F.E.D. Dialectics: August 2022

Thursday, August 04, 2022

The ‘WAVE versus PARTICLE ANTINOMY’ in Modern Microcosmic Physics – Toward a Dialectical Synthesis Solution.

The ‘WAVE versus PARTICLE ANTINOMY’ in Modern Microcosmic Physics –

Toward a Dialectical Synthesis Solution.

Dear Reader,

In contemporary “Particle Physics” theory, the objects of the theory – the “fundamental” objects that manifest the nature of ‘Microcosmic Objective Nature’ -- are taken to be BOTH “classical, linear wave-like”, and “classical” ‘[linear] point-particle-like’, sometimes manifesting as classical waves, sometimes manifesting as particles, sometimes manifesting as “both”.

But this “complementarity” of these two classically mutually-exclusive models is far from a dialectical synthesis.

We suspect that better models would likely be more about ‘‘‘eventities’’’ which are NEITHER classical “waves” nor classical particles, and would be nonlinear models, as suggested by the somewhat recently discovered “solitary wave” and “soliton” closed-form solutions of many “weakly-nonlinear” partial differential equations.

We suspect that the ‘“Waves versus Particles Paradox”’ – perhaps even a latter-day example of a Kantianish ANTINOMY – is more a human, collective-subjective, psychohistorical, cognitive problem than an objective, ‘nature of Microcosmic Objective Nature’ problem.

We suspect that this “paradox” arises from believing that real microphysical objects must conform either to our idea of a classical wave, or to our idea of a “point particle”, and “never the twain shall meet”.

On the contrary, real microphysical objects may be, and may have always been, a tertium quid, something qualitatively, ontologically different from either of our opposing ideas of real such objects, but ‘‘‘containing’’’ an ‘intra-duality’ which makes them manifest, sometimes as somewhat fitting our idea of a “wave”, and sometimes as somewhat fitting our idea of a “particle”.

We need a conceptual dialectical synthesis whose concept of real microphysical objects better fits both their ‘wave-ish’ side and their ‘point-ish’ side, but as an integral unity, not as a syncretic “complementarity”.

The ‘dialectogram’ posted below begins to articulate this problematique.

For ongoing updates regarding F.E.D. content, please see --

www.dialectics.info .

For F.E.D. books, and for partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of our hypotheses -- specimens of ‘dialectical art’ -- see:

https://www.etsy.com/shop/DialecticsMATH

¡ENJOY!

Regards,

Miguel Detonacciones,

Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.];

Elected Member, F.E.D. General Council;

Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison;

Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.

Wednesday, August 03, 2022

The ‘Categoriality’ of Typical Axioms-Systems.

The ‘Categoriality’ of Typical AxiomS-Systems –

Is via the ‘‘‘Family’’’ of Multiple, Variant Axioms-Systems ‘‘‘Inside’’’ Each Typical, Single ‘Ideo-Ontological’ Category, or ‘Ideo-«Arithmos»’, of Axioms-System ‘Ideo-«Monads»’ or Ideo-Units, each of those units being a distinct axiomatization, family-related to each other axioms-system unit in that family/category.

Dear Reader,

In our ‘evolute’, [meta-]systematic-dialectical, and historical-dialectical categorial progression models, which are also systems-progression models, of [meta-systematic and historical] axioms-systems progressions, e.g., of mathematical, arithmetical axioms-systems’ Gödelian-incompleteness-driven [i.e., locally-unsolvable diophantine equation-driven] progressions, we represent each term, each category, each «arithmos» of a given such progression of categories as an assemblage of more than one axioms-system -- of a multiplicity of ‘‘‘family-related’’’ axioms-system variations -- by way of single [ideo-]ontological category, via a single ‘category-symbol’ interpreted from the _NQ arithmetic for dialectic.

Any such “axioms-system” category thus “refers to” or ‘“contains”’ multiple axioms-system units – two or more – thus qualifying it also as an «arithmos» of such units.

For example, an axioms-system defining the arithmetic of a given, “standard” number-system will typically have multiple variants; will typically be but one of a variety of such axioms-system units/«monads».

Perhaps the best known case within this example is that of the “standard” second-order-logic axiomatization(s) of the “number-space” of the “Natural” Numbers, N.

We denote the category of those second-order axioms-systems by the singly-underscored symbol for that number-space, namely N.

Historically, there is an axiomatization for --

N = {1, 2, 3,…},

-- and, later, another axiomatization for --

N = {0, 1, 2, 3,…}.

In some cases, the axiomatic variability ‘“contained”’ in an ‘ideo-ontological’ category standing for a given [family of] arithmetic(s), call that category X, for a given number-space call, it X, might arise by way of including in that category both first-order-logic and second-order-logic axiomatizations for arithmetics over the number-space or “numbers-set” X.

Because we typically denote first-order axiomatizations for a “numbers-set” X, by X_, and second-order axiomatizations of X by X or X_, we sometimes denote a category that includes both first-order and second-order axiomatizations of the same numbers-set by _X_.

For ongoing updates regarding F.E.D. content, please see -- www.dialectics.info .

https://www.etsy.com/shop/DialecticsMATH

¡ENJOY!

Regards,

Miguel Detonacciones,

Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.];

Elected Member, F.E.D. General Council;

Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison;

Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.

Tuesday, August 02, 2022

The “Reform versus Revolution Antinomy” – Dialectical Synthesis Solution.

The “Reform versus Revolution Antinomy” –

Dialectical Synthesis Solution.

GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOHESES.

Dear Reader,

The ‘dialectogram’ JPG image, posted below, describes a predicted dialectical synthesis solution to the “social revolution versus social reform” supposed ‘Kantianoid’ antinomy that Marx also envisioned, as evidenced by the three quotes from Marx’s [and, in one case, also from Engels’s] writings and speeches that are included in that ‘dialectogram’.

“Social Revolution” does not necessarily require barricades and blood in the streets. “Social Revolution”, in its Marxian meaning, does not necessarily exclude lawful, non-violent means, if the resulting reforms institute changes of sufficient depth. “Social Revolution”, in its Marxian meaning, applies to any movement for societal change that accomplishes a change in the prevailing ‘“social relations of [societal self-re-]production”’ of a given human society – e.g., to an «aufheben» of the capital/wage-labor relation [Marx], yielding a new, higher “social relation of production” -- notwithstanding if that change in fundamental social relations is achieved without criminal violence, and in accord with the rule of law, by means of majoritarian, democratic, legislative and constitutional amendment enactments.

The capitalist ruling class ruling faction will, of course, attempt to suppress such social change with police and military criminal violence, but, as was shown by the circa 1989 revolutions that overthrew Stalinist, pure-state-bureaucratic-ruling-class state-capitalism in East Germany, Russia and Eastern Europe, sufficiently majoritarian popular support for such a social revolution can stay the hand of police and army, and enable an overthrow of the old ruling class – as it did with the Stalinist national ruling classes there -- with amazingly little public violence. Of course, the unstayed hand of the Western, ‘Rocke-Nazi’ ruling class ruling faction soon imposed a profound Mafia and “social shock treatment” collective punishment on the Russian people, and on the peoples of Eastern Europe, which did later lead to counter-revolutionary social violence.

Quotations from Marxian writings and speeches that demonstrate Marx’s [and Engels’s] envisioning of non-violent socialist revolution include –

When Marx and Engels participated, personally and signally, in the European continent-wide revolutionary uprisings of 1848, Europe was ruled largely by violently-repressive monarchical police states. Marx and Engels thus saw no way forward for humanity’s evolution other than by way of violent revolution. But the progress of capitalist representative democracy during Marx’s lifetime led him later to revise his views regarding the necessity of violent revolution for the supercession of capitalism --

“Someday the worker must seize political power in order to build up the new organization of labor; he must overthrow the old politics which sustain the old institutions, if he is not to lose Heaven on Earth, like the old Christians who neglected and despised politics. But we have not asserted that the ways to achieve that goal are everywhere the same.”

“You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means.” [Marx, 8 Sep. 1872, Amsterdam, Address after the Fifth Congress of the International Working Men’s Association [“First International”]].

The key to the “institutions, mores, and traditions” that make possible a relatively peaceful transition to what we name ‘political-economic democracy’ is, according to Marx, the advancement of capitalist representative democracy to the point of universal suffrage -- to the right of the “propertyless” working-class majority to vote in national & local elections --

“...the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.” [Marx and Engels, 1848, The Communist Manifesto]; “But universal suffrage is the equivalent of political power for the working class of England, where the proletariat forms the large majority of the population, where, in a long though underground civil war, it has gained a clear consciousness of its position as a class, and where even the rural districts know no longer any peasants, but only landlords, industrial capitalists (farmers) and hired labourers. The carrying of universal suffrage in England would therefore be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the continent. Its inevitable result, here, is political supremacy of the working class.”