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. ...







Wednesday, December 27, 2017

Part 01: Seldon Presents Series -- The Elision of External Causes in our ‘First Arithmetic Dialectical Meta-Models’.










Part 01:  Seldon Presents Series -- The Elision of External Causes in ourFirst Arithmetic Dialectical Meta-Models.







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 first 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.







... Our dialectical ideographies are primarily about capturing and mapping ‘‘‘internal causes’’’ -- immanent causes; self-forces. ...”

Our Total Universe, Nature-History as Totality, Dialectic of Nature Meta-Model, in terms of any of the variants of it that we are presently considering, is not defected by any elision of external causes, precisely because it is a whole-Universe Meta-Model.  That ‘‘‘whole-Universe’’’, per our conception and definition, has no ‘‘‘out side’’’, no externity, but is, instead, all-inclusive.”

“That is, it generates representations of the sub-cumula of other categories whose units or «monads» may constitute ‘‘‘external causes’’’ and ‘‘‘environments’’’ in relation to any given single ontological category that it also generates, and in the correct epoch in which those others actually arise.”

It does so from out of the same «arché» ontological category, and by means of the same meta-genealogical process, that generates the given single ontological category representing those «monads» that may be environmented, and ‘‘‘externally’’’ impacted, by the «monads» represented by all of the other ontological categories that are extant in/during the given epoch of this environmentation and of this external impaction.”

“However, for dialectical meta-models that are confined to a given sub-universe and Domain that are less inclusive than our Universe as a Whole, this elision of environment(s)/‘“external”’ causes can be, and, typically, is, a major source of their homeomorphic defect -- of the ‘‘‘qualitative residuals’’’ of such dialectical meta-models.”

“I have long held that the development of a purely-qualitative, purely-ontological dialectical ideography -- as well as of more advanced, quanto-qualitative dialectical ideographies -- capable of systematically and comprehensively encompassing such relative ‘“environments”’ and relatively ‘‘‘external causes’’’, for any given sub-universe and/or Domain, that are sourced in (an) other sub-universe(s) and/or Domain(s) of our Total Universe, should be a priority objective of our research collective and of our research programme. ...







Sunday, December 17, 2017

Part 12: Seldon’s Insights Series -- The Core of the ‘CONTRA-Boolean’ Dialectical Principle: When a Something Becomes ‘OF Itself’... .










Part 12:  Seldon’s Insights Series -- The Core of theCONTRA-BooleanDialectical Principle:  ‘‘‘When a Something BecomesOF Itself, It also becomes Something Else, Something Other, Something More -- Something Qualitatively, Ontologically DIFFERENT!’’’







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 twelfth and final 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.







... The key insight that the NQ_ contra-Boolean arithmetic -- our first dialectical arithmetic -- was engineered to capture can also be stated as follows -- ‘When an arithmos of monads becomesOF Itself, It also becomes somethings else, somethings other, somethings new and unprecedented [if this is the first occasion of its becoming OF Itself]; somethings more -- somethings Qualitatively, ontologically DIFFERENT!’.


At first, I did not grasp the mathematical modeling efficacy of the ‘‘‘evoluteness’’’ products-principles.  At first, I explored ‘‘‘convolute’’’ product-rules and product axioms, not the double-conservation «aufheben» evolute product rule, not the meta-catalysis evolute product rule, not the triple-conservationmeta-genealogical evolute product rule.”


Therefore, my first formulations of the contra-Boolean dialectical principle took the form --

x x x  =  delta-x

-- such that delta-x  ~=  x  &  delta-x  ~>  x  &  delta-x  ~<  x.”

Thus, delta-x was non-quantitatively unequal to x, and therefore must be qualitatively, ontologically unequal to x, while also being still meta-genealogically related to the x «arithmos» and, thus, to its «monads».”


“This contrasts sharply with the Boolean fundamental law, given by Boole as --

x x x  =  x, or x2  =  x, which works for an x in the solution-set {0,1}

-- and which Boole “factored-out” into --

x x (1 - x)  =  0, and interpreted as an assertion of formal logics core non-contradiction principle: 

‘“x and not-x is nothing”’. ”


“Nonetheless, the idea all along was that the interaction of an «arithmos», i.e., of a ‘‘‘number’’’ [of «monads» or of units of a given kind, i.e., of a given category], WITH ITSELF, ‘x x x’, or ‘x2’, its self-product, interpreted by us as representing the intra-action’ of the constituent «monads» that it implicitly represents, produces another, higher ‘‘‘number’’’, interpreted by us as constituting a new «arithmos», a cumulum of ‘‘‘higher’’’ «monads», of «monads» of a new, ‘‘‘higher’’’ kind.”


This idea was expressed analytical-geometrically by representing this arithmetic and its algebra by an abstract space in which the self-multiplication of any one of the meta-numbers already constituting this space gives rise to a new axis, perpendicular to all of the previous axes extant for this abstract space.”


“That is, any self-multiplication of a meta-number already in this space gives rise to a new meta-number, as a new dimension; adds a new orthogonal direction [in]to that space, so that the space expands, as a result, not just quantitatively but dimensionally.  We interpret this as defining a space that grows qualitatively; ontologically, that breaks, and breaks out of -- transcends -- its closure, with every new such arithmetical operation.”


“Such self-multiplication was to be used to model actualities in which the ‘‘‘singularity’’’ resulting from the crossing of a critical density[/‘‘‘temperature’’’] threshold by and within a cumulum of «monads» of a given «arithmos»/kindgenos» is seen to give rise to a new «arithmos», of a new kind of units.”


If we interpretx x x’ after the manner of classical function notation, thenx x x’ or ‘x2becomes --

x(x)

-- which can be read-off, per that function notation, as ‘x OF x’, or as ‘x OF itself’.  Thus, per our ‘‘‘convolute’’’ version of our contra-Boolean fundamental ‘‘‘law’’’:   x OF itself yields delta-x’:  which we interpret as representing a new «arithmos» of «monads» that are, precisely -- ‘somethings else, somethings other, somethings new and unprecedented [if this is the first occasion of its becoming OF Itself]; somethings more -- somethings Qualitatively, ontologically DIFFERENT!’’ -- ‘something ontologically REVOLUTIONARY.”





“If one looks for examples of ‘xs OF xs’ in the dialectic of Nature, one finds such as the following --

‘...[sub-atomic] particles of particles -- which are no longer [sub-atomic] particles, but atomic nuclei.’

‘...atoms of atoms -- which are no longer atoms, but molecules.’

‘...molecules of molecules -- which are no longer molecules, but [polymeric “macromolecules” and pre-eukaryotic, or prokaryotic,] cells.’

‘...[prokaryotic] cells of cells -- which are no longer [prokaryotic] cells, but eukaryotic cells.’

‘...[eukaryotic] cells of cells -- which are no longer [eukaryotic] cells, but multi-cellular organisms.’ ”




“Of course, a key insight along this way was to see how typically it was the case that each of the new units of this new «arithmos» thus produced were some kind of ‘‘‘aggregate’’’ of certain of the units formerly inhering in the old «arithmos»; to see that each of the new units was a self-involution, a self-internalization, a self-meta-unit-ization, or a self-meta-holon-ization of some definite sub-«arithmos»’ of the thus now former units of the old  «arithmos» -- and seeing that all of these descriptions of such processes were, in their unity, descriptions of an «aufheben» annulment/elevation/conservation process, and, hence, of a gene-ric dialectic.