might start with

__S__**1** **:=**** **__q__1 := **{**the ontology of the

Natural numbers,

N**}**, then

__S__**1 ****x**** **__S__1 **= ****(**__q__1)^2 **= **** **__q__1 **+**** **__q__2, where

__q__**2**** =**** {**idea-ontology solving

**x ****+**** n ****=**** n****} ****= ** ontologies up to the

**W**hole Numbers,

W.

Then

**(**__q__1)^3 **= **** **__q__1 **x**** (**__q__1 **+**** **__q__2) **=**** **__C__1 **x**** **__C__2 **= **** **__C__1+2 **=**** **__C__3 **=** idea-ontologies up to the Integers,

**Z** --

**(**__q__1)^4 **= **** **__q__1 **+**** **__q__2 **+**** **__q__3 **+**** **__q__4 **= **** **__C__4 **=** idea-ontologies up the Rational Numbers,

Q*, etc.*
The succeeding ideas-system (idea-ontology) solves what is unsolvable in the previous ideas-system (idea-ontology)!

Finally, we apply this methodology to our Quantum World of

__q__**1**** =**** {**subatomic particles physio-ontology

**}**. Then

**(**__q__1)^2 **=** cumulum up to {atomic particles physio-ontology},

**(**__q__1)^3 **=** cumulum up to

**{**molecules physio-ontology

**}**,

*etc.*

Oh, one more interesting notion. Expand

**N**__Q__ via a

**q0** where

**q0 ****+**** **__q__k **= **** **__q__k for any

**k** in

**N**. Then

**q0 ****=**** id(****+****)**, the additive identity.

And, surprisingly:

**q0 ****=**** id(x****)**, the multiplicative identity, also!

This would be impossible in any non-trivial algebraic field, but is quite possible in ontological qualifier space!

That’s what I love about this space --

* It lets the “Impossible” scream loudly: “I’m Possible!”* And, of course, the Complex numbers were founded under a counter-thesis to the impossibility of an

**x** (in the Reals) such that

**x^2 ****= ****-****1**. It was then that “little

**i**” screamed: “

**i am!**” and (happily for us all) she was heard."

Regards,

Miguel