[Fis] The Tao of numbers

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Fis,



The connection between Tao and the algorithms that allow modeling biology
appears to me the concept of “Mass und Mitte” (of course I don’t know the
original Chinese, in English the phrase goes probably like ‘balance and
center’). [Measure and middle]

The general idea of being a part of a cooperating whole is what makes Asian
philosophy in my eyes deeper and more useful than the monotheistic
individuality evolved further West.

In psychology, the necessity to be bonded, and the ranges of not enough and
too much of being integrated in other people’s lives, are well known. For a
psychologist, it is not necessary to translate the values of bonds and
bondages (support, empathy, surveillance, subversion, etc.) into numbers of
extents and durations, because he does not feel himself computer enough to
make use of many small details. If the measures of the interdependencies
are near a usual range, the quasi-stable state is assumed to be
non-disturbing. We meet the ideas of balance and center what Tao is (as far
as I understand) about.

As to information as such: We have the imagination of a mysterious blob of
something that can have many forms and appearances. Shannon slices it into
cells of a matrix. Tao ponders how the harmony of parts relative to the
whole and each other is the most natural.

Enter late 20th and early 21st century. We have computers and printers.
There are people mass-producing plans and procedures for the methodology
and data base structures for socio-economical surveys about anything than
is of interest to a state or private customer.

Segmenting the population under aspects of socio-economic questions, if
done repeatedly, leads one to asking, how the ideal report of the most
exhaustive survey would look like. The whole is segmented, the detail is,
how finely differentiated the parts are, in comparison to each other and
relative to the overall whole.

Trying to build an app for the smartphone, in which user can structure his
campaign of gathering information, one evolves the ideal universe which can
be surveyed (sorted and ordered) ad libitum. Lacking modesty, one calls the
simplified archetype of any surveyed population the etalon collection.
Keeping with modesty, one limits the investigation to *a,b *and not *a, b,
c, d, …k *being parts of a whole, and the size of the etalon
collection to *136,
*which means that there can be *16* variants of whatever property is being
surveyed. Apparently, in everyday life, we meet mixtures of properties, but
like in human vision all colors are built up from the basic 3, all
properties of individuals and assemblies will build up from the original *twice
16. *

We have now the theatre, the stage, and the actors. We need a plot. The
plot is the eternal conflict caused by periodic changes (of which examples
are the surveys the customers paid for, aperiodically).

While there are no conflicts as long as the system is idle, conflicts are
inevitable as soon as the reorders inflict conflicting requirements on the
individuals relating to where the correct place of this individual is,
given that such and such orders are now the case. The intrigues of the
screenplay are the conflicts that come from concurrent periodic changes.

To start and maintain the spectacle, we need to have something the actors
are fighting for in an endless struggle. We have to invent the golden
fleece, Paris’ apple, possession of the production factors, wealth of
nations, whatever. That whatever needs to be of interval nature. The names
of the actors are used so far as nominal (distinguishing) and ordinal
(sequencing) symbols. The same symbols translate easily in interval
(grouping) symbols, which give the coming melee (blob) of what will happen
a skeleton, made up of units spaced in equal intervals, appearing us as two
3D spaces plus 2 planes, creating a background of empty distances.

The Peano unit of a threesome “ predecessor – current – successor “ has an
ambiguity, depending on whether we use the relations on ordinal or on
interval scales. The successor on *N *is +1. The successor on an ordinal
scale can be any value (there is no first or last element in a cycle as per
definition: whether Nature uses some properties of cycles to determine,
which is the first element, is something the wet people will decide). This
value is what we need.

A periodic change is a logistical maneuver. It is not a re-enumeration on
this stage, but geometric place changes of individual elements. After a
reorder from Q into W has been completed, *∑a + **∑b* have been transported
from here to there. These are cohort constants. In the etalon Cohort 16, *∑a
+ ∑b = 816 + 1496 =2312.*

We re-distribute *2312 *during a reorder. Each reorder re-distributes *2312*.
The etalon collection has *72*71 *catalogized reorders. The total logistics
of the adventure can be no more than *72*71*2312 = 11.818.944, *and this is
impossible to reach, for logical reasons*. *

The numeric tabulation of the static lien values of each element regarding
the cycle K it is contained in during reorder X is easy, as the portion for
the cycle is *2312/proportion of cycle K, *and the portion for the
individual element is ∑*K/no of elements in the cycle. *(There is the
possibility to contrast the division *per head *against *per weight.) *

The Tao sense behind the crediting of the total into proportionate parts
(whether per member or per carry) is that we have established a measure
relative to a middle. The lien amount an individual element receives may be
different to element’s own name-value. The difference between the element
as such and the element as a member of a group is a matrix of numeric
extents, which allows nearing the idea of a basic (indexed) constant
for *cohesion.
*The basic measure of *how far away from the most usual *has a geometric
and a material-related reading.

As to the repeated assertions that building models by rotating additions
may be a nice hobby, but it remains a *Glasperlenspiel *without any
relevance to reality:

The statistics about life expectancy, violent deaths, proportion of
population incarcerated, wealth distribution, etc. are an intellectual
exercise involving large data sets. The numbers depict assumed
interdependences in reality and/or help unveiling the underlying rational
explanations for what are possible causes for crises in reality and by
which methods one could hope to mitigate them the best.

The numbers we produce, by weighting down the poor logical primitives with
all the linkage tools they need if they are subject to whichever periodic
change, are similarly nothing but numbers. One can read out of ordering the
etalon collection this and that way that there are certainties of many
kinds, types, and extents. The system is by its setup cursed with a small
proportion of contradictions within itself and tries yet to trod along as
long as creative interpretations of laws of accounting permit. Biology
nestles in the cracks of inner contradictions of the Sumerian system.

As to the idea of explaining in more detail the primitive cartography, let
me answer with a question. Do the learned friends think that there is a
commercial value in good and practical algorithms? If so, how does one
start a startup? We have the garage and the good idea and the workmanship
to produce if not prototypes so laboratory models. Are any of the learned
friends well versed in the ways of the profane and would like to take part
in developing the idea into jobs and wealth?

Well, this may come near dear Pedro’s delineations about what to discuss
here. A question, whether the learned friends have knowledge of an EU
initiative to support research if it is cooperating across at least six
member states’ institutions, may be within the impeccable culture Pedro has
established.

Karl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240429/be4b5a99/attachment.html>