Thursday, January 09, 2014

Part 4. Recent Internet Dialogue on Seldonian Dialectical Arithmetic: Edited Excerpt from Transcript.

Dear Readers,




Below I have posted an edited excerpt from the fourth part of a recent web forum thread dialogue on F.E.D. dialectics in which I participated.

 
I have once again notated my interlocutor's queries by 'Q#.:', and my responses by 'R#.:'.

 
Please feel free to join in this dialogue here, by posting a query or comment via the Comment function of this blog.



Regards,

Miguel








Q4.a.:   You wrote: "atoms x atoms = atoms x molecules" ... .

I am going to try to extend this to amino acids, proteins, etc.


Tell me whether you agree with my reasoning or not.


molecules x molecules = molecules x amino acids

amino acids x amino acids = amino acids x proteins

proteins x proteins = proteins x RNA

RNA x RNA = RNA x DNA

DNA x DNA = DNA x cells

multicellular organisms x multicellular organisms = multicellular organisms x ???




R4.a.:   Your reasoning here is a good extrapolation of what we have shared with you so far about our theory, in this "step-by-step" exposition that you have requested.

However, we have not shared with you here, yet, the very fundamental principle of dialectics that guides our formation and solution of such equations, and that, had you had it consciously available to you to employ, would, we are convinced, have led you to other solution-propositions than those which you framed, above, without it.

We will share that fundamental principle with you, here, soon.



Your “atoms x atoms = atoms x molecules”, for us, would be --

atoms x atoms = atoms plus molecules


-- or --

a x a = a + m

-- or --

qa x qa   =   qa + qaa   =   qa + qm


Your “molecules x molecules = molecules x amino acids”, is not ‘‘‘well-formed’’’, for us, because amino acids, proteins [polypeptide polymers], RNA and DNA all still "hail from" the ontological category "molecules", so that the '<<physis>> + meta-<<physis>>' results that you are describing here would belong to a 'taxonomy level two' [sub-]dialectic, going on "inside" the 'taxonomy level one' cosmo-ontological category of "molecules", and not to the next ontological categor(y)(ies) emergent in the "taxonomy level one" Dialectic of Nature categorial progression, after the "molecules" cosmo-ontological category, within "taxonomy level one".


Your “amino acids x amino acids  =  amino acids x proteins”, for us, would be --

amino acids x amino acids  =  amino acids plus proteins

-- or, in general, would be --

monomers x monomers  =  monomers^2  =  monomers + polymers.


Your “proteins x proteins  =  proteins x RNA”, for us, would be --

proteins x proteins = proteins plus RNA


-- if this were an empirically correct, and dialectically correct, equation.


Your “RNA x RNA  =  RNA x DNA”, for us, would be --

RNA x RNA  =  RNA plus DNA


-- if this were an empirically correct, and dialectically correct, equation.


Your “DNA x DNA  =  DNA x cells”, for us, would be --

DNA x DNA  =  DNA plus cells


-- if this were an empirically-correct, and dialectically correct, equation.


You wrote:  “cells x cells = cells x multicellular organisms”.   For us, the progression is --

molecules
x molecules  =  molecules + prokaryotic [pre-eukaryotic] cells

-- or --

m x m  =  m + p

-- or --

qm x qm  =  qm + qmm  =  qm + qp

-- and then --

prokaryotic cells x prokaryotic cells  =  prokaryotic cells + eukaryotic cells


-- or --

p x p  =  p + e

-- or --

qp x qp   =   qp + qpp  =  qp + qe


-- then --

eukaryotic cells x eukaryotic cells = eukaryotic cells + multi-[eukaryotic ]cellular organisms [ = 'meta-biota']

-- or --

e x e = e + b

-- or --

qe x qe  =  qe + qee  =  qe + qb



You wrote:  “multicellular organisms x multicellular organisms  =  multicellular organisms x ???”.

For us
, this should be --

multicellular organisms
x multicellular organisms   =   multicellular organisms plus ???


We call
"multicellular organisms" by the name 'meta-biota' -- naming an ontological <<genos>> super-category which "contains" both the "meta-zoa" and the "meta-phyta", so that our solution for this epoch of the dialectic of nature is --


meta-biota x meta-biota  =  meta-biota + proto-languages-based meta-meta-biota



-- such that 'meta-meta-biota', ormeta2-biota’, include both viabody-languages” / “gestures” / facial-expressions, and via vocalizations, single-species, geographically-contiguous populations of individually communicating/mutually interacting zoa --  social animals” --  andsocial plants’ -- i.e., single-species, geographically-contiguous populations of bio-chemically communicating/mutually interacting phyta.

-- or --

b x b = b + l

-- or --

qb x qb   =   qb + qbb  =  qb + ql.





Q4.b.:   Again, where is the synthesis?

If I apply your "thesis x thesis = thesis x antithesis" rule, then treating the antithesis of the original thesis as the new thesis of another antithesis, and so on, there does not seem to be any room left for a synthesis.




R4.b.:   You wrote:  “thesis x thesis = thesis x antithesis”. 
 
NB:  For us, this would be:  thesis x thesis  =  thesis plus antithesis”.
Again, keep in mind the more abstract '''genericity''' that is essential to the general, universal concept/category of "dialectical synthesis", if it is to encompass all historical ideo-<<species>> of -- even of Marxian alone -- dialectic, to-date, including both systematic dialectic [‘synchronic dialectic’] and historical dialectic [‘diachronic dialectic’], and also their dialectical synthesis, 'meta-systematic dialectic' ['diachronico-synchronic dialectic'].




Applied to the historical dialectic of cosmological Natural History as a whole, the dyadic Seldon function, through its epoch three, delivers the following procession of "antitheses" and "syntheses", given n or qn -- the '''sub-nuclear particles''' <<genos>> ontological category, as the "given" premiss, ground, or starting point --



generic:  first_thesis^(2^3) = first_thesis^8 =

first_thesis + first_antithesis + first_full_synthesis + second_antithesis + first_partial_synthesis + second_partial_synthesis + second_full_synthesis
+ third_antithesis;



applied-to-whole-cosmos:  n^(2^3)  =  n^8  =
 

n + s + qsn + a + qan + qas + qasn + m


-- in which the 'partial synthesis' cosmo-ontological categories are --

qan

and

qas

-- which are "partial" because their categorial combinations, signified by their subscripts, leave out at least one of the "antithesis" qualifiers that have already become extant by the time that they too do, and in which the "full" syntheses are --

qsn   =   qu   =   u

and


qasn  =   qau

-- which are "full" because their subscripts combine the first_thesis's epithet/qualifier, plus the epithets of all antitheses that precede them.


Each of these "synthesis" categories signifies a "complex unity" of the categories that their subscript epithets name, which may mean either a category in which the populations of the individuals connoted by each of their subscript epithets are combined, or a category whose individuals are hybrids of the individuals of the categories of those subscript epithets, e.g., the neutrons of the cosmo-ontological category of 'unitron[ic] matters', qsn  =  qu = u, which hybridize protons from s, and electrons, etc., from n.


In the context of the cosmological dialectic of nature, these 'categorograms' usually most aptly stand for 'conversion processes', and/or for 'conversion-formations', that net-convert, or, precisely, that '''synthesize''', the units of the less-advanced categories' kinds into the units of the most-advanced category's kind.

For example, we interpret the category qas as standing for, principally, the <<species>>-category of the net-conversion of stellar core plasma, H+ [i.e., of protons, i.e., of sub-atomic "particles", s ] into a, into atoms -- e.g., into Helium nuclei, He++, and beyond, into the higher ‘‘‘atomic <<species>>’’’.





Q4.c.:   And what comes next?

Plants?  Animals?  Organs?  Fungus?

 


R4.c.:   As per the above, in our consensus solution of the 'Dyadic Seldon Function Meta-Model Meta-Equation' for The Dialectic of Nature as Totality -- for our Cosmos as a Whole -- what comes next after "multi-[eukaryotic-]cellular organisms' -- which, again, we call 'meta-biota', whose dialectical-algebraic symbol, for us, is, b, or qb, are the proto-language-based animal societies, and the 'biochemical messaging proto-language-based "plant societies", both together forming a single 'Taxonomy Level 1' cosmo-ontological category, which we name l, or ql.


This <<genos>> ontological category thus implicitly contains, in its "intension", or "connotation", somewhat in the sense of the Platonian <<Arithmoi Eidetikoi>> dialectics, two <<species>> categories -- the 'meta-meta-zoa', ormeta2-zoa’, and the 'meta-meta-phyta', ormeta2-phyta’.


In our understanding, [multicellular] Plants and Animals are included under the category of the 'meta-biota', symbol, b, or qb, Organs are sub-systems of individual multicellular Animals, of individual "meta-zoa", if not also of individual multicellular Plants, of individual "meta-phyta".


Fungus are constituents of the earlier-emergent 'self-hybrid' category, relative to 'self-hybrid' category b, or qb, namely, the 'self-hybrid' category of eukaryotes, of eukaryotic "single cells", whose ideographic-symbolic-name, for us, is e, or qe.



No comments:

Post a Comment