[Fis] A New Intellectual Avant-Garde

[Karl Javorszky]

Part IV
1 The name of the game
The relation of the parts of the unknown to the whole of the unknown has a
traditional name in Rhetoric. One is known to be discussing the Beard of
the Emperor in such a setup.
2 The parts of the whole are known to be different among each other
Our forefathers have agreed that the parts of the unknown (of the Beard)
are not of a uniform make. This insight has not been recognized by their
contemporaries in its revolutionary change of paradigm.
3 Different units, used together with other different units to create
different versions of the whole
Till our days, those who pretend to be interested in Nature, Science, Logic
and Information Theory often fail to recognize that they play with their
own vanity, but not with the basic questions of what are the rules that
determine how parts of a whole get organized into a whole.
One can easily distinguish between the two kinds of people who are in the
science agora. The vanity people will look at you and if they keep silent,
that is the better variant.
The research people will pick up the consequences of the parts of the whole
being different and say that if the parts are different, then any two of
the parts will generate one version of a whole, namely that simple version
of the whole which is consisting of the two parts which we call for
simplicity’s sake a, b.
4 Vanity distracts by irrelevant details
Simple people are easy to distract by simple surprises. We say that a
simple version of the whole is made up of two parts, like c : (a, b). Now
it can happen that either a looks much like b, or b looks much like a. In
this case the whole c will look like c : (a, a), or c : (b, b). The two
parts remain different, even if they appear to our senses to be extremely
alike.
Having been positively reinforced at school for recognizing similarities,
people tend to build a world view that relies on what is a social success,
and not on what is a correct picture of the world.
So, people are led to believe that c : (2a) is a constituent principle and
not a special case. Of this, they deduct that d : (i * a) is the basic form
of the assembly. Lo and behold, the axiomatic idea that the parts of the
whole are, but for a few apparent exceptions, different, has been replaced
by the neurologically and culturally seductive conviction, that the parts
of the whole are similar.
5 Similar units can make no variants
One’s job as a shrink teaches one about dangers coming from living in an
oversimplified world. The customer has built up a world which is fine,
nice, ideal but just happens not to be picturing reality. The customer
keeps lamenting that the world is mysterious, puzzling, un-comprehended and
so forth. He himself has built a world view which is too much ideal.
Relative to the ideal, which exists only in his head, the actual world is a
bit more complicated. In order to get along with the real world, customer
would need to discount the pleasures coming from the ideal version of the
world which he had been building up since a long time.
6 What a charming infant, with so many needs
Social security admin pays one to sit with the customer and listen to his
troubles. It is axiomatic that the customer is the one who has interesting,
fascinating, extraordinary, nonpareil properties and one is just a boring,
nondescript average guy with nothing of interest to contribute to the
interaction. It is not done to tell the customer that he created untenable
expectations himself, by having built up a nonrealistic set of background
relations. Had he not insisted that his wife has to be fascinated by him,
he could take it with a relaxed attitude that she sees nothing more in him
than a normal, regular guy. The situation is quite comparable to the
interactions here in this here scientific chat room.
7 Francesco’s constructive suggestions
The human brain is a device which is optimized by evolution to deliver the
best solution to diverse business situations, like self maintenance,
maintenance of the genus, reproduction and so forth. Economic theory has a
central bearing on biology. This is why Francesco’s ideas are invariably
useful and to the point.
Let me pick up on the last of his suggestions:
Why don’t we invite an information theorist of impeccable credentials, who
will walk us through level by level what information means to the
practitioners of the respective levels?
This person is all for the idea. The only difficulty that remains is to
find such a person.
Information is the extent of being otherwise.
The Knowledgeable Alien of Francesco’s social networking web will not be
able to leave aside the concepts of the expected, observed values, of the
differences of which the value of information is deducted.
The Knowledgeable Alien will have found some good small details within the
counting system we use and sit patiently with us while we keep lamenting
how the world is complicated.
8 Competition of Ideas
We have walked through the noble subject of the Beard of the Emperor,
looking for a comprehensive system of thoughts which will explain the
organizational principles at work which generate a Gestalt.
We have found that parts of the whole are different to each other and
therefore limit the number of variants of wholes that can be built out of
the parts.
There are some simple rules in existence which determine how much the parts
of the whole can be similar and different to each other. The most elegant
and basic way to refer to such rules is included in www.oeis.org/A242615.
We welcome any Knowledgeable Alien who comes forward with a similar
explanation, based on properties of natural numbers.
In fact, an invitation is extended to any person to present a better
explanation of what a Gestalt is and how to catch the rational kernel of
it.
A nice evening in Vienna with food, drinks and merriment is the reward
offered to anyone bringing forward a comprehensive theory of what is
information.
Thank you for suffering this long essay on the subject of the Beard of the
Emperor.





Karl Javorszky <karl.javorszky en gmail.com> schrieb am Do., 26. Mai 2022,
15:51:

> Part III
> Reacting to requests from the audience, Part III has the form of a catalog
> of pertinent questions, observing the paramount goal of brevity. Please
> complete the text by applying a prefix like “Do you think that…”, “Is it
> true that …” or words to this effect.
>
> Nr Question Yes   No
> 1 One’s station in life determines whether one can be asked, can tell but
> cannot be told, or one can ask, be told, but not tell (Thackeray [7])? O O
> 2 Social acceptance and success were rather comparable for Socrates, who
> asked and Giordano Bruno who told? O O
> 3 You had understood and would endorse the ideas in Parts I & II if only
> their presentation style had been more appropriate? O O
> 4 Counting relations of diverse parts among each other as they combine
> into a whole is done best by an algorithm that uses identical units? O O
> 5 An algorithm that uses diverse units has its own rules? O O
> 6 That one can set up an etalon of diverse units on which to study how
> diverse parts interact with each other? O O
> 7 That the etalon of diverse units can be sorted this way and that way? O
> O
> 8 That two sorting orders can be resorted into each other? O O
> 9 That during reorders/resorts cycles appear? O O
> 10 That belonging to a cycle during a reorder is a property of an
> element, which is itself nothing but two natural numbers: that cycles are
> an implication? O O
> 11 That the algorithm picturing how parts of a whole can organize into a
> whole if there are many different parts, is built on cycles? O O
> 12 That the algorithm that works on the succession of different parts of
> a whole during periodic changes is integrated with the algorithms using
> identical units, but is also deeply different to it? O O
> 13 The relations of elements among each other – as prescribed by the
> cycles that come into existence during periodic changes – are the
> theoretical forms of quantum entanglement? O O
> 14 That the liens among the members of a cycle have formal properties
> which group them, but the commercial connections, the bondage of numeric
> values, orders the same liens according to a different logic of quantities?
> O O
> 15 That the logical web of possibly belonging together and the numeric
> web of how much is it worth to belong together can be an allegory for
> Joseph’s ‘Logic vs Reality’? O O
> 16 That the idea of Planck units can apply equally to numeric thresholds
> and logical certainties, if one uses the extent of deviation (expected,
> actual)? O O
>
>
> Karl Javorszky <karl.javorszky en gmail.com> schrieb am Do., 19. Mai 2022,
> 16:02:
>
>> *Part II.*
>>
>> *0. Recapitulating*
>>
>> An extraordinary task requires extraordinary rhetorical tools. The task
>> of this treatise is to offer an explanation for the meaning of the term
>> ‘information’. Because the explicandum is not well known, (actually, not
>> known at all), the rhetorical task comes in the category well established
>> in Rhetoric, the category where one discusses the Beard of the Emperor.
>>
>> In Part I. we have shown that the discussion about information follows
>> indeed the same patterns as the discussion about that Beard. In both cases,
>> we have places and occurrences that come into reality, or not, on those
>> places. The constituents of the whole are interrelated among each other
>> with observable results, without our knowing, *how the parts are
>> organized into a whole. *What we look for, is a *Principle *that
>> governs, on which places which types of occurrences can come into
>> existence. In the classical version, it is follicles on a face that can and
>> may contain hair, without our knowing, why there and why this kind of hair.
>> In the case with information, we see – in the example of genetics – that
>> positional change of simple logical tokens gives rise to attachment of
>> specific kinds of material (protein molecules) on specific places. The
>> Unknown relates to the Whole: we know each of the parts, what we do not
>> understand is how, by which Principle they organize into a whole.
>>
>> In the present Part, we shall undertake to show that a web of relations
>> exists among parts, which are each known. We discuss on diverse levels the
>> same hypothesis: *that a-priori logical relations do exist in Nature. *This
>> statement is equivalent to saying, that the Beard is such as it is, because *Divine
>> preexistence of destiny *gives forms to results of some *Generating
>> Principles. *(In the historic example, we would be saying, that there is
>> a preordained Quality to Emperors which causes that their beard grows in an
>> imperial fashion.) The approach that externalizes reasons and sense outside
>> of one’s own individuality can be a rational method, or it can refer to
>> external forces at work, the comprehension of which is beyond our
>> intellectual capabilities (*Aquinas: Summa Theologiae, What the
>> Intellect Can Recognize, *[5]).
>>
>> The rational approach rejects the idea of the Supranatural. By rejecting
>> the idea that an outside force knits, knots, and weaves parts of a whole
>> into a whole according to its own pleasure, one should take care not to
>> also reject the idea that there may be a rational reason for parts being
>> knitted, knotted and woven together in such a fashion that may appear as
>> the erratic pleasure-seeking behavior of a Supreme Being.
>>
>> The incomprehensible complexity of the world can be dealt with by saying
>> that a. the spectacle looks like the production of an attention-seeking
>> neurotic, and one is not able to comprehend the divine mind, b. the
>> spectacle is indeed impressive, but it does have a rational explanation,
>> even if we can’t come close to understanding it. This has happened to our
>> forefathers. They closed the book on the growth of the Beard, because there
>> was no rational way of comprehending all the variants that could have been
>> grown. Had they had computers, they could have tabulated all kinds of
>> beards and would probably have come – by brute force computing – to the
>> same general principles we present today.
>>
>> Now, with the arrival of computers, one may be more selective in what one
>> rejects and what one accepts. Coming across a behavior of natural numbers
>> (actually, of nephews to them, paired up) that is cross, unexpected,
>> extraordinary, and surprising, one learns to accept that the seemingly
>> well-ordered collection that a few dozen of natural numbers pretend to be,
>> is in reality a riot of competing rivalries, where under some circumstances
>> uneasy compromises can be upheld, for a while. That what we believe to be
>> the well-ordered reality turns out to be a special case. The general case
>> is much more tumultuous.
>>
>> *There are rules to the tumults among the parts of a whole. *The term *a-priori
>> existing logical relations* appears to have been invented for this fact,
>> that there are rules that show what makes a whole, checks out, is
>> consistent, fits, is true, is comprehensible.
>>
>> In Logic, we know that from *a. all living humans breathe, b. Franz is a
>> living human *follows as the missing part of a whole: *c. Franz breaths*.
>> We use the a-priori existing logical relation demonstrated on Franz as a
>> routine basis for our managing our mental contents.
>>
>> In the context of the Beard or of information, we show that there exist
>> as stringent rules of conclusion, which determine which parts of the whole
>> are attached to which other parts of the whole, as demonstrated on Franz.
>> Here we say *a. two of three are {(4,10), (7,10)}, b. the third of the
>> three is (7,13), *of which follows as the missing part of a whole: *c.
>> this plane of space is empty. *The result being a consequence of the
>> premises, this is as numerically true as Franz is logically true,
>> comparable to the sequence of thoughts: *a. one summand is 3, b. the
>> other summand is 4, c. the sum of 3,4 is 7. *
>>
>> In the present Part, we shall introduce the necessary algorithms to be
>> able to conclude that *triads with **∑** a=18, **∑** b = 33 describe
>> empty planes. *The main point is, that there exist interrelations among
>> parts of the whole that are of a wholly new category, compared with all
>> that has been in use till now. These are or condensate into *a-priori
>> logical relations.*
>>
>> Considering the way of counting in cycles may be unfamiliar to some of
>> the Readers, we shall make use of a rhetorical tool by digressing into
>> embellishments. Giving a background and context to the message helps in
>> placing it in the mental system of the recipient. If the rhetoric becomes
>> too much romancier, please forgive.
>>
>> The goal of the present Part is to introduce:
>>
>> ·       Regularity and predictability to be as important as absolute
>> size,
>>
>> o   Comparing, ranking and sequencing
>>
>> o   Traditional unit
>>
>> ·       Changes being reflected in sequences
>>
>> ·       Periodic changes being predictable
>>
>> ·       Adaptation means resequencing
>>
>> o   Always exists *Δ** {(actual value, target value), (expected,
>> observed)}*
>>
>> o   Call this Δ *information*
>>
>> ·       Two different sequences
>>
>> o   Can create conflicts
>>
>> o   Impose planar places
>>
>> o   Can be brought one into the other by reorder
>>
>> ·       Cycles are constituents of reorders
>>
>> o   Cycles are the central concept
>>
>> o   Types of cycles
>>
>> o   Importance and relevance of cycles
>>
>> In Part III we shall deal with the economic consequences of belonging to
>> cycles, concluding in Part IV with the agglomeration of pre-follicle
>> constituents on specific places and the predictability of development of
>> hair on some specific places.
>>
>> *1. Limits of Rational Thinking*
>>
>> Our investigations into the subject of the Beard of the Emperor lead us
>> to some uncharted territories on the edge of the realm of rationality. What
>> we look for is *one* bundle of overriding, or *a few *of coequal, *Principles
>> *that organize partly unknown, partly known parts into a whole that
>> appears to be known. We do come up with an explanation if we are confronted
>> with a multitude of unknowns, be it that we call thunder to be the noise of
>> Thor throwing his hammer around. In fact, we are confronted here again with
>> the task of understanding the term *Gestalt. *
>>
>> Apparently, one touches on subjects that pertain to psychology and
>> neurology if one thinks about organizing principles that group (fuse,
>> weave) impressions together. We shall not enter technical matters here, as
>> the rules of the Debate restrict our methods to pure speculation.
>>
>> We can, however, speculate that we are under-educated in some ways of
>> seeing the world, falsely believing that our excellent education is the
>> only way to achieve clarity when assembling parts of ideas into a whole
>> idea. Specifically, one may point out that the cultural heritage left for
>> us to cultivate further, which has been inherited by us from the noble
>> people of Sumer, does use delineating instructions, contrasts against how
>> not to count and what not to count. We count according to strict rules.
>> These rules were set by the Sumerians.
>>
>> *Counting *is in effect an assignment of a mental creation to a mental
>> impression. We think up the ideas *1,2,3,… *as we see differently many
>> apples or houses or dolls, sitting in elementary school. *What *we count
>> is a cultural convention. In our schools we learn, in due accordance with
>> the Sumerian tradition, *how many *is the property that is relevant. We
>> see the collection grow or shrink and learn to mimic these changes by using
>> the correct symbols which denote *how many *the objects are. In a
>> different cultural environment, we could have learnt to count degrees of *uniformity
>> and diversity *as we were looking at pictures combining houses, apples
>> and dolls. This was the way the inventive people of Akka had preferred. In
>> order to give credence to our insinuating speculation, that the Sumer
>> method may be good and practical, but not all that is there to counting, we
>> have to digress into the history of the Sumerian – Accadian wars, which, as
>> we know, have ended with the complete supremacy of Sumer above Akka.
>>
>> *2. The Akkadian way of life*
>>
>> In a rhetorical polarisation we may imagine the two city states to have
>> developed different cultures due to elementary economic circumstances. The
>> Sumer produced a lot of grain and livestock and were generally of a
>> productive sentiment. The Akka were merchants and artisans, deep into
>> specialisation in many arts and in many crafts.
>>
>> Each Sumer household had a few camels, sheep, and bushels of grain. It
>> was relatively easy for them to imagine up a common descriptor for their
>> momentary state of economic stability. In Akka, the situation was
>> different.
>>
>> In the following, we shall refer frequently to the work of one *Haj
>> el-Hakim bin Zoltan ibn Alfred. *The figure may not be historical. Some
>> say, this same person is referred to by the monk *Taizan *from *Zen
>> Flesh, Zen Bones by Paul Reps *[4]. Unverifiable sources state he was a
>> childhood friend of *N. Bourbaki. *
>>
>> Fragments of a work by el-Hakim *Guideline to Evaluating Wives *can be
>> interpreted as follows: In Sumer, they had comparable things to count how
>> many these are. In Akka, the burghers had each different merchandise in
>> their warehouses: some fruits, some silk, some fish. In the hours of small
>> talk about life, after work, when minds wandered around what to invent
>> next, their observations centered not so much around *quantities, *but
>> rather around *qualities, properties, preferences, regularities*. The
>> Sumerians had no problem expressing changes in quantities: they did possess
>> a common idea about what aspect of change is spoken about. In Akka, each a
>> specialist, it was less easy to come to a common understanding what one
>> talks about.
>>
>> For the jeweler, it is not the *number *of stones that is important, but
>> their *quality. *For the fishmonger, not the total mass of fish he
>> possesses is important, but how their *properties *are. The only
>> entities they had as a possession in common was their wives. Their
>> perspective being that of properties, not of quantities, and their common
>> logical tokens being by nature different, they naturally dwelt into the
>> comparison of qualities of relatively few, different units. (No reasonable
>> husband in Akka would have suggested to his wives that he regards them
>> devoid of properties, interchangeable.)
>>
>> In the *Guidelines *el-Hakim introduces *ranking *and *grouping. *His
>> theory of aspects encourages the husband to accept the properties of the
>> wife as is and adapt himself, because as he says: *“what is in their
>> inner nature is the most beautiful if it comes to flower by its natural
>> implications.” *Importantly, he remarks that the number of
>> distinguishing aspects not only not can be infinite (the husband may wish
>> an infinitely subtle-differentiated system of relations among his wives,
>> but this will remain a dream), but is necessarily lower than the number of
>> wives. Some of the wives will always be similar, under some aspects.
>>
>> The Akkadians have determined that *16, 17, 18 *had a benign influence
>> on each other and that one should concentrate on a collection of a
>> manageable size to discuss priorities, qualities, rivalries, alternatives
>> and equivalences, similarities, and differences. They have chosen 136,
>> because it laid in the middle of two of their central milestones. They used *120
>> *in diverse forms, of which we keep the unit *60 *till our days, and
>> they used the term *grand dozen *for *144. *Their reasoning went: a.
>> once you have calculated *2*3*4*5 *you have calculated all variants of
>> differing dimensions, b. once you have calculated *(3*4) * (3*4) *you
>> have calculated all variants where the dimensions are maximally similar.
>> There is no reason to overdo additions, it can become a habit and a
>> compulsion.
>>
>> They were satisfied with their cohort size of altogether *n=136 *and
>> anyway always only used that half of it which they have determined to be
>> the foreground. They were playing with classifying up to *~ 67 *wives
>> according to their properties.
>>
>> As the last war broke out, el-Hakim is reported to have said: *See how
>> science falls silent among the arms. They will win and they will enforce
>> their simple, unsophisticated ways. They have taken the easy end of the log
>> we carry. Any monkey can calculate with uniform units. The inner interplay
>> and how to count it, they completely ignore. As Adorno will have said about
>> Wittgenstein: Philosophy is not investigating how correct and true
>> sentences interact, philosophy is trying to express clearly that what is
>> yet un-comprehended. Counting the more-or-less-ness of things by using
>> uniform units is something completely different to counting the
>> such-or-such-ness of things, where one needs different units. Not the size
>> of the collection matters, but how the parts in it relate to each other.
>> The task is not to count how many is that what we already know, the task is
>> to predict, which part of the generally unpredictable will turn out to be
>> predictable.*
>>
>> *3. What the Akkad were occupied with *
>>
>> Due to their economic circumstances, the Akkad were less concerned with
>> the *“how many”* aspects of life, but rather with the aspect *“how
>> regularly, how predictably“. *
>>
>> A flower merchant and a carpet merchant have both a stock of a given
>> size. Both classify their inventory into *k *categories. The market
>> demands come also in *k *groups.
>>
>> The task of the merchants is to foretell the proportion of the *k *demand
>> groups and match that sequence of priorities with a sequence of the parts
>> of their inventory.
>>
>> The Akka had met the pig cycle and many other different mechanisms of the
>> market. They determined that above and behind human intervention, the
>> periodic changes imposed by Nature are of an axiomatic evidence that allows
>> foretelling future proportions among the parts of the whole.
>>
>> They have observed that the proportion of heavy garments among all
>> garments required by the public changes with the seasons of the year. They
>> concluded that periodic changes are equivalent to the resequencing of the
>> members of a sequence. If you manage your shop well, you will be able to
>> adapt and adjust in the sequence of priorities that you set, resulting in
>> the composition of the inventory a few months hence.
>>
>> The Akkad were champions of adaptation. Their mantra was the
>> reorganization. They saw everything as but a passing coincidence, being
>> underway from being subject to an order A that had been in force
>> previously, on a path to the destination given by the order B that is in
>> force henceforth.
>>
>> The Akkad businessman woke up every morning with the knowledge that his
>> inventory is a specific permutation of his *k *types of merchandise, but
>> the market is looking for a different permutation of *k. *His inventory
>> is the actual state, the market situation evaluates into an expected state.
>> This deviation they called *information. *
>>
>> Talking about the problem among the merchants led them to begin with
>> formalizing the general question. To change in accordance with the external
>> periodic changes is one version of information being managed. It is an
>> interlinked task to restock for Summer, beginning with the raw materials,
>> logistics of men, matter and money, availability of specialists, many small
>> cogs have to turn until the preparedness is done. The concept of *cycles
>> *was not alien to the Akkad. A general change is always a great and
>> complicated undertaking which has its own rules. Many interdependent units
>> must cooperate till the change is done.
>>
>> They said: *During a reorder, the parts of the whole combine into a
>> number of transitory associations. *
>>
>> Of this sentence we understand, what a reorder is. We now discuss the
>> terms: ‘*parts of the whole’ *and* ‘whole’ *to be able to verify if
>> these indeed do combine into one of several kinds of transitory
>> associations and how we interpret such.
>>
>> *3. Logical Primitives*
>>
>> Permanent changes have transformed society since the Akkadian revolution
>> in predicting occurrences that periodically return. In our present society,
>> the individuals that get resorted are no more *wives *as abstract
>> symbols of whatever material composition the warehouse of a merchant
>> contains, but *pairs* that each are a partnership of a wife and a
>> husband.
>>
>> In the abstract world, one member of the collection is a pair of natural
>> numbers *(a,b), (a,b) **≤** 16, a **≤** b. *This *etalon cohort*
>> contains all varieties of something being concurrently in two parts, and as
>> one whole. All varieties of wholes that can be divided up in up to *16 *different
>> parts under one aspect and into up to *16 *different parts regarding a
>> different aspect. Almost everything, from very small extents, of interest
>> to Physics and Chemistry, till rather large assemblies, of interest to
>> Astronomy, can be divided up in up to *16 *parts, in two different
>> aspects. But for the extremes, everything that consists of two parts is
>> included in the Cohort.
>>
>> For the technically interested, the deeper reason Nature appears to use *16
>> *or thereabouts as a central cog in the translation assembly can be
>> found in the relation shown in oeis.org/A242615. The consistence between *n?,
>> n! *is rapidly decreasing *n > ~ {136, 137}. *The optimal translation
>> efficiency is achieved by basing the cohort size on *16 *types.
>>
>> The collection has an archaic role in counting. Each pair has its own
>> identity and characteristics. The term ‘*logical primitives’ *was coined
>> by *M. Abundis *[7].
>>
>> It was presumably the lack of computers that has prevented followers of
>> the Akkad to tabulate the Cohort for a wider use. The necessary
>> computations are so much repetitive and extensive that human brains are
>> incapable of performing them. Our brain as a physiological unit of the body
>> utilizes the algorithms which our brain as an intellect is overwhelmed to
>> perform without the help of computers. *(Wittgenstein: The eye cannot
>> see itself. [6])*. What one would have to keep in mind are the contents
>> of a large table. On a subconscious level, as a service by our neurology,
>> the idea, and the principle of the Table* we see working as we deal with
>> situations of non-minimal complexity. We can keep in mind simultaneously in
>> a traffic situation, how A will proceed, combined with how B will proceed,
>> and relating this to our own situation. We use the capacities the table
>> provides but are shy to focus our attention to working part of the brain.
>>
>> *The term Table refers a system of tables registering the linear rank of
>> a member according to one aspect of order, for each possible order
>> arrangement; and of tables that register the coordinates of the members on
>> planes of which the axes are two different aspects of order; and of tables
>> that register the sequence of place changes on each step of the process of
>> reorder, consolidating them into *cycles*; and of tables that maintain
>> the synchronicity and offset differences with regard to instances of *now
>> */which members of the cycles are now contemporaneously/; and of tables
>> that register recurring patterns of now.
>>
>> The algorithms and results that are based on the tables detailed afore
>> are in a *level of reality of their own*. In the basic-level tables
>> numeric facts are contained. In the thinking-level tables not facts, but *assumptions
>> and predictions *are contained.
>>
>> *4. Ranks, Places and Positions*
>>
>> The parts of the whole are ordered if we order them. We are free to order
>> the logical primitives in any fashion we want. We make use of some of their
>> properties and sort them according to a sorting criterium (aspect) we find
>> practical (say *[a,b]*). Each member has a linear *rank *now, *rank[ab].*
>> We enter the value *i *for each member, *1..i..136, *in a data
>> depository belonging to the member, indexed as *[a,b]*. We now sort them
>> in order *[b-a, a+b]. *Each member has now also the entry in its data
>> set *j[b-a,a+b]*. This procedure we repeat.
>>
>> Of the *ranks, *we create *places. (*Linear → Planar.) The ranks we
>> translate in coordinates. The member’s place is that point on a plane of
>> which the axes are two aspects, as its ranks are in the two aspects.
>>
>> Finding such *planes* that have common axes, we stick these together and
>> create *spaces *that are rectangular. There are two variants of Euclid
>> type spaces in the habitat of the logical primitives. These are transcended
>> by further two planes, as is the common, Newton space that is that state of
>> the parts being together wherein they do generate a whole.
>>
>> The linear rank in one aspect is a coordinate in the plane generated by
>> the interplay with a different aspect. The rank of the same member in two
>> linear systems is equal to a place of that member on a plane of which the
>> axes are the two aspects. Some of planes can be used to construct
>> rectangular spaces. The coordinates on the planes point out a threesome of
>> members which have in their community the property of a position. In a 3D
>> space, the position of a point is the collection of the coordinates on the
>> planes that create the rectangular space.
>>
>> 5. Cycles
>>
>> The procedure of a reorder boils down to cycles. If the reorder is not
>> trivial it will consist of several cycles. The cycles run concurrently.
>>
>> To avoid any impression of trespassing on matters belonging to
>> Mathematics, the term ‘cycle’ is understood to mean in the context of this
>> treatise the relation defined in www.oeis.org/A235647.
>>
>> The key point of a cycle is the *push-away moment*. This happens as
>> during a reorder logical primitive A comes to the place logical primitive B
>> occupies and says:
>>
>>             *According to the order B to be achieved, this place is my
>> place. You are here, because in the order A that had previously been
>> achieved, your place was here. Now times have changed, and I am the
>> rightful inhabitant. You go away now and find that place where you
>> henceforth belong.*
>>
>> The data depository of each logical primitive X contains facts regarding
>> the membership of primitive X in diverse cycles during diverse reorders.
>>
>> During reorder *[αβ* *→* *γδ] *logical primitive X will be member nr* k *in
>> cycle nr* q, *being pushed away by member nr* k-1, *logical primitive Y,
>> and pushing away member nr* k+1, *logical primitive Z*.  *During reorder
>> *[κλ* *→* *μν] *logical primitive X will be member nr* r *in cycle nr*
>> t, *being pushed away by member nr* r-1, *logical primitive F, and
>> pushing away member nr* r+1, *logical primitive P*.*
>>
>> The data depositories regarding the *cycles *are a compilation of the
>> data coming from the logical primitives. These data sets: in which cycles
>> do which primitives take part on which positions during which reorders ↔
>> which primitives are members of which cycles, in which inner sequence
>> within the cycle, during which reorder, are implications of each other. The
>> brute force method has brought us a fountain of insights, about which parts
>> will come next to each other during which reorders.
>>
>> The cycles generate an elaborate web of relations among the parts of the
>> whole. If the whole is understood to include all (each) its variants, the
>> Etalon Table of Logical Primitives includes all ways the parts can relate
>> among each other, in a reading of the Table from the viewpoint of periodic
>> changes generating cycles.
>>
>> The cycles bind elements to each other by conscripting elements into
>> cycles during reorders. In this Part II of the Treatise we have shown the
>> cycles to exist. Their utilization as a basic method of counting regular
>> recurrences of constellations has not been developed due to the historic
>> relations between Sumer and Akkad. The relation of parts to the whole has
>> not been suppressed by the sword. If there are different aspects to the
>> parts, rules apply about how the variants of the parts can coexist. We do
>> not know, which of the aspects are important or relevant, therefore the
>> basic Table contains all linear ranks the elements can be occupying. Of
>> these, positions on planes, of which the axes are two aspects, are an
>> implication. It is possible to erect 3D spaces by fitting 3 planes by using
>> their common axes. Cycles are a method of compromise, a method of avoiding
>> a logical contradiction within the system. Merchandise that is enroute
>> avoids the contradiction of two claimants.
>>
>> In Part III we shall introduce economic context to the web of cycles a
>> logical primitive belongs to. In Part IV we shall discuss the relative
>> stability of the relation positional properties, distinctive properties.
>>
>> Am So., 15. Mai 2022 um 19:05 Uhr schrieb Pedro C. Marijuan <
>> pcmarijuan.iacs en aragon.es>:
>>
>>> Karl, no problem with your contributions, provided you not exceed in
>>> their length/frequency. In this case you were announcing a series of four.
>>> I have only told you another time, I think years ago, when you were with
>>> an even bigger series of contributions.
>>> In moderation is the virtue... something like that said Aristotle.
>>> Best--Pedro
>>>
>>> El 14/05/2022 a las 20:34, Karl Javorszky escribió:
>>>
>>> Dear Pedro,
>>>
>>> In what sense exactly, oh Pedro?
>>>
>>> Joseph wrote :
>>> What I would hope to see is an avant-garde that could produce new
>>> syntheses, combining Pedro’s position, my suggestion and others with an
>>> also necessary scientific rigor
>>>
>>> After 27 years of collaboration, maybe you can allow me to communicate
>>> with the group in the sense of avant-garde, open minded, humorous,
>>> logically coherent which tradition you have helped to establish?
>>>
>>> My contributions are a part of what makes the group attractive. The
>>> learned friends can express if they are saturated with me. I shall keep in
>>> the background and keep the intellectual niveau. Please keep your
>>> traditionally open perspective. I will not bring shame on you.
>>>
>>> You will find the explanation of what sorts of and how a priori
>>> relationships weave the world together, very interesting, clear and
>>> logical, even if it raises controversy. The idea is as new and fundamental
>>> as were the change to a heliocentric view or the idea of human genetic
>>> pointing to the apes. Please be interested in how the rationality can be
>>> detected in biology, and of course in its ancestors, chemistry and physics.
>>>
>>> I hope to have distracted any worries that you may believe to eventually
>>> be created by my periodic few pages.
>>>
>>> Respectfully
>>> Karl
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Pedro C. Marijuán <pedroc.marijuan en gmail.com> schrieb am Sa., 14. Mai
>>> 2022, 13:55:
>>>
>>>> Karl, you are crossing some limits...
>>>>
>>>> El 13/05/2022 a las 13:32, Karl Javorszky escribió:
>>>>
>>>> The Ultimate Rhetorical Exercise: The Beard of the Emperor (220428)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>>>
>>>> *Part I.*
>>>>
>>>> *1. Augurs promising*
>>>>
>>>> As was remarked before, this group has matured into an interactional
>>>> community which comes close to the ideal of friendly exchanges of advanced
>>>> thoughts. We have open minds, talents, are interested and possess of time.
>>>> This is an artistic group which uses humour as one of its communicative
>>>> tools. The scenery is set for an unusualy, really deep discussion. The
>>>> stars are in a favorable constellation, and the flight of the eagles augurs
>>>> great advances.
>>>>
>>>> The art of Rhetoric has a great tradition and possesses its own laws,
>>>> rules and expediencies. Schopenhauer has demonstrated in his *Eristic
>>>> Dialectic* [1], how a controversial discussion is to be managed, if
>>>> the goal is to gain advantages in a debate. Here, we deal with a similar
>>>> special case of rhetoric, namely, how do we discuss a subject about which
>>>> the participants in the debate know nothing. The methodology of discussing
>>>> the unknown has also a traditional subject.
>>>>
>>>> *2. Subject of the Debate*
>>>>
>>>> There is an idiomatic expression in German: *“um des Kaisers Bart
>>>> streiten”*. To discuss the beard of the Emperor has become a synonym
>>>> for uselessly debating such things, about which no one knows anything, and
>>>> there is no way to come to a clarification. Even if there were a way of
>>>> verification of hypotheses, the results would be of no value, because there
>>>> is no real consequence attached to either of possibly many results of the
>>>> debate.
>>>>
>>>>                (Kaiser Frederic I, drowned in 1190 during a crusade,
>>>> was known South of the Alps as the Red-Bearded, Barbarossa, but not North
>>>> of the Alps. Much research has been dedicated to the controversy.)
>>>>
>>>> Let us use this etalon of scientific debate for our own purposes, too.
>>>> After all, we do not know what information is, how it is interdependent
>>>> with energy, what forms can it have, and how much these forms contrast
>>>> among each other, and what the meaning of information is. We similarly have
>>>> no idea, whether information is present in the whole or in the parts of the
>>>> whole, and if so, by which methods and rules. Actually, even questions of
>>>> reality, objectivity, interpersonally understandably communicating about
>>>> the subject emerge, as it could well have been that the Emperor had no
>>>> beard at all. We propose to use for the discussion of the concept of
>>>> information the patterns of debate relating to the beard of the Emperor.
>>>>
>>>> *3. Clarification of the Meanings of the Terms Used*
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, due to the strict discipline kept by the Server at
>>>> Zaragoza University, one can not include drawings and illustrations in his
>>>> contributions to FIS. This is why I have to refer to a Figure in Wikipedia:
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_hair#Styles_of_facial_hair. Let
>>>> me propose for the current debate to use the term ‘beard’ for the whole set
>>>> of hairs on the figure. This includes the subsets named ‘moustache’ and
>>>> ‘jawbone’, where moustache means all and every form of hair originating
>>>> from above the mouth and jawbone means all forms of sideburns and goatees,
>>>> that is, all the hair that follows the bone of the chin. Generally, the
>>>> description of the beard agrees to *a + b = c, *where *c *is the
>>>> complete facial hair (beard),* a, b *are respectively the hair N of
>>>> the mouth (moustache) and the hair in regions W, S, E relative to the mouth
>>>> (sideburns & goatees). Here, however, we shall call that part *a* of
>>>> the beard{N, /W,S,E/}*, *which is *less *than the other part *b *of
>>>> the beard *c*. Whether *less *refers to less mm² or to less mg of hair
>>>> material shall be discussed in the sequel.
>>>>
>>>> The beard can grow on any and all places of the plane of the skin. We
>>>> create a Mercator map of the skin of the face of the Emperor. Where the
>>>> beard does grow, a potential has been realised. If there is no growth, be
>>>> it because it had never grown there, or it became shaved away or it fell
>>>> out (temporarily), we have a state of Zero. If there is a hair on a spot,
>>>> we give one of the symbols {1,2,…,16} to distinguish it against other kinds
>>>> of growth. Such, we have *17 *degrees of beard, from *Zero *meaning no
>>>> beard at all, thru *1 to 16 *which symbols distinguish each a type of
>>>> hair that has grown. There are natural processes governing the growth of
>>>> the beard, and then there are actions by participants in society, mostly by
>>>> the subject himself. One is free, as an Emperor, to grow any and all forms
>>>> of combinations of Zeroes and Ones-to-Sixteens. The omnipotence of the
>>>> Emperor finds its limits, however, by the prescriptions of Nature, which is
>>>> likewise free to allow or hinder the growth of hair on any specific spot.
>>>>
>>>> *4. Perspective of Discussion*
>>>>
>>>> Attempting to do right in a discussion about a subject about which no
>>>> one participating in the discussion has admittedly any idea at all, has –
>>>> as mentioned – a noble tradition. That attempt has been given up and has
>>>> become a subject of ridicule. The failure to come to a result is in itself
>>>> a result: that all the avenues investigated so far have proved to be dead
>>>> ends. We know for sure, that all such methods that have tried to establish
>>>> a closing statement about the Beard have proven to be a failure, at least
>>>> in their interplay. Therefore, a completely new approach is needed. How can
>>>> one propose a solution to a problem of complex interdependent unknowns
>>>> otherwise than by referring to the tradition established by having
>>>> investigated the beard of the Emperor? *We discuss some
>>>> behind-the-scenes organisational principles that weave the different kinds
>>>> of unknowns into one complex system. *These are other words for
>>>> asking, which patterns of hair could the Emperor have, and which are
>>>> mutually exclusive? Could he have grown spots like a leopard or stripes
>>>> like a zebra? What are the rules that determine, which patterns can come
>>>> into existence and among such, which are perceived art and beauty?
>>>>
>>>> Please allow me to use the classical perspective, even if it may appear
>>>> to you to be an arbitrary one, and to re-formulate some of the
>>>> contributions in the FIS chatroom of the last few weeks and months, under
>>>> the aspect that we seriously and diligently pick up on the work of our
>>>> predecessors and frame the whole collection of unknowns as being part of
>>>> the questions of the beard of the Emperor.
>>>>
>>>> In order to convince you about my seriousness of transforming our
>>>> debate relating to the concept of information into the form used by our
>>>> predecessors and forefathers while they discussed the concept of the beard
>>>> of the Emperor, I have culled some of snippets of your contributions. We
>>>> shall re-phrase some of them to make visible that we are indeed conducting
>>>> a discussion here which accords in its syntax to the discussion about the
>>>> beard.
>>>>
>>>> *5. Integrating the Structure of the Discussion about a System of
>>>> Unknowns into Contributions *
>>>>
>>>> Those who will recognise the verbatim citations of their own
>>>> contribution I will have to ask for tolerance for not having chosen a
>>>> different snippet, which could have given more succinctly the essence of
>>>> what they wished to express. From the others, I have to ask forbearance for
>>>> having formulated their ideas in a wording which is not of theirs: here I
>>>> hope that the general drift of the idea comes across, independently of the
>>>> articulation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Citation*
>>>>
>>>> *Interpretation*
>>>>
>>>> Those first things were leptons and quarks.
>>>>
>>>> In our logic, we have to come up first with proto-concepts of *a, b *based
>>>> on which all other ideas can be brought into existence.
>>>>
>>>> a mousetrap will have been activated by larger than it human hands.
>>>> When a mouse blunders into it, forces of larger scale than its own will
>>>> come crashing down on it.
>>>>
>>>> There are hierarchies of levels of realities. Something that happens on
>>>> a lower level can trigger a threshold reaction on a higher level. There is
>>>> a calculable bonus if *a+b=c *holds true, even if the procedure is not
>>>> conducted.
>>>>
>>>> Contrast is what is the key principle
>>>>
>>>> We have spoken long enough about *a+b. *Let us now turn our attention
>>>> to *b-a.*
>>>>
>>>> There is a duality in it
>>>>
>>>> Of course
>>>>
>>>> We need to address redundancy generated by the looping of information
>>>> when provided with meaning.
>>>>
>>>> The higher-level pictures about what happens in lower-level reality are
>>>> in themselves a collection underlying the rules of a collection. The
>>>> celebrity gossip has its own syntax, independently of the facts.
>>>>
>>>> The concept of a beard is an anthropogenic construct. There is
>>>> hirsutismus and then there is the social convention ‘beard’.
>>>>
>>>> We give a meaning to the facts we observe. The meaning allows us to
>>>> connect inner images to external observations. We believe the world to be
>>>> ordered and we know our sentences to be ordered: maybe we make a catch by
>>>> the rational net.
>>>>
>>>> The interpersonal domain does not "exist" in the sense that a table may
>>>> exist. It remains a construct.
>>>>
>>>> In a discussion about experiences with tables and with pictures of
>>>> tables, both subjects of the conversation are equally real and abstract.
>>>>
>>>> The social marketing value of a beard does not depend so much on the
>>>> beard itself. It is a cultural assignment, which beard style is of the
>>>> highest value. The power of assignment tends to centralize, erecting entry
>>>> barriers.
>>>>
>>>> The facts are the first-level reality. Their oddity is a summand for
>>>> the second-level reality. That what makes the *‘most’ *of a property
>>>> appears to have an inbuilt tendency to prefer to generate even more *‘most’;
>>>> *kind of gainful conversion (systemic bias) reinforcing itself, till
>>>> meeting external threshold.
>>>>
>>>> Working backwards, intersubjective intentionality, to the extent that
>>>> it is expressed in human beings has a real existence and must be considered
>>>> cognitively objective as well as subjective accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> Social conventions regulate to a high degree the properties of beards,
>>>> specifically the relations of the parts to the whole. It can well be that
>>>> humans share an archetypic consensus about what is nice, proportionate,
>>>> fitting. The archetype does indeed exist.
>>>>
>>>> If we introduce a distinction between ontic and epistemic then we are
>>>> assuming a dualistic view in advance, which, for example, I am not in
>>>> favour of.
>>>>
>>>> Always keep in sight, that art happens on the *whole* and the parts
>>>> are but constituents. If it is organised, *a+b=c* holds true, and of
>>>> this, the relations of *a, b *to *c *allow qualifying the relating *a,
>>>> b* to each other.
>>>>
>>>> A beard is a realised potentiality
>>>>
>>>> Of course, but of what?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We observe that our current discussion about the ontology,
>>>> epistemology, semantics and psychology of information follows the
>>>> rhetorical rules of the classical debate, among the subjects of which the
>>>> Beard of the Emperor has a classical, prominent position.
>>>>
>>>> In the present Treatise, we discontinue discussing the man-made and the
>>>> man-judged levels of reality: neither do we discuss how the Emperor was
>>>> shaved and trimmed, nor do we discuss what the social consequences were of
>>>> his beard being such as it was.
>>>>
>>>> We are discussing, how parts that are unknown are/become organised into
>>>> a system which, while remaining in its deep essence unknown, has
>>>> recognisable features, which each can be assigned a distinguishing name.
>>>> (Moustache, goatee : energy, potential). We experience and know the
>>>> complete, interacting system, without knowing as yet, how the parts are
>>>> regulated to appear in specific relations that are (make them) parts of a
>>>> whole.
>>>>
>>>> *6. Failures, Discouragement, Reluctance, Resistance*
>>>>
>>>> As has been stated before and repeated by Joseph (May 9, 2022): *“…
>>>> most attempts at finding ‘clear’ definitions and other analytic approaches
>>>> have failed.”* This was the point at which our forefathers have given
>>>> up, and it seems that all hope is lost when searching for an *organisational
>>>> principle* (along *Giordano Bruno: The Cause, the Principle and One *[2])
>>>> *which makes unknowns to interact in recognisable patterns*.
>>>>
>>>> Practical necessity overcomes intellectual abhorrence and timidity.
>>>> Even if the case with the Beard appears to have been closed, the same
>>>> situation confronts us today. It is the same whether we discuss the beard,
>>>> follicles on specific places getting enough nutrients or not, how
>>>> crystallisation takes place on a plane, how planes can be laid atop each
>>>> other to create a space, how molecules attract and merge, how the position
>>>> of a logical marker on one of three places determines the quality of the
>>>> molecule that can attach onto a specific place – all these questions debate
>>>> the relations of parts to the whole, where *the parts appear to be
>>>> organised* *according to some* – as yet unknown – *behind-the-scenes
>>>> plan or plans*. The debate goes back to theological roots: if we
>>>> believe that there is *one *overriding Principle that organises the
>>>> parts into the whole, we are close to *monotheistic *concepts. If we
>>>> see an incessant, innate rivalry among several Principles, we find
>>>> ourselves in *polytheistic *systems of thoughts.
>>>>
>>>> It is an uncalled-for effort for contemporary scientists to have to
>>>> decide, whether they believe the main, basic organisational principles to
>>>> be *one central* or rather *several coequal* organisational
>>>> perspectives. It is pure necessity that forces us to do mental contortions (
>>>> *asanas*). If the interaction in genetic information transfer, or
>>>> among forms of memory, had been accessible by *definitions and
>>>> analytic approaches*, we would not need to uncover, de-archive the
>>>> debate about the Beard. Admitting that we are lost graduates us into the
>>>> position of a participant in the Debate About the Beard. This is not by
>>>> free *voluntas *that one learns that different organisational
>>>> principles exist, alongside the usual. Who wants to learn the Akkadian
>>>> concept of Unit and ways of counting, if he hasn’t to? Who wants to
>>>> familiarise with the system of bondages during the feudal ages? In fact, no
>>>> one in his right sense would want to spend time discussing the beard of a
>>>> long dead emperor.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, the effort can not be avoided, because Nature has not
>>>> gone through civilisational stages with us and has therefore remained an
>>>> infantile primitive brute. As we have begun going to school, some abilities
>>>> had already been learnt. These were not further educated at school.
>>>>
>>>> The abilities to
>>>>
>>>> ·       Establish a mental foreground contrasting against a background,
>>>>
>>>> ·       Recognise differences among objects and experience preferences,
>>>>
>>>> ·       Maintain the concept of order,
>>>>
>>>> ·       Order objects according to preferences, based on properties of
>>>> the objects,
>>>>
>>>> ·       Group objects together based on the objects’ similarities
>>>>
>>>> need to be present for the child to be able to visit elementary school.
>>>> These abilities will not be educated further. The child learns to build a
>>>> stable mental space, in which it imagines units that are abstracted from
>>>> the different objects of the perception. We train the mental muscles of
>>>> abstraction, of leaving aside particularities in order to deal with the
>>>> generality of the thing. Keeping order and how to do a reordering is not
>>>> taught as part of the formal education, but rather as preparing for life.
>>>>
>>>> There are many small instances of preference for abstraction against
>>>> distraction in the procedure of schooling. One would think that our culture
>>>> believes pictures that come from *narrowing* the perspective are
>>>> somewhat more valuable above those which present us pictures that carry
>>>> their content by theirs being a *wider* perspective than usual. As if
>>>> it would be a rule of Nature to come on a consensus that the unit is
>>>> uniform and not that units come in *from – to *variants. A part of the
>>>> brain feels superior towards a different part of the brain, because the
>>>> former has *publicly learnt *to deal with uniform units, while the
>>>> latter had to *individually autodidact *how to deal with diversity and
>>>> variants. In the present Treatise we ask Mr. Clever to help Mr Touchy-Feely
>>>> (Mr. Clever’s inner child) to express himself. This may give rise to some
>>>> cognitive dissonances.
>>>>
>>>> There are precedents for the irritation that the introduction of a new
>>>> world view has brought about. “How can that be, that the Earth circles the
>>>> Sun, although we see every day that the Sun circles the Earth?” and “How
>>>> can that be that our ancestors were apes, although we clearly see that we
>>>> are actually different to the apes?” are of the same category as “How can
>>>> that be that concurrently counting in two counting systems makes counting
>>>> more exact and more indeterminate at the same time, although we see that
>>>> our one and only counting system is functioning exactly and error-free?”.
>>>>
>>>> Reader is invited to adjust his perspectives as he investigates the
>>>> question, by which principles and rules many unknown parts are organised
>>>> into a system which is a whole, and then some more than the sum of its
>>>> parts. (Definition of *Gestalt *[4]). There is the subjective
>>>> component of the spectator, how the individual history of the spectator had
>>>> prepared him to accept a new idea/explanation (how well his distracting
>>>> abilities can play with his abstracting abilities), and there is the
>>>> objective component, how the spectator believes the world to be organised
>>>> by Nature.
>>>>
>>>> Aside from the reluctance to put up a perspective while regarding the
>>>> melee of the unknows to interact beautifully, there remains the primary
>>>> question: *What do we use as measuring unit to establish that a degree
>>>> of organisational interdependence is observable which is different to the
>>>> value of the degree of organisational interdependence achieved by a
>>>> different observation?*
>>>>
>>>> 7. Proposed Solution
>>>>
>>>> We take the plane which is a depiction of the face of the Emperor and *turn
>>>> it over. *In the retro vista we see all the physiological works of a
>>>> skin, with some follicles sprouting a hair and some not.
>>>>
>>>> We distinguish the *paths *of the nourishment flows (and suppose that
>>>> there are several types of nourishment compositions), from the *material
>>>> *that sprouts on some spots.
>>>>
>>>> We clarify the terms *path, material, composition *by referring to the
>>>> term *cycle. *The term cycle is a part of the context: reorder in
>>>> consequence of *periodic changes.*
>>>>
>>>> The term *periodic changes *is considered to be axiomatic, or given
>>>> the deictic definition ‘that what happens as consequence of the Moon’s
>>>> movements around the Earth, the Earth’s rotation, the Earth’s movement
>>>> around the Sun’. Transported into dealing with natural numbers, periodic
>>>> changes are observable there in the form of orders (sequences) and of
>>>> reorders (procedure which generates cycles).
>>>>
>>>> The cycles are – in a geometric interpretation – paths. Paths can
>>>> cross. In a visual interpretation, cycles can also be seen as strings or
>>>> filaments, or caravans.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, we have created an etalon cohort of logical tokens (made up of *136
>>>> *pairs of *(a, b)*), which we use as a catalogue of possible states of
>>>> whatever that consists of two parts. The idea to take the most basic
>>>> collection of individuals (aka ‘logical primitives’ © *M. Abundis*)
>>>> and subject these to repeated periodic changes, is to establish a
>>>> researchable data set, out of which numeric values for the strength of a
>>>> relation among elements can be read off.
>>>>
>>>> The patterns observed while the logical primitives are reordering allow
>>>> erecting space concepts, with spots and places where caravans cross.
>>>>
>>>> We shall introduce the concept of a follicle to be one specific kind of
>>>> place where the caravans crossing have specific properties.
>>>>
>>>> The only remaining task is to set up the accounting behind the idea.
>>>> The resulting web of numerical relations binds the elements to each other
>>>> by means of what we term *bondage. *The bondage reflects the
>>>> connection of an element to different elements.
>>>>
>>>> We propose to use the bondage values as a concurrent system. It may
>>>> well be, that the bondage value system is that organising principle that
>>>> knits elements and places together with temporal and other qualitative
>>>> properties.
>>>>
>>>> 8. Closing Remarks
>>>>
>>>> The proposals in the last Chapter shall be published in more details in
>>>> Parts II – IV.
>>>>
>>>> Am Do., 12. Mai 2022 um 13:28 Uhr schrieb Pedro C. Marijuán <
>>>> pedroc.marijuan en gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>
>>>>> Many thanks to Joseph for his lucid comments. Most people in this list
>>>>> think that the new syntheses needed should contain a fundamental
>>>>> ingredient: clarifying the scientific & philosophical thought around
>>>>> information. It is a critical element that has obscured, polarized, and
>>>>> aggravated nasty problems of our times. Would we be capable to offer clear
>>>>> advancements about that?
>>>>>
>>>>> About the current session, thanks to Mariusz for his presentation &
>>>>> responses. The point of view of the arts is an important angle for the
>>>>> above tasks (it would be great that he remains and contributes in our list).
>>>>> Thereafter, maybe it is time to go to the next session on Natural
>>>>> Computation. However, for technical reasons of the supporting publication,
>>>>> we should wait a few weeks.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this context--Terry, would it be possible that you continue with
>>>>> your session during these weeks? There are several messages addressed to
>>>>> you that could be useful to connect with...
>>>>>
>>>>> Best greetings to all,
>>>>> --Pedro
>>>>>
>>>>> El 09/05/2022 a las 12:34, joe.brenner en bluewin.ch escribió:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Friends and Colleagues,
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is a first response to Pedro’s pre-manifesto. As a chemist, I
>>>>> note first that for crystallization of something new to occur, you have to
>>>>> have the right reactants, but
>>>>>
>>>>>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220610/708ed2d9/attachment-0001.html>