No, they’re not! Epistemologies are ontological errors!
[at this point the knives come out]
Ummmm… in Boolean Algebra 1+1=0
Oh, it’s ON!
So … do you agree that people can know things?
??? I had thought that Boolean Algebra paralleled Boolean Logic, with “+” paralleling “and.” Just as True and True = True, so 1 + 1 = 1. Am I wrong here?
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers.
But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Gentlemen - to your corners.
The rules are no protractors, compasses or mechanical pencils.
Open palm slapping only.
First one to knock the other’s glasses off wins (knocking off half of glasses taped at nose bridge counts as a TKO)
BEGIN!
Waitaminnit! What the hell does “contra-Boolean” mean?
You have to press up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, A, AND/OR B.
Well, Wikipedia says… Oh, poo. I just lost, didn’t I? I should have cited Donald Knuth.
the x represents “and” and the + represents “or” and in my system, the exclusive or is the only or. Don’t give into inclusive ors. That is the Dark Side.
Ha! I think you are right. Addition signs mean “or” and multiplication signs mean “and.” So, that part, I was wrong and you were right.
But…“exclusive or” is not standard! It requires a different symbol. Inclusive or is the default in every math and logic class I’ve ever taken (and that is more than a few!) Every programming language I’ve ever used holds the “inclusive or” as the default, and you have to specify “exclusive or” if you want it. So, there, I’ll have to contest you.
Programmable graphics calculators at twenty paces!
I’m still waiting to find out what the Fed has to do with psychohistory. Maybe Ben Bernanke is that immortal, hyperintelligent android mentioned upthread!
I’m sure it’s a total coincidence that MiguelDetonacciones’ “Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica” gives the acronym “F.E.D.”, and that he regrets that all those people were mistakenly driven to his websites when doing a search for “Fed”. :rolleyes:
Full Title: The Psychohistorical-Dialectical Equation of Human-Social Formations ‘Meta-Evolution’. Part II. Model Narration.
Part II.: Narration – Dialectical-Mathematical-Model Story of Human Social Formation –
Categorial Progression Reconstruction of Past-to-Present Human Social Formations.
*Preliminary Considerations on Psychohistorical-*Dialectical Modeling.
Please Note: Throughout this part, we employ two key ancient scientifico-philosophical terms. Their resurrection serves well to catalyze the transition to a ‘trans-modern’, dialectical science –
-
« Monad », which means, e.g., “qualitative Unit”, “qualitative logical Individual”, or “qualitative Element” – one of the constituents represented, collectively, by a “category”, and;
-
« Arithmos » [plural: «arithmoi»], which means a “category”, e.g. an “ensemble”, a “multitude”, a ‘“population”’, or an “assemblage” of «monads» – i.e., of “qualitative units”, of “qualitative logical individuals”, or of “qualitative elements” – all of which «monads» share a common quality, or a common predicate, i.e., a «categorema» in common; a “kind”.
Please Note Also: Many of the special, technical words employed below are also hypertext links to definitions of those words [usually for the first occurrence of each such word only].
Equation #4: The [Psycho]Historical-Dialectical ‘Meta-Monadology’ of Human-Social Formation(s).
The F.E.D. solution to this equation exhibits an « aufheben » progression which features the ‘ Qualo-Peanic ’, ‘ meta-fractal ’, ‘meta-«monad»-ic’ ‘archéonic consecuum’ process / structure which characterizes dialectics in general, and the dialectics of the F.E.D. psychohistorical equations in particular.
This equation, so interpreted, constitutes a ‘dialectical [meta-]model’, and one which also tells [an aspect of ] the psychohistorical story of Terran humanity itself, to-date.
This ‘dialectical [meta-]model’ is, in part, one of a ‘physical dialectic ‘, or ‘« physis » dialectic’ [although the Ancient mind might have called it ‘‘‘the [his]story of the «anti-physis»’’’] — indeed, models an aspect of ‘The Dialectic of Nature’ within its ‘human-social’ epoch.
It is the ‘dialectic of human-social formation(s)’, in terms of the «monads», and of the «arithmoi», of human settlement / governance structures.
However, it is also one of ‘«psyche»-ic dialectic’, of ‘cognitive dialectic’, or of ‘ideo-dialectic’, because of the “memes”, and the gains in collective human cognitive capabilities, required to attain, and to sustain [to socially reproduce, for periods of centuries and more], these rising levels of human « species » self-organization; of ‘“complexity/consciousness”’.
As noted earlier, F.E.D. has stated that they view these successive human ‘‘‘social formations’’’ [cf. Marx], as partly physical, ‘meta-geological formations’ of the Earth’s surface, i.e., as ‘archaeological / meta-geomorphological sedimentary layerings’ — ‘[human-]natur[e-]al’, ‘megalithic meta-encrustations of the Earth’s crust’.
The ‘meta-dynamics’ of the ‘meta-evolution’ of these [this] ‘[meta-]dynamical [meta-]system[s]’ of such human-social formation(s) constitute(s) an « autokinesis », and an « auto-onto-dynamasis » at the level of ‘human-social ontology’ – a creation of new kinds [of human-social productions, and of human-social relations of such productions].
The systems-progression, or ‘diachronic meta-system’, of these successive “social formations” is grasped as a ‘self-«aufheben» self-progression’ of ‘Qualo-Peanic’, ‘meta-fractal’, ‘meta-«monad»-ic’, ‘archeonic consecuum’ process / structure, when we grasp each of its successive «arithmoi» of human social formation «monads» [e.g., the global assemblages / «arithmoi» of living village units, or of living chiefdom units, or of living city-state units, etc., as of some epoch in Terran human history when any one or more of them are extant] as a ‘collective human subject[-ivity]’, or as a ‘collective human agent[-ivity]’.
This systems-self-progression is therefore one that qualifies as a[n] ‘[psycho]historical-dialectical process’ per F.E.D.’s definition, and – psychohistorical given this ‘subject[-ivity]’.
The reader is referred to Supplement B (Part III, page B-23) of the F.E.D. Introductory Letter for the classical NQ[FONT=Arial Black]_[/FONT] ‘formulaic’ rendition of the ‘dialectical meta-model’ re-rendered narratively below [link: http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Primer_files/4_F.E.D.%20Intro.%20Letter,%20Supplement%20B-1,%20v.2_OCR.pdf ].
Parsimony. The human, psychohistorical story that the narrative, in the ensuing sections, recounts, is “unembellished” – it invokes no more of the human drama of this human history than is given explicitly in the F.E.D. standard solutions for the categorial terms that it narrates.
‘Helicity’. Moreover, the narration below instantiates a “helical narrative”, and is close to a “model-generated” narrative, emphasizing the recurring, self-similar aspects of the story of the equation, and of the ‘ temporal qualo-fractal ’ that the equation generates, repeating the form of the narrative account as much as possible for each epoch / whorl.
Nonetheless, the cumulative, unprecedented, non-cyclical aspects of the story, and the overall progressive gain in ontological complexity / richness / “determinateness” from epoch to epoch, also demand telling in the course of the apt description of the connotations of the equation, differing in each of its successive epochs / whorls, and thus refuting any ideology claiming ‘ontologically-statical’, or merely “flat-cyclical”, merely circular psychohistorical motion.
This helical ‘qualo-fractal’ ‘content-structure’ should not be mistaken as one which fits into any helical graph-trajectory, confined to a single three-dimensional mathematical space with purely-quantitative axes, whether of the R, or the Q, or the Z, or the W, or even the N variety.
This kind of helix transcends such confinement.
Each whorl of such a standard-number-spaces-transcendent helix, though ‘qualo-fractally’, generically similar to each of its predecessor whorls [if any], and to each of its successor whorls [if any], is also qualitatively, ontologically different from each of them, as are they from it.
No doubt metrics can often be defined, that quantify generic common features of a whole succession of such whorls, and which, for each such generic feature, map back into a helical trajectory in, e.g., an R**^3**, purely-quantitative mathematical space. But each such mapping, by itself, will fail to capture the ontologically-dynamical, quantity-transcending ‘qualo-fractal’ helix in its totality.
‘Heuristicity’. HYPOTHESIS: The algebra of an arithmetical language that is limited to the expression of “unquantifiable” ordinal “qualifiers”, interpreted as representing ontological categories, cannot be other than an “algorithmic heuristic” algebra, and that is what we have in the NQ_ algebra as a tool of cognition.
The algorithmic layer of this “algorithmic heuristic”, the layer of the “minimally-interpreted” – “ordinal qualifier”-interpreted – generic NQ arithmetic, exhibits only a doubly-relentless generic qualitative ordinality, denoted by q, species told by a subsumed N numeral, n, in q[SIZE=1]n[/SIZE] –
{ q[SIZE=1]1, q2, q[FONT=Arial Black]3[/FONT], . . . } =[/SIZE]
{ the quality of *first-*ness, the quality of *second-*ness, the quality of *third-*ness, . . . }
– relentless, both, first, at its subscript level, and, second, at its superscript level. That relentless ‘subscriptal’ ordinality is presented horizontally, in the rightward direction, below, and that relentless ‘superscriptal’ ordinality is presented vertically, in the downward direction, below –
[SIZE=4][FONT=Arial]q1^1[/FONT] = [/SIZE][SIZE=4][FONT=Arial]q1[/FONT][/SIZE];
[SIZE=4][FONT=Arial]q1^2[/FONT] = [/SIZE][SIZE=4][FONT=Arial]q[/FONT][/SIZE][SIZE=4][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1]1**[/SIZE] + [/FONT][/SIZE][SIZE=4][FONT=Arial]q2[/FONT]**[/SIZE];
[SIZE=4][FONT=Arial]q1^3[/FONT] = [/SIZE][SIZE=4][FONT=Arial]q[/FONT][/SIZE][SIZE=4][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1]1**[/SIZE] + [/FONT][/SIZE][SIZE=4][FONT=Arial]q2 + [/FONT][/SIZE][SIZE=4][FONT=Arial]q3[/FONT]**[/SIZE];
[SIZE=4][FONT=Arial]q1^4 [/FONT] = [/SIZE][SIZE=4][FONT=Arial]q[/FONT][/SIZE][SIZE=4][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1]1**[/SIZE] + [/FONT][/SIZE][SIZE=4][FONT=Arial]q2 + [/FONT][/SIZE][SIZE=4][FONT=Arial]q3 + [/FONT][/SIZE][SIZE=4][FONT=Arial]q4[/FONT]**[/SIZE]; . . ., etc.
The logic, the “followership”, so far, is strictly ordinal.
However, when the generic ordinal qualifier for “the quality of first-ness”, [SIZE=4][FONT=Arial]q1[/FONT][/SIZE], is “interpreted’ or “assigned” – identified with – the specific «arché» or “ultimate ancestor” ontological category of a specific categorial-progression “meta-genealogy” – in this case, with the earliest known “socio-ontological category” of human social formation, the foraging “band”, b – then the symbol [SIZE=4][FONT=Arial]q1[/FONT][/SIZE], and its “followers”, may take on new meaning, new “intension”, new connotations.
And, thereby, a new level of “followership” – of their special ‘‘‘logic’’’ – emerges, beyond that of the mere “qualitative ordinality” of the generic, algorithmic arithmetic, a special ‘‘‘logic’’’ which is a heuristic, intuitive, connotative logic – a logic of “connotative entailment”.
For an NQ_ model to “work”, the meanings of the category-representing terms of its categorial progression must follow from one another, and from their own subscripted, interpreted epithets, specifically, connotatively, semantically, not just generically, algorithmically, syntactically.
The solution of an interpreted NQ_ equation’s “poly-qualinomial”, or ontological categorial progression, is a determination of a meaning, of an intension, of a connotation, for each «arché»-subsequent term in that heterogeneous sum of category-symbol-terms, a meaning that intuitively follows from the given meaning of the «arché» / first term, and that also intuitively follows from the meaning of every already so “solved-for”, predecessor term of the term now being “solved-for”, all the way back to that «arché», or originating, meaning-given term, in accord with the “canons of interpretation” codified in the procedure-narrative of the F.E.D. solution-method, the “organonic algebraic method” for solving Seldon Function equations.
That is, in this case, if generic [SIZE=4][FONT=Arial]q1[/FONT][/SIZE] is identified with specific b, with the “socio-ontology” of the prehistoric, “hunting and gathering”, scavenging and foraging bands of proto-humans, then, for a user of the NQ_ cognitive tool who is also versed and immersed in knowledge about – in the reconstructed phenomena / phenomenology of – prehistoric human social formation(s), a meaning, a solution, for the next specific term, for the term that corresponds to the generic [SIZE=4][FONT=Arial]q2[/FONT][/SIZE], for the term D****b = q[SIZE=1]bb[/SIZE], must suggest itself, if the model is to “work”.
This means that, when such a user “self-inquires” in the form of “self-asking” the question –
“¿What known, past human social formation corresponds to the algorithm-generated description / definition: “The term q[SIZE=1]bb[/SIZE] designates a “band of bands”, an «arithmoi» of “meta^1-band” social formation units, such that each such new unit is made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of *“band” units as its *sub-units”?**
– that a user-known prehistoric formation – in this case, “camps”, q[SIZE=1]bb[/SIZE] = c – must come to mind as the answer to that question; as the solution for that term.
For an NQ_ model to “work”, such apt, symbol-connotation-evoked “comings-to-mind” must continue, from epoch t = 1, all the way out to epoch t = max., i.e., the maximal ordinal epoch needed to reconstruct all of the incremental ontology “begat” by the «arché» in question in history so far – in this case, in the history of human social formation to-date, i.e., to epoch t = 7.
This criterion of model success applies most unequivocally to the solution / “semantification” of the “self-hybrid” or “auto-hybrid” terms – the terms of the form Dx = q[SIZE=1]xx[/SIZE].
For the “merely hybrid”, or “allo-hybrid” terms, of form q[SIZE=1]yx…[/SIZE], it has been found that some of them may be rightly “solved” to be “impossibles”, i.e., to be “inoperative terms”, so named by analogy with the unused terms often encountered in specific applications of the generic Lagrange Equations.
Thomas K. Simpson describes, as follows, the process by which James Clerk Maxwell derived the dynamical equations of the electromagnetic field, using the Lagrange Equations.
Maxwell did so by honing down the full possible ensemble of terms of the latter to those that were actual for electromagnetic field dynamics:
“…Maxwell approaches the construction of his own electromagnetic theory with a clear initial vision of the shape it must take."
“He does not begin with a collection of basic empirical results and seek a merely complete and convenient set of equations which will save the appearances.”
“Maxwell knows at the outset that his theory must take the form of the equations of motion of a moving material system; these, as we have seen, are Lagrange’s equations of motion, which in Maxwell’s view simply explicate mathematically our a priori concept of matter in motion.”
"A priori, Maxwell’s equations are merely a special case of Lagrange’s equations."
“Therefore, Maxwell’s program for a “dynamical” approach to electromagnetism must be this: beginning with Lagrange’s equations of motion, identify the generalized coordinates and velocities which characterize an electromagnetic system, and then determine by experiment which of the possible coefficients are actually operative in this particular science, and what relationships exist among the coefficients and the coordinates.”
“Lagrange’s equations, thus related to electromagnetism and sifted of inoperative terms, will be the basic equations of electromagnetism.”
"At the same time, they will characterize in broad strokes a particular form of connected system.”
[Thomas K. Simpson, Maxwell’s Mathematical Rhetoric: Rethinking the Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Green Lion Press [Santa Fe: 2010], pages 272-273, emphasis added].
Of course, the F.E.D. solution-method, as a heuristic method, and as a “semantic” method, will, even more so than the methods of mathematical logic, of formal-logical “followership”, involve differences of opinion about solutions.
It would be naive to expect otherwise.
And «vive les differences»!
Civil dialogue about such differences evokes new insights, and new and fruitful hypotheses.
The NQ_ “algorithmic heuristic” method can conduce to greater clarity in such dialogues.
The Psychohistorical-Dialectical Equation of Human-**Social Formations **‘Meta-Evolution’.
Part II. A. Epoch t = 0: Point of Departure – “ [COLOR=maroon]Bands[/COLOR] ” –
Forager “[COLOR=maroon]Bands[/COLOR]” as the Given, the Ground, the Premise, the Base, **and the Root
**
of this Model, and of Its Entire ‘Temporal Qualo-Fractal’ Edifice.
Formulaic Summary for the “Bands” «arché». ‘Ideographized’ / ‘ideogram**ized’, “shorthand” summary of the narrative rendition below.
[in the following formula, b denotes the ‘socio-ontological’ category of “bands”] –
**m>[FONT=Symbol][/FONT]-|-****[FONT=Symbol]<[/FONT]**0 = **[FONT=Symbol]<[/FONT] **b [FONT=Symbol]>[/FONT]^(2^0) = **[FONT=Symbol]<[/FONT] ****b [FONT=Symbol]>[/FONT]^**1 = **[FONT=Symbol]<[/FONT] ****b **[FONT=Symbol]>[/FONT] = b.
In his book Non-Zero: The Logic of Human Destiny, Robert Wright describes the hunter-gather “band” stage of human-social formation as follows:
“The ancestral cultures of all modern societies were hunter-gatherer cultures.”
“Archaeologists have found their remnants—their spearheads and stone knives, the fireside bones of their prey—across Africa, Europe, Asia, the Americas.”
“But archaeologists can’t reconstruct the social lives of these peoples in much detail.”
“The closest we can come to that is studying the few existing hunter-gatherer societies and reading accounts of how other hunter-gatherers lived before industrial society changed them.”
“Over the past two centuries, anthropologists and other travelers have documented hunter-gatherer life on all continents, ranging from the Chenchu of India to the Chukchi of Siberia, from the !Kung San of southern Africa to the Ainu of Japan, from the aborigines of Australia to the Eskimo of the Arctic, from the Fuegians of South America to the Shoshone of North America.”
*“To study these vanishing—mostly vanished—ways of life is to dimly glimpse the early stages of our own cultural evolution.” *
“The Shoshone and Fuegians observed by Twain and Darwin weren*’t* “living fossils”—they were anatomically modern human beings, just like you or me, but their were cultures living fossils [M.D.: in F.E.D.’s terminology, they were phenomic living fossils, not genomic living fossils.].”
“Mark Twain is not the only person to have commented on the rudimentary social structure of the Shoshone, who inhabited the Great Basin of North America, around present-day Nevada. One book on native American cultures discusses them under the heading “The Irreducible Minimum of Human Society.” The largest stable unit of social organization was the family . . .”
“The Shoshone did spend part of the year in multifamily “camps.” But the camps were less cohesive than, say, those of the !Kung San, the much-studied hunter-gatherers of the Kalahari desert in Africa.”
“For months at a time Shoshone families would go it alone,* roaming the desert with a bag and a digging stick**,** searching for roots and seeds***.”
[ Robert Wright, Non-Zero: The Logic of Human Destiny, Pantheon Books [NY: 2000], pp. 19-20, emphases by M.D.; see also http://nonzero.org/chap2.htm ].
In terms of historical ‘‘‘Real time’’’, the Whole-Number model-epoch from **t =**0 to t =1, for Homo sapiens, during which the highest form of human social formation extant is believed to have been only the foraging, [FONT=Symbol]»[/FONT] single-family “bands”, lasted from the first emergence of Homo sapiens, circa 200,000 B.C.E., to the emergence of ‘multi-band’ “camps”, perhaps circa 100,**000 B.C.E. – a duration of **[FONT=Symbol]»[/FONT]100,**000 Earth-years.
You seem to be sincere, which is admirable, but with regret, it’s hard for me to understand. It occurred to me to criticize the definitions, but I don’t think that’s possible. I want to say that they’re reflexive, but that’s not really accurate, except in a “logically” indirect sense I suppose. I’m not sure how to say this tactfully, but I don’t think the definitions have any generally understandable meaning. It’s as if you have a dozen variable and set them all to zero thus making them equal and therefore meaningless.
But I’m very tired so I’ll freely admit that’s just my opinion and stay out of this for now.
Does anyone who has read these walls of felgercarb understand any of it?
If no one does, would it not make sense to stop posting them, MiguelDetonacciones?
Insane gibberish. It mimics real mathematics – sometimes subtly, such as the appeal to the successor axiom from the Peano axioms (in real mathematics.) But then it drools away into madness, by invoking language like “‘Qualo-Peanic’, ‘meta-fractal’, ‘meta-monadic’ ‘archéonic consecuum.’”
At best, the author commits the sin of using terms without ever bothering to define them. This is shoddy, shoddy writing, even if every word is completely valid and the system actually works.
I’ve read (or looked at) a number of real scientific papers which were way, way beyond my depth. They all have a quality of clarity, a careful sense of building up from basics, which this kind of writing utterly lacks.
Remember the “Sokal Affair,” where a guy wrote a gibberish paper that so well mimicked real post-modernist deconstructionalist papers that he got it published? Our correspondent isn’t able to perform the same trick: he can’t even counterfeit a believable scientific or mathematical paper.
Oh, waiter? My word salad has no croutons – take it back!