Friday, October 10, 2025

Part 03. Dialectics and Nonlinearity Series. Dialectics and SINGULARITY.

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part 03.

 

Dialectics and Nonlinearity  Series.

 

 

Dialectics

 

and

 

SINGULARITY.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Reader,

 

 

 

It is my pleasure, and my honor, as an elected member of the Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.] General Council, and as a voting member of F.E.D., to share, with you, from time to time, as they are approved for public release by the F.E.D. General Council, Seldon’s commentaries on key Encyclopedia Dialectica concepts of Seldonian Theory.

 

 

This next text in this new such series is posted herewith [Some E.D. standard edits have been applied, in the version presented below, by the editors of the F.E.D. Special Council for the Encyclopedia, to the direct transcript of our co-founder’s discourse].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seldon –

 

 The NQ Dialectical Algebra and the Purely”-Qualitative, Purely”-Ontological, Categorial Mathematical Modeling of [Onto-]Dynamical Singularities: Ontological Revolutions.

 

Sometimes it is ultra-simplification that yields the new insights needed to handle the full[er] complexity of a Domain of Nature, or of Nature as a totality.

 

The core nonlinear dynamical equations of modern physics – Newton’s equations for gravitational “forces”, Coulomb’s equations for electrodynamic forces, and the Einstein equations of General Relativity, offer astounding quantitative precision of prediction for pairs of interacting bodies, but, especially in the cases of the former two, contain immanent failures that manifest especially in cases of three or more interacting bodies, but that even manifest egregiously in cases of just two bodies, if they collide.

 

The Newton and Coulomb equations model their interacting gravitating bodies, and interacting charged bodies, respectively, not as extended, e.g., three-dimensional-volumed bodies of substance, but as mathematical points.  These bodies are thus replaced, in these equations, by zero-dimensional, zero-volume, extension-less, infinitesimal points.  But these ‘physical nothings’ are somehow associated with finite masses or with finite electric charges, respectively: they are construed as “mass-points” or as ‘charge-points’, respectively’ 

A heavy price is paid by projecting these mathematical – mentally-internal, unphysical – idea-objects onto physical reality, where they do not exist, and do not belong.

 

When Newton’s equations predict a collision of two planets, modeled as mass-points, such collision means that the “two” mass-points coincide; combine into just one point.  This means that the distance between them becomes zero. 

 

The denominator of the Newton gravitational “force” equation quantifies the distance between the two mass-points as a dynamical function, a “function of time”, squared, when they model the gravitational interaction between, e.g., two planets that those two mass-points “represent”.

 

Thus, when the two “mass-points” collide, and coincide, the denominator of their Newtonian “force” equation model “experiences” a division by zero: 02 = 0.

 

Divisions of, e.g., a Rational-Number finite numerator by zero produce either a value which is “undefined”, or “infinity”.  Both of these values are outside the closure of the Rational Numbers.

Both are predictively meaningless in terms of any accurate quantitative description of what actually happens when, e.g., two real, physical planets collide.

 


What actually happens in such a real collision is typically, initially, some combination of fragmentation into solid-phase fragments, liquification into molten liquid-phase fragments, vaporization into gaseous-phase vapors, and ‘plasma-ization’ into plasma-phase charged fire-balls.

 

What the Newton equations predict in cases of such collisions is an “infinite” gravitational force “between” the “two” collided mass-points, per the usual interpretation of the value that results from a zero denominator “divided” into a finite, rational or “real” numerator.

 

Thus, the Newtonian collision predictions is “infinitely” wrong. 

 

No “infinite” force ever manifests empirically.  Such physical collisions typically result in the “two” formed bodies ceasing to exist as such, and, at first at least, in their part-coalescence and part disintegration: a finite result.

 

The difference between the “infinite” force-value predicted, and the finite actual result is, per the prevailing “arithmetic of infinite magnitudes”, again “infinity”.  That is, the Newtonian gravity equation’s collision-prediction exhibits an “infinity residual”, i.e., is an “infinitely” erroneous prediction!

 

 

 

Something similar happens, with the Coulomb equations, when they are used to model two charged particles, say two oppositely charged particles, that mutually attract, which the Coulomb equations model as ‘charge-points’. 

 

As in the case of the Newton gravitational “force” equations, the Coulomb electrodynamic “force” equations have, for their denominator, a “function of time”, that quantifies the distance between the two ‘charge-points’ as a “function of time”, squared, when they model the electrodynamic interaction between, e.g., two charged particles that those two ‘charge-points’ “represent”.

 

Let’s even consider the case of two particles of like charge, that the Coulomb equation generally predicts will mutually repel, but that, under the conditions in the cores of “main sequence” stars, actually “collide”, forming transient “di-protons”, on the way to becoming elemental Helium nuclei – two proton “particle” units, and two neutron “particle” units, coalesced into a single new kind of, “atom”, unit, beyond the older, “particles” kind of units.

 

When its – unrealistic, unphysical – ‘point-charges’ collide, hence coincide, their inter-“point” distance vanishes, leading, again, to a division-by-02 of the Coulomb “force” finite numerator, which is the product of the two electrodynamical charges further multiplied by a “constant of proportionality”.

 

The Coulomb electrodynamic “force” equation for such a two-“charged particles” collision again predicts an “infinite” electrodynamical “force” at the instant of their collision, which represents, again, and “infinite” error in relation to the actual finite results of a real such collision, albeit which involves a considerable release of photonic energy, but still a finite release.

 

The, far more complex, and far more predictively powerful Einstein General Relativity equations – Einstein’s ten, coupled, “simultaneous” nonlinear partial differential equations, more compactly represented as a single tensor equation – has similar problems when the mass of a body exceeds a certain – still finite – mass magnitude.

 

In such cases, the Einstein equations predict that this body will collapse, under the force of its own self-gravitation, into a volume-less, extension-less, zero-dimensional, “infinitesimal” “mass-point”, forming a “black hole”.  At that point, Einstein’s “laws of physics” break down, “predicting” meaningless – that is, “infinite” – values.    

 

Sometimes, ultra-simplification can yield new insights that point a way out of immanent mathematico-scientific contradictions, paradoxes, anomalies, errors and impasses.

 

Such, we believe, is the case with the proneness of contemporary nonlinear, vis-à-vis linear, “law of nature” equations to division-by-zero singularities – for reasons that we have detailed elsewhere* – if one contemplates the simplified, “purely”-qualitative, “purely”-ontological model of singularity provided by the NQ algebra.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For more information regarding these Seldonian insights, and to read and/or download, free of charge, PDFs and/or JPGs of Foundation books, other texts, and images, please see:

 

www.dialectics.info

 

 

and

 

 

https://independent.academia.edu/KarlSeldon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insightsspecimens of dialectical artas well as dialectically-illustrated books published by the F.E.D. Press, 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

YOU are invited to post your comments on this blog-entry below!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment