Hari Seldon's "Psychohistory"-is It Feasible?

My brain hurts.

[moderator note]
Please remember our two-click rule on pornographic links. The link I redacted was exceedingly inappropriate.
[/moderator note]

I’ve heard of this rule, but I wasn’t actually familiar with it so sincere apologies. I did not follow any of the links in that post. I assume that I need to do that in the future - either that or excise the hot link leaving just the incomplete url.

edit: btw - thanks. :slight_smile:

You’re quite welcome.

If you want the link to still be there, you can enclose it in SPOILER tags…

NSFW link here…or insert a space in it (right before the TLD is good, e.g., “www.straightdope. com”).

If you don’t care about the link, you can just remove it and do what I did: insert something like [link redacted].

Trinopus, et al.,
After the –

'Starting Category goes to Starting Category + Meta-Category / Contra-Category

– step, of which one “physical” example was given, comes the “ontological hybridization” of ‘Starting-Category’ with ‘Meta-Category / Contra-Category’ step –
Starting Category + Meta-Category / Contra-Category

goes to

Starting Category + Meta-Category / Contra-Category + Uni-Category.
To illustrate that step, let’s move to an example with explicit psychohistorical content [per my paraphraase of F.E.D.'s definition thereof, given in a previous post to this thread] –
psychohistorical example [history of Ancient Mediterranean philosophy]: The plural plenitude of the fluent objects of reality, per Heraclitus’s philosophy of flux, coalescing into the singular thing of eternal, frozen stasis – “Being” – per Parmenides’s counter-philosophy of imperishable, unitary stillness, wherein all of the multitudinous objects of experience are denied / coalesced into an ‘inexperienceable’ singleness.

Then, later, the “objects” of these two philosophies became hybridized, yielding the early philosophy of Plato as the “complex unity” of these two prior philosophies:

(3) eternal immutable existence “above”, in the domain of the Platonian <<Arithmoi Eidetikoi>> – of the “Assemblages of Idea-Units”;

(1) impermanent, transitory flux “below”, in the domain of the Platonian <<Arithmoi Aisthetoi>> – of the “Assemblages of Sensuously-Perceivable Units”,

and, mediating “between” the two;

(2) changeless but also multiplicitous and reproducible units, in the domain of the Platonian <<Arithmoi Mathematikoi>> – of the “Assemblages of Arithmetical Units”.

depictions: http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Welcome_files/Aoristos_Dyosphainthos,v.2.0,F.E.D._Vignette_12,The_Dialectic_of_Ancient_Mediterranean_Philosophy_Through_Plato%27s_Philosophical_Developments,04MAY2013.pdf

shorthand:

H —> H + qHH = H + P —> H + P + qPH = H + P + A.

MiguelDetonacciones, where can I find out more about the Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica, its founders Karl Seldon and Sophya St. Germain, the writers Sinek Docchi, Germaine Hermes, Hermes de Nemores and Aoristos Dyosphainthos, other than from you and your two websites?
edited to add: And from what other sources can I learn more about anti-Boolean algebra?

In anti-Boolean algebra are the different colors necessary, and do the individual colors have their own meanings?
Does H mean something different from H?

If I may actually address the question in the OP, I’d like to point out that Asimov himself said in the later Foundation books that there are two axioms which must be true in order for psychohistory to operate accurately;

  1. Humans must be the only form of sapient life in the universe.
  2. The technological level of the human race must remain stagnant.

Psychohistory only works in the Foundation series as long as these axioms remain true. When non-humans (like robots) or beings different enough from ordinary humans (like the Mule, the Solarians, the Gaians) come into play, it stops working because the Seldon Plan can’t account for their way of thinking or their extranormal abilities. Similarly, if a radically new technological innovation is introduced (like miniaturized nuclear weapons, or computers capable of plotting a hyperspace jump instantly), the Seldon Plan starts to break down because it can’t predict how human populations will react and adapt to those technologies.

In the context of our own world, the second rule alone would make it impossible to predict historical trends in the long term, and the closer we come to producing true AI the more likely it becomes that the first rule will be problematic as well.

So to answer your question, no.

EDIT: Turns out I made this exact same post in this thread eight months ago.

How 'bout that.

Czarcasm, et al.,
No, not necessary; intended to be a mnemonic aid only.

F.E.D. states that they use color-coding of terms in their contra-Boolean-algebraic progression expressions for two purposes –
(1) to help remind the reader of the [relative] order, or ordinality, of the successive terms.

For this, F.E.D. usually uses EMR spectrum color-order, e.g., “ROY G. BIV”, or Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet.

I used red --> blue --> purple color-coding in the post you quoted to illustrate “ontological hybridization” of “ontological categories”, i.e., “purple” is a “hybrid” of red and blue.

Thus, the color-coding of a term is a relative matter, not an absolute matter – it signifies the ordinal position of that term relative to the ordinal positions of the other terms in the same progression of category-terms in which that term occurs.

No color-coding of these expressions of contra-Boolean Algebra at all is also acceptable, and the “uncolored” versions are formally equivalent to the color-coded versions.
(2) to help remind the reader that distinct contra-Boolean algebraic terms, representing distinct ontological categories, are qualitatively different – ontologically different – from one another, since they represent units that differ from each other in kind, not [just] in quantity, and so do not “amalgamate”.

1 + 2 + 4 “amalgamates” to 7.

However, on the contrary –

q1 + q2 + q4 does not amalgamate, or “reduce”, to q7, or to any other value in the [SIZE=“1”]NQ[/SIZE] contra-Boolean universe, or “set / space of meta-numbers”, just as “2 apples + 2 oranges” does not amalgamate to either “4 apples”, or to “4 oranges”, etc., and just as “2 cm. + 2 sq. cm” does not amalgamate to either “4 cm.” or “4 sq. cm.”, and just as “2r + 2i” [with r = +1, **i = **positive square-root of -1] does not amalgamate to either “4r”, or to “4i”, etc., and just as, among mutually orthogonal [“basis”] vectors, “2x + 2y” does not amalgamate to either “4x”, or to “4y”, etc.

Distinct “meta-numbers” transcend the “trichotomy law” that holds among “numbers”, “Natural” through “Real”, that is, for two distinct “contra-Boolean meta-numbers”, the one is NEITHER greater than, NOR equal to, NOR less than the other.

Instead, they are qualitatively [ontologically] unequal to one another [for which relationship, F.E.D. has developed a new sign] – they differ in KIND.

http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/QualitativeInequality/QualitativeInequality.htm

And from where, other than yourself, can I learn more about the F.E.D. and anti-Boolean algebra?

Czarcasm, et al.,

“Contra-Boolean Algebra”, and its first, NQ_ “contra-Boolean Arithmetic”, where first discovered / invented on 07 April 1996, by Karl Seldon.

To my knowledge, there are no formal writings on contra-Boolean Algebra published elsewhere than on the various F.E.D. websites.
Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica is a cloistered, secular-monastic order, similar, in several ways, to the Pythagorean Sisterhood-Brotherhood, whose members adopt “monastic names”, or pseudonyms, different from the names that they were given by their parents, at birth, and also similar, in some ways, to the ancient Platonic Academy –
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Welcome_files/F.E.D.,%20A%20Dialectical%20%27%27Theory%20of%20Everything%27%27,%20Volume%200,%20FOUNDATIONS,%20Edition%201.00,%20last%20updated%2022SEP2011,%20Postscripts,%20ABOUT%20MEMBERSHIP,%20JPEG,%20for%2023SEP2011.jpg
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Welcome_files/F.E.D.,%20A%20Dialectical%20%27%27Theory%20of%20Everything%27%27,%20Volume%200,%20FOUNDATIONS,%20Edition%201.00,%20last%20updated%2021SEP2011,%20Postscripts,%20ABOUT%20FOUNDATION%20ENCYCLOPEDIA%20DIALECTICA,%20JPEG,%20for%2022SEP2011.jpg
Information about their individual biographies becomes confidential, once they enter the F.E.D. secular-monastic order, except with regard to their public acts as agents of The Foundation.
Some brief biographical information about Karl Seldon is available here –
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Welcome_files/F.E.D.,%20A%20Dialectical%20%27%27Theory%20of%20Everything%27%27,%20Volume%200,%20FOUNDATIONS,%20Edition%201.00,%20last%20updated%2020SEP2011,%20Postscript,%20ABOUT%20THE%20F.E.D.%20LOGO,%20JPEG,%20for%2021SEP2011.jpg
– and some additional information about Sophya Dors St. Germain and Karl Seldon, written by Sophya Dors St. Germain, is available via the following five JPEGs –

http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Dialectic_Ideography_files/Afterword_II.,Module_1_of_5,27MAY2013.jpg

http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Dialectic_Ideography_files/Afterword_II.,Module_2_of_5,27MAY2013.jpg

http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Dialectic_Ideography_files/Afterword_II.,Module_3_of_5,27MAY2013.jpg

http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Dialectic_Ideography_files/Afterword_II.,Module_4_of_5,27MAY2013.jpg

http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Dialectic_Ideography_files/Afterword_II.,Module_5_of_5,27MAY2013.jpg .
Otherwise, the best way to learn about them is to read their writings, including the recent, and first interview ever granted by Karl Seldon, as well as the published portions of the first book that they wrote together –

http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Briefs_files/Sophya%20St.%20Germain,%20F.E.D.%20Preface%20to%20New%20Guest%20Author%20Briefs%203%20%26%204,%2004JUN2012,%20with%20subsequent%20edits,%20re-posted%2008JUN2012.pdf

http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Blogs_&_Interviews_files/Edited_First_Interview_with_F.E.D._Co-Founder_Karl_H._Seldon,29DEC2012,re-edited_02APR2013.pdf

http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Dialectic_Ideography.html
For the F.E.D. “Introductory Letter”, by F.E.D. Secretary-General Hermes de Nemores, see –

http://www.adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/DiaRith/Intro/Dialectical-Ideography_An-Introductory-Letter.htm
For Aoristos Dyosphainthos, see his blog, and his many “Vignettes” –

http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Vignettes.html

http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Blogs_%26_Interviews.html
There is also a “guest author”, code-named “J2Y”, or, sometimes, “J2U”, *** who is not*** a member of the F.E.D. secular-monastic order, but whose works on the psychohistorical algebra have nonetheless been published on the main F.E.D. website, including an "‘Introduction to the F.E.D.‘s Opus’’’, and a “Novella” involving the NQ algebra, all of which are available for download free of any monetary charges.

http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/F.E.D.Press_files/Novella%20by%20J2U,%27%27Creating_a_Quality_World_using%27%27Heartful_Dialog%27%27_%28Dialectics_and_%27qNumbers%27%29%27%27,qBook-01,Edition%2002,10JAN2013.pdf

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

http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Briefs_files/F.E.D.%20Brief%20%235,%20Joy-to-You,%20%27%27%20Discovering%20%27Natural%20Qualifier%20Space%27%20via%20%27N-Cumulation%20Space%27%20%27%27,%2027JUN2012.pdf

http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Briefs_files/F.E.D.%20Brief%20%236,%20Joy-to-You,%20%27%27%20Discovering%20%27Whole%20Qualifier%20Space%27%20via%20%27W-Cumulation%20Space%27%20%27%27,%2007JUL2012.pdf

http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Briefs_files/J2Y,%20E.D.%20Brief%20%237,%20Discovering%20zQ_%20via%20_Cz,%2024JUL2012.pdf

Have any of these people written for anything else besides your website?
And why is it that their writings all have the exact same styling as you?

Csarcasm, et al.,
The www.dialectics.org website is not ‘’‘my website’’’.

It is owned by webmaster@dialectics.org, who is not a member of F.E.D., but who has agreed to make “The F.E.D. Opus” available publicly.

Likewise, the other sites that publish F.E.D. works are owned by their webmasters, not by me [nor are they owned by F.E.D., by the way].
I try to emulate, in my own writings on “The F.E.D. Opus”, the style of Karl Seldon, in particular, and of other members of F.E.D., because I like their styles.
And, I suppose, within a cloistered community, a certain convergence of communication styles is to be expected, although, I think, especially Sophya’s writing style still stands out from the styles of all of the rest of the members whose writings have been made public.

I’d like to move on, now, from questions about myself and/or members of F.E.D., back to the topic of this thread --“Hari Seldon’s Psychohistory – is It Feasible?”.

I can see why you might want to move on, but when you give us anonymous sources and unique maths to prove a point, it would be irresponsible of us not to inquire as to the reliability of both your sources and your math. Until someone else’s name pops up, you will get full credit and blame for all F.E.D. output, seeing as how you are the sole promoter and contact for all information about F.E.D., it’s supposed founders, the people that supposedly contribute to it, and the massive amounts of rainbow-colored “anti-Boolean algebra” you keep throwing up here.

Who died, and left this would-be dictator [self-appointed “Czar”] in charge?
The official public point-of-contact for F.E.D. is, as I noted here earlier – webmaster@dialectics.org
The official “Public Liaison Officer” for the F.E.D. General Council is Aoristos Dyosphainthos.

A better question would be why did all these mysterious people and their “cloistered, secular-monastic order, similar, in several ways, to the Pythagorean Sisterhood-Brotherhood” contact you to be their spokesperson?

Either you cannot, or will not, make your ideas comprehensible. If you can’t explain it in easy to understand terms, you can’t convince anyone that you actually have anything to say of any value.

Thank you for trying, but, ultimately, alas, you’re just talking gibberish.

“Aoristos Dyosphainthos” doesn’t seem to exist outside of your postings.

The example of the –

Heraclitus --> Parmenides —> Plato’s <<Arithmoi>> Philosophy dialectic is well known to even superficial students of ancient Mediterranean Philosophy.

The apparent “Philosophical Illiteracy” of the claimant is not my responsibility.

True…but these don’t necessarily need to be real world limitations. Real world robotics, for instance, won’t necessarily follow Asimov’s Laws of Robotics. I do consider there to be some validity for someone to come up with an all-new, non-Asimovian theory of sociology, and, as an homage, call it “Psychohistory.” It’s kind of a nice tip of the hat.

He’s not in charge. He’s just this guy, y’know? He’s asking for clarification. Can you provide it?