A system which is able to make sense must be an incomplete system, just like a nonentropic system must be an open system.
Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, Wby Jakob Milikowski » Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:20 am obsrvr524 wrote:But their "ontology" is based on measuring a lot of things then assuming an average as the "quantum". They ignore the details and build their entire ontology based on group categories - "everything we measure has an average quantity of energy - so everything is made of quanta of energy".They have to know that they have just made a convenience for calculating the typical size of small things. That is not a complete picture of reality - it is a crude estimate for ease of calculation (similar to dividing all people into political groups - regardless of their individuality - it serves the planners and manipulators).That is what I had inferred from what is taught by wikipedia and such. But after I read Bohr I understood that the step-wise buildup is inferred from spectral data. Quanta on the subatomic scale interact with each other in a way that does not produce gradations of energy in the way that a smooth increase would prescribe, as it does on Newtonean scales; the bottom line is that smooth scales are a matter of averages. Accuracy shows reality to be anything but smooth; it is rather jagged. I do believe you interpret too much humanities into the sciences. Jakob Milikowski wrote:I did not say AO holds that the world is homogenous. I indicate that affectance, as a criterion, is homogenous. That is not in AO. AO states the opposite - that homogeneity is impossible in the real world.I just said that that is not what I meant. The criterion is homogenous with itself on a level (math) that VO's criterion is not. The calculatability of real order in terms of quantity is not a given. And that leads to the fact that any "quantum" cannot be homogeneous inside - so what is inside each quantum?You are presuming it is the same in each quantum. But by referring to it as a quantum we simply mean that it is a presence in a system.Formally, there is nothing inside of it that isnt made explicit by its role in the system.Whatever is in the quantum but not observed in terms of a system, is logically inscrutable, yet it may in stand forth in larger systems.RM presumes to be able to designate that role in advance on a categorical, scale, but I say it can not be done, for the following reasons;In mathematics thus also in RM,1=1.But that presumes that "1" equals "1" and nothing else. That is, a sign without content.To me, 1>0<1', and onward >0<1'' and so forth, would be required to do maths with VO.Whatever "1" is meant to designate in the universe, thus whatever holds ontological value, is more than just a number. "1" can never apply to the universe if it is truly and fully equal to another instance of "1",This is not merely theoretical but practical. If we apply the integers to hydrogen atoms, protons, or electrons for example, that is, units of which we know that they have the same mathematical values in terms of their mass and their charge, then it appears that we can not hold 3 atoms in the same framework as we can hold 2 atoms. With every added integer, a new system occurs. A system of 2 atoms is in turn not the same as a system of 1 atom. Only a system of 1 atom is equal to that same system, but this is fully tautological and may serve no sneaky function inside a true system. I thus reject "A"="A" as a philosophic premise, just as I reject "tree" = "tree". I can only concur that hydrogen atom'>(no atom)
< hydrogen atom''.
meaning: a hydrogen atom is as much more atomic mass than zero as another hydrogen is.
They are not equal to each other, and any representation of than as such is guaranteed to disregard or misapprehend their function in a system.
This means that vo
can work with an indefinite amount of systems, known and unknown, without distorting logical procedure; it means that whatever occurs as certainty is fully local, based in empirical truth, what actually happens, conscious experience; it is therefore not a metaphysics. It is a method without prescriptions of any kind, other than that the subject must be able to be interpreted as existent. Strangely enough, there are laws, limits emanating from this requirement. Such as, for example, that units fitting in any system may not be infinitesimal; because infinitesimals do not amount to systems like integers do.as I described above; they do not bring about interactive paradigms, thus no increase in dimensions, thus no fractals, no "chaos".
Chaos is the order that exists between orders.
An hermetic instance of VO logic stands amidst the chaos as a source and coordinator, a master signifier, in whose terms his surrounding may be coherently understood, but in whose terms another master-signifier may not necessarily be understood. One MS merely equals No MS to the same measure as the next MS. They do not compute with each other, therefore do not equal each other in terms that apply to either one of them.
This is, incidentally, why 1 is not a prime.
A prime must have 2 signifiers; "1" and themselves. In "1", the second signifier is only a formal derivative of the first. So between the lines of what is instantly explicit,
1 is not a mathematical object in the same way that the primes are.
Strange atractors are consequences of properties that are not instantly explicit, but become manifest only when a system takes on a certain degree of complexity.
The increase of complexity is never so great as when 1 is added to 1; from there on the complexity sometimes slowly increases, then suddenly quadratizes, perhaps becomes infinite for a while until it is reduced into a structure next; the only consistency there is in increase of complexity with increase in units, is consecutive 'beauties' of signifiers. 'beauty' is how we apprehend a truth, a Thing, which carries a chaotically unfolding range. In mathematics, the primes are the beauties and the range is the range of primes, which is undecipherable in other terms than in primes.