Insight

The reason why it is so hard to prove is actually very easy to answer. These constants, identities, and variations being referred to in this post, and others like it, all lay embedded in a far deeper substrate than current mathematics has yet explored.

Mathematics has been, and always shall be my ‘first love’, and it has provided for me all of these years. I am not criticising mathematics in any way. It is my firm belief that mathematics will overcome this current situation and eventually be quite able to examine these kinds of questions in a much more expansive and deeper way.

We need to extend our examination of mathematical knowledge, both in depth and in scope, out farther and in deeper than numbers (sets and categories as well – even more below) have yet done. I’ll introduce you to a pattern you may have already noticed in the current stage of our mathematical endeavour.

We all know there are numbers which lay outside of Q which we call Irrational numbers. There are also numbers which lay outside of R which we call Imaginary numbers. They have both been found, because the domain of questioning exceeded the range of answers being sought within the properties each of those numbers. This pattern continues in other ways, as well.

We also know there are abstractions and/or extensions of Complex numbers where the ‘air starts to get thin’ and mathematical properties start to ‘fade away’: Quaternions, Octonians, Sedenions,…

This pattern continues in other ways: Holors, for example, which extend and include mathematical entities such as Complex numbers, scalars, vectors, matrices, tensors, Quaternions, and other hypercomplex numbers, yet are still capable of providing a different algebra which is consistent with real algebra.

The framing of our answers to mathematical questions is also evolving. Logic was, for example, limited to quite sophisticated methods that all were restricted to a boolean context. Then we found other questions which led to boundary, multi-valued, fuzzy, and fractal logics, among a few others I haven’t mentioned yet.

Even our validity claims are evolving. We are beginning to ask questions which require answers which transcend relationship properties such as causality, equivalence, and inference in all of their forms. Even the idea of a binary relationship is being transcended into finitary versions (which I use in my work). There are many more of these various patterns which I may write about in the future.

They all have at least one thing in common:each time we extend our reach in terms of scope or depth, we find new ways of seeing things which we saw before and/or see new things which were before not seen.

There are many ‘voices’ in this ‘mathematical fugue’ which ‘weaves’ everything together: they are the constants, variations, identities, and the relationships they share with each other.

The constants e, π, i, ϕ, c, g, h all denote or involve ‘special’ relationships of some kind. Special in the sense that they are completely unique.

For example:

e is the identity of change (some would say proportion, but that’s not entirely correct).

π is the identity of periodicity. There’s much more going on with than simply being a component of arc or, in a completely different context, a component of area…

These relationships actually transcend mathematics. Mathematics ‘consumes’ their utility (making use of those relationships), but they cannot be ‘corralled in’ as if they were ‘horses on the farm’ of mathematics. Their uniqueness cannot be completely understood via equivalence classes alone.

They are ubiquitous and therefore not algebraic.

They are pre-nascent to number, equivalence classes, and validity claims and are therefore not rational.

These are not the only reasons.

It’s also about WHERE they are embedded in the knowledge substrate compared to the concept of number, set, category…. They lay more deeply embedded in that substrate.

The reason why your question is so hard for mathematics to answer is, because our current mathematics is, as yet, unable to decide. We need to ‘see’ these problems with a more complete set of ‘optics’ that will yield them to mathematical scrutiny.

There are other connections to some new developments in mathematics involving what is called ‘inversive geometry’.

Example: (oversimplified for clarity)

If we think of say… the point [x, y, z] in space, we may assign x, y, and z any number value except where one of these coordinates gets involved in division where 0 is not allowed (up to this point in common mathematics) as a denominator. x/z is not allowed when z=0, for example.

Now, if we are dealing with interiority, numbers are replaced by relationships, such as [father, loves, son].

What if the son has died? Is the relationship still valid?

The answer to this question lies within the interior of those involved in the relation.

Here an excerpt from a short summary of a paper I am writing that provides some context to answer this question:

What Knowledge is not:

Knowledge is not very well understood so I’ll briefly point out some of the reasons why we’ve been unable to precisely define what knowledge is thus far. Humanity has made numerous attempts at defining knowledge. Plato taughtthat justified truth and belief are required for something to be considered knowledge.

Throughout the history of the theory of knowledge (epistemology), others have done their best to add to Plato’s work or create new or more comprehensive definitions in their attempts to ‘contain’ the meaning of meaning (knowledge). All of these efforts have failed for one reason or another.

Using truth value and ‘justification’ as a basis for knowledge or introducing broader definitions or finer classifications can only fail.

I will now provide a small set of examples of why this is so.

Truth value is only a value that knowledge may attend.

Knowledge can be true or false, justified or unjustified, because

knowledge is the meaning of meaning

What about false or fictitious knowledge? [Here’s the reason why I say no.]

Their perfectly valid structure and dynamics are ignored by classifying them as something else than what they are. Differences in culture or language even make no difference, because the objects being referred to have meaning that transcends language barriers.

Another problem is that knowledge is often thought to be primarily semantics or even ontology based. Both of these cannot be true for many reasons. In the first case (semantics):

There already exists knowledge structure and dynamics for objects we cannot or will not yet know.

The same is true for objects to which meaning has not yet been assigned, such as ideas, connections and perspectives that we’re not yet aware of or have forgotten. Their meaning is never clear until we’ve become aware of or remember them.

In the second case (ontology): collations that are fed ontological framing are necessarily bound to memory, initial conditions of some kind and/or association in terms of space, time, order, context, relation,… We build whole catalogues, dictionaries and theories about them: Triads, diads, quints, ontology charts, neural networks, semiotics and even the current research in linguistics are examples.

Even if an ontology or set of them attempts to represent intrinsic meaning, it can only do so in a descriptive ‘extrinsic’ way. An ontology, no matter how sophisticated, is incapable of generating the purpose of even its own inception, not to mention the purpose of the objects to which it corresponds.

The knowledge is not coming from the data itself, it is always coming from the observer of the data, even if that observer is an algorithm.

Therefore ontology-based semantic analysis can only produce the artefacts of knowledge, such as search results, association to other objects, ‘knowledge graphs’ like Cayley,…

Real knowledge precedes, transcends and includes our conceptions, cognitive processes, perception, communication, reasoning and is more than simply related to our capacity of acknowledgement.

In fact knowledge cannot even be completely systematised; it can only be interacted with using ever increasing precision.

[For those interested, my summary is found at: A Precise Definition of Knowledge – Knowledge Representation as a Means to Define the Meaning of Meaning Precisely: http://bit.ly/2pA8Y8Y

Knowledge is not necessarily coupled with time, but it can be influenced by it. It can be influenced by change of any kind: not only time.

Knowledge may exist in a moment and vanish. The incipient perspective(s) it contains may change. Or the perspective(s) that it comprises may resist change.

Also, knowledge changes with reality and vice versa.

Time requires events to influence this relationship between knowledge and reality.

Knowledge cannot be relied upon to be a more accurate expression of reality, whether time is involved or not, because the relationship between knowledge and reality is not necessarily dependent upon time, nor is there necessarily a coupling of the relationship between knowledge and reality. The relationships of ‘more’ and ‘accurate’ are also not necessarily coupled with time.

Example: Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth long before Copernicus published. The ‘common knowledge’ of the time (Copernicus knew about Eratosthenes, but the culture did not) was that the Earth was flat.

Obfuscation In A ‘Nut’ ShellDistinctions that are no differences, are incomplete, or are in discord.

In knowledge representation these ‘impurities’ (artificiality) and their influence are made easy to see.

In groks you will see them as obfuscation fields. That means darkening and/or inversion dynamics. The term refers to the visual representation of an obfuscated field, and can also be represented as dark and/or inverted movements of a field or group. I concentrate more on the dark versions here and will consider the inversions (examples of lying) in a future post.

They bring dynamics that are manipulative, artificial, or non-relevant into the knowledge representation. Their dynamic signatures make them stand out out like a sore thumb.

Cymatic images reveal these dynamics too. There are multiple vortexes, each with their own semantic contribution to the overall meaning to a knowledge molecule or group.

Note that not all vortexes are continuous through the ‘bodies’ of the molecules they participate in. Also, in order to correctly visualize what I’m saying, one must realize that the cymatic images are split expressions. That means to see the relationship, you must add the missing elements which are hinted at by the image.

Every cymatic image is a cut through the dynamics it represents.
We are in effect seeing portions of something whole. Whole parts are dissected necessarily, because the surface of expression is limited to a ‘slice’ through the complete molecule.

(Only the two images marked ‘heurist.com’ are my own! The other images are only meant as approximations to aid in the understanding of my work.)

The Creation of ‘Care’
The 8th Principle of Natural Law: Care
The ‘container’ in which all of the principles of natural law exist.What we care about on a daily basis acts as the driving force of our thoughts and actions.

Care+Knowledge+Action (Feeling, Mind, Being)

This is the reason my mother named me ‘Care-y’. She told me as a child when I asked her why she named me Carey that I would be the one who cares.

This work is a dead end waiting to happen. Of course it will attract much interest, money, and perhaps even yield new insights into the commonality of language, but there’s better ways to get there.

What’s even more sad is that they, who should know better, will see my intentions in making this clear as destructive criticism instead of a siren warning regarding research governed/originating through a false paradigm. These people cannot see or overlook the costs humanity pays for the misunderstandings research like this causes and is based upon.

It’s even worse in the field of genetic engineering with their chimera research. The people wasting public money funding this research need to be gotten under control again.

I don’t want to criticize the researcher’s intentions. It’s their framing and methodology that I see as primitive, naive, and incomplete.

I’m not judging who they are nor their ends; rather, their means of getting there.

“Quantification” is exactly the wrong way to ‘measure/compare semantics; not to mention “partitioning” them!

1) The value in this investigation that they propose is to extrapolate and interpolate ontology.Semantics are more than ontology. They possess a complete metaphysics which includes their epistemology.

2) You cannot quantify qualities, because you reduce the investigation to measurement; which itself imposes meaning upon the meaning you wish to measure.Semantics, in their true form, are relations and are non-physical and non-reducible.

3) Notice also, partitioning is imposed upon the semantics (to make them ‘measurable/comparable’). If you compare semantics in such a way then you only get answers in terms of your investigation/ontology.

4) The better way is to leave the semantics as they are! Don’t classify them! Learn how they are related.Then you will know how they are compared.

There’s more to say, but I think you get the idea… ask me if you want clarification…