Tuesday, November 28, 2017

'E.D. Universal Taxonomy’, 2nd Chart -- categories expressed via algebraic ideography.














Encyclopedia Dialectica Universal Taxonomy, 2nd Chart -- categories expressed via algebraic ideography.







Dear Readers,




The Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.] Special Council for the Encyclopedia is scheduled to post, to the Applications Page of the www.dialectics.org web site, a second Platonian Format Dialectogram, summarizing the higher level ontological categories of the Encyclopedia Dialectica Universal Taxonomy, with those ontological categories represented via their Seldonian-algebraic ideograms.  

These are also the ontological categories to be addressed in the planned volume 1 of Encyclopedia Dialectica itself.


For your convenience, I have posted this second Dialectogram diagram below as well, together with its companion first Dialectogram diagram, to which it corresponds, such that the one ‘‘‘decodes’’’ the other.



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.























Monday, November 27, 2017

Part 10: Seldon’s Insights Series -- ‘‘‘Dialectic of Nature’’’, “Dark Energy” as ‘«Arché» Ontological Category’, Possible Uniqueness as Non-Monadic.











Part 10:  Seldon’s Insights Series -- ‘‘‘Dialectic of Nature’’’,Dark Energyas ‘«Arché» Ontological Category, Possible Uniqueness as Non-Monadic.







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 tenth 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 Dark Matter cosmological-ontological category, which we denote by c, standing for the cosmological gravitic self-contractionary force, is the first contra-category of a version of our whole-«kosmos», ‘‘‘dialectic of Nature’’’ meta-model that we are currently considering and exploring.”

IT may be typical of physi[c]o-[ideo-]ontological[, as well as of purely” ‘ideo-ontological,] categories, as we have typically encountered them, in virtue of IT too representing an ontological «arithmos»-of-«monads», in that IT is [probably] -- and is expected to be, by the consensus of todays physicists -- multi-monadic; multiplicitous, taking the form of a multitude of «monads»         / units / particles, i.e., of a cosmologicalpopulation, albeit with a content probably residing outside of The Standard Model of Particle Physics.”

ITs [we hold] predecessor cosmological-ontological category, that of Dark Energy, we are exploring, in the same candidate version of our whole-«kosmos», ‘‘‘dialectic of Nature’’’ meta-model, as todays deepest-known «arché» cosmological-ontological category, in that same, presently most advanced, if still speculative, of our dialectical meta-equation meta-models of ‘‘‘the dialectic of Nature’’’ as a whole.  We denote this candidate «arché» category by x, standing for the anti-gravitic self-expansionary forceof our cosmos as a whole.”

IT may turn out to be atypical.” 

IT may be the/an exception, in that IT may not be multi-monadic; multiplicitous.”

The cosmological-ontological category of Dark Energy may represent a singleton «arithmos»’, thus contradicting the very meaning of the ancient concept of “«arithmoi»”.”

IT may be so, e.g., unless further experiment upholds the developing view that physical space itself is better modeled as granular, i.e., as multi-monadic [e.g., as ‘‘‘quantized’’’], rather than being better modeled as a CONTINUOUS multi-dimensional manifold.”

If so, then x might be seen -- or might be seeable -- as a self-proliferation of the units of space, i.e., as an oft-acceleratory [including sometimes superluminally so] self-expanding self-reproduction of the monads of physical spaceitself. ...






Friday, November 24, 2017

Part 09: Seldon’s Insights Series -- Universal Method.










 Part 09:  Seldon’s Insights Series -- Universal Algorithmic-Heuristic Dialectical Method.






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 ninth 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 ‘‘‘method of this madness’’’ of the Q_ arithmetics / algebras for dialectics are not so hard to understand if you already know, or if you come to understand, that categories, and that their individuals, or units, e.g., that, to use their ancient names, «arithmoi», and their «monads» -- in short, kinds of [ev]entities -- are fundamental to human cognition about realities, both those internal to us, and those external to us...”

The «monads» -- ‘‘‘units’’’ in the ancient sense -- that, mentally, we represent collectively by their abstract «arithmoi» -- ‘‘‘numbers’’’ in the ancient sense -- are typically multi-qualitative, multi-predicate units in the full regalia of their physical, sensuous embodiment.  They are sensuous units, present in multiplicity as ‘‘‘populations’’’ of ‘‘‘individuals’’’.  Each kind of such individuals collectively constitutes, e.g., a specific «species» ontological category, but not limited to biological «species» categories alone.  


They constitute the level of «species» as a multiplicity of higher [more abstract, more gene-ral] units in their own right; as ontological-categorial super-units, made up out of their respective «monads» as their [sub-]units.”

The ‘‘‘individuals’’’ units are thus generally not like   1”, or ‘‘‘the 1s’’’ -- the modern, hyper-abstract, purely”-quantitative ‘‘‘unit(s)’’’, of the “Natural numbers, N, i.e., 1, 2 [= 1 + 1], 3 [= 1 + 1 + 1 ], ... \|/, wherein ‘\|/’ is a variable representing the highest positive integer expressible by the digital computer that we are presently using to facilitate and augment our present dialogue, or, more precisely, our present multilogue.  For one thing, these units have ‘‘‘individual differences’’’, qualitative differences among themselves.  They are not posited, as with the ‘1(s)’ of N, in a propositionally self-contradictory manner, as (an) absolutely identical unit(s) (which are) somehow also distinct and ever present in multiplicity. 


Such units, such «monads» are not, and cannot be, ‘‘‘inter-mutually identical / indistinguishable’’’.  They are mutually similar, which also means that they are mutually distinguishable, because of their differences.  But they are similar enough that some humans, with justification, classify them as belonging to, e.g., one single «species».    

Note that the actual objects that we use the N to count -- each as a different one -- are more like the former units or «monads» -- e.g., every individual actual apple has a multiplicity of concrete «differentia», different blemishes, etc., with respect to every other concrete apple, even if that other is of the same exact variety -- than they are like the units of the latter.  We have to deny / ignore / negate / abstract-from these «differentia» in order for such a count to be true, in order for the number assigned as their quantity to that multitude of actual objects to be exact for us.”


The Q_ method elides any detailed description of the individual «monads», including of their movements, from explicit representation, and follows, instead, the ‘‘‘ghosts’’’ of those “departed”-by-abstraction «monads».  It does so by explicitly following, instead, the movements of their «arithmoi», i.e., of their several «species», etc., that is, the movements of their ontological categories, leaving the «monads» that constitute those categories unmentioned, for the most part.”


It does so, because of human-cognitive limitations; because naked human cognition, unaided by, e.g., our digital and our trans-digital computers, that may encompass ‘‘‘multi-agent simulations’’’ involving, typically, myriads of «monad»-agents, each one encoded in considerable detail, cannot track such multitudes of «monads».”


“It is, after all, interactions of the «monads» themselves that, at this level of description, produce the results that each Q_ categorial calculus ‘‘‘covers’’’ and summarizes.”


Interactions -- or, if you prefer, ‘‘‘intra-actions’’’ -- among «monads» of a single kind [e.g., of a single «species»] produce what each Q_ categorial calculus records, implicitly as the new, self-hybrid [meta-monads», constituting new ontology; explicitly as a new,self-hybrid ontological
category.  [the self-«aufheben» operation]. 


Interactions among «monads» of two or more -- qualitatively different -- kinds [e.g., «species»] produce what each Q_ categorial calculus records, implicitly as the new, merely-hybrid «monads», constituting new ontology, explicitly as a new, merely-hybrid ontological category. [the mutual-«aufheben» operation].


“The gene-ric core, or «Genos», of this categorism, or categoreality, is what we call ‘«Gene»-ric Dialectic.