A Foundation For Natural Science

[Legion]

We will attempt here to briefly entertain the following things in an effort to express a way of knowing (an epistemology) which will give us a foundation for natural science. This way of knowing posits that a relation between language and causality may be established. This relation is the essence of an explicit understanding. The following exposition is intended to reveal the modeling relation.

 

a first basic dualism

a second basic dualism

language (natural and formal)

entailment in formal systems

entailment in the ambience

the modeling relation

 

Science is built on the use of discernment which gives rise to dualities. A certainty that each of us can know is that we exist. Descartes pushed skepticism to the extreme and said, "cogito ergo sum"; I think thus I am. He was saying that he could not doubt the fact that he was doubting, therefore he must exist in order to do the doubting. (I prefer to say, "cogitumus ergo sumus"; we think thus we are.) And each of us can know this with certainty though it is known subjectively. Alright, so... we exist. What else is there? Whatever it happens to be, we will here call it... ambience. We attribute perceptible phenomena to it. It is the world of objective reality. This is the made distinction between ambience and self. This is the first discernment we make here and a great deal more could be said about it.

 

Next, we turn our attention to the ambience which we have just discerned. Here we can attribute various perceptions as belonging together. This is very vague, and intentionally so. Because we will here call these bundles of percepts... natural systems. Systems are differentiated from environments. This is a discernment between natural system and environment.

 

We return our attention to the self and we can recognize that language is an important aspect of our selves. And it seems natural language is quite a mystery for the philosophers still argue over it. In any case, we can see that language has a syntactical aspect and semantic aspect. It has internal 'workings' and external referents. Natural language can be seen to have sublanguages which are governed by syntactical qualities alone. These are called formal systems. All of the established and growing branches of mathematics are a study of formal systems.

 

Whew! You still with me!? You freak!

 

Alright, we could elaborate greatly on all this. But we're striving for brevity. We must consider entailment in formal systems (though it may make your eyes glaze over), because entailment is key. Entailment here is implication within the language. It is a relation between propositions P and Q such that P implies Q, or P entails Q. Formal languages are axiomatic systems which give rise to propositions. If a proposition P obtains in the language then we may inquire as to what implied or entailed it by asking "why does this proposition obtain?" We will see that there are generally three answers to this question in many formal systems: 1 ) because of the particular axioms, 2 ) because of the production rules associated with it (the rules of inference), 3 ) because of the particular application of these rules (e.g. a proof). These parallel to, or are analogous to, three of Aristotle's causes: material cause, efficient cause, and formal cause. Some formal systems will support a parallel to the fourth category of final cause.

 

Alright we now return our attention to the ambience. We do so to see if entailment resides here. The commited skeptic may point out that we cannot know this. He may point out that all we directly percieve is ourselves along with sensations which we attribute as coming from 'outside' (i.e. the ambience). However, most of us are willing to accept that phenomena can and do entail other phenomena. And if this was not the case then science would be impossible even in principle. The natural world would be beyond any comprehension. Natural entailment is bound up with our notions of causality.

 

The following links are highly recommended for those who desire further illucidation here.

 

This is a showy Western demonstration on Aristotle's causes and natural entailment.... http://www.ex-christ...ral-entailment/

 

This is a more poetic Eastern version by Thich Nhat Hanh on pratitya-samutpada... http://www.ex-christ...tityasamutpada/

 

Okay, we will now move rapidly towards the modeling relation. This is a relation which may exist between a natural system on the one hand and a formal system on the other. These two different kinds of systems are brought together through measurement and prediction, or more generally through encoding and decoding respectively. Measurement transduces (or encodes) the phenomena associated with natural systems into propositions in formal systems. Prediction transduces (or decodes) propositions in a formal system to phenomena in a natural system. If, or when, measurement, inference, and prediction concur with causality then the modeling relation obtains. We then have a basis to claim possession of an explicit understanding of the natural system.

 

I should mention in passing that there are relations between modeling, analogy, and metaphor. This has been an extremely condensed attempt at exposition. If there are any questions, I will do my best to field them, though I am still trying to understand all of this better myself.

[VacuumFlux]

I think that's a pretty good summary, and reflects the way I've tended to think about it (though much more carefully thought out than I normally bother with).

 

The only question I've been having lately is on the dualism between self and... ambiance, I guess. I tend to think of myself as a little self-contained bubble bouncing around in the world and choosing how I interact with said world. But... the world around me has a lot of effects on me that I have no control over, and many of my interactions with it I do not consciously choose. So is there really that much of a distinction between self and ambiance, or is that just a convenient place to start and the reality is more complicated than that? (This matters to me on a practical level, not just philosophical, because I often fail to recognise the full magnitude of the effects the outside world has on me until I get really stressed and burnt out. I think that may be because I'm drawing too sharp of a line between me and not-me to feel like I have more control than I really do over what external things affect my mental states.)

 

Or maybe I've got the wrong idea about what dualism means. Maybe I need more of a yin/yang concept of it, instead of two separate boxes.

[Legion]

I think that's a pretty good summary, and reflects the way I've tended to think about it (though much more carefully thought out than I normally bother with).

 

I think most practicing scientists are impatient with philosophy VacuumFlux. They believe that most of this was settled long ago. I owe much of my thinking on this subject to the biologist Robert Rosen, and if anyone looks into his book Life Itself, they will see that I borrowed heavily from it. He was forced through necessity to re-examine the basement of natural science.

 

The only question I've been having lately is on the dualism between self and... ambiance, I guess. I tend to think of myself as a little self-contained bubble bouncing around in the world and choosing how I interact with said world. But... the world around me has a lot of effects on me that I have no control over, and many of my interactions with it I do not consciously choose. So is there really that much of a distinction between self and ambiance, or is that just a convenient place to start and the reality is more complicated than that?

 

Yes. I think it is both. On the one hand, I believe there is a great distinction between self and ambience, because there need not be any correlation between our subjective experience (e.g. our thoughts, emotions, imaginings) and objective reality. Simultaneously however, I also believe self and ambience are intimately connected. In addition the subjective/objective boundary can be pushed arbitrarily deep within the body. Many are capable of observing their own inner workings as if they were part of the ambience. So this duality is not as simple and clearcut as some might imagine, and I think you are wise to question it.

[Ouroboros]

We return our attention to the self and we can recognize that language is an important aspect of our selves. And it seems natural language is quite a mystery for the philosophers still argue over it. In any case, we can see that language has a syntactical aspect and semantic aspect. It has internal 'workings' and external referents. Natural language can be seen to have sublanguages which are governed by syntactical qualities alone. These are called formal systems. All of the established and growing branches of mathematics are a study of formal systems.

 

Whew! You still with me!? You freak!

I'm still with you.

 

Anyway, before I read the rest, I'd like to add something considered in computer science. The difference between data and information. It's a bit like the difference between semantics and meaning. Data is just numbers, letters, symbols, etc. All in whatever order, random, chaos, etc. But information is when data has meaning. If data follows certain formats and rules and can be used in some way or the other consistently, then it's information. (My loose definition here, but I think you get the gist.)

[Ouroboros]

Alright, we could elaborate greatly on all this. But we're striving for brevity. We must consider entailment in formal systems (though it may make your eyes glaze over), because entailment is key. Entailment here is implication within the language. It is a relation between propositions P and Q such that P implies Q, or P entails Q. Formal languages are axiomatic systems which give rise to propositions. If a proposition P obtains in the language then we may inquire as to what implied or entailed it by asking "why does this proposition obtain?" We will see that there are generally three answers to this question in many formal systems: 1 ) because of the particular axioms, 2 ) because of the production rules associated with it (the rules of inference), 3 ) because of the particular application of these rules (e.g. a proof). These parallel to, or are analogous to, three of Aristotle's causes: material cause, efficient cause, and formal cause. Some formal systems will support a parallel to the fourth category of final cause.

I think "cause" sometimes is misunderstood as only being "one cause". Swarm behavior, I'd say, is when there are multiple material, efficient, and formal causes simultaneous. And from the swarm emerges a pattern that is "metaphysical" to each cause individually.

 

This is a more poetic Eastern version by Thich Nhat Hanh on pratitya-samutpada... http://www.ex-christ...tityasamutpada/

I liked it when you posted it, and I still like it.

 

Several years ago, when I was driving home from work. I was on the toll road and was contemplating about cause and effect for that exact moment of time. The reason I was on the road. How I was driving. Why I responded to environmental inputs and situations. I realized that my consciousness is the sum of all those things around me, not just "me" internally. "I" could not exist without the ambience (as you call it).

 

Okay, we will now move rapidly towards the modeling relation. This is a relation which may exist between a natural system on the one hand and a formal system on the other. These two different kinds of systems are brought together through measurement and prediction, or more generally through encoding and decoding respectively. Measurement transduces (or encodes) the phenomena associated with natural systems into propositions in formal systems. Prediction transduces (or decodes) propositions in a formal system to phenomena in a natural system. If, or when, measurement, inference, and prediction concur with causality then the modeling relation obtains. We then have a basis to claim possession of an explicit understanding of the natural system.

Agree.

 

I should mention in passing that there are relations between modeling, analogy, and metaphor. This has been an extremely condensed attempt at exposition. If there are any questions, I will do my best to field them, though I am still trying to understand all of this better myself.

I think when it comes to analogy and metaphor, that's where myth also comes in and religious language (or poetry, music, art). It describes a certain aspect of reality or our world in a form. Like the old folk tales that had monsters and mythical creatures in them, but the purpose was to explain mores and values held by the tribe/group.

[Legion]

Whew! You still with me!? You freak!

I'm still with you.

 

That's only because you're a freak.

 

Anyway, before I read the rest, I'd like to add something considered in computer science. The difference between data and information. It's a bit like the difference between semantics and meaning. Data is just numbers, letters, symbols, etc. All in whatever order, random, chaos, etc. But information is when data has meaning. If data follows certain formats and rules and can be used in some way or the other consistently, then it's information. (My loose definition here, but I think you get the gist.)

 

That's an interesting addition Hans. I've heard several different proposed definitions of information. I've even heard it suggested that information is any answer to a question.

 

This makes me think of a discussion I was recently having with someone about meaning. I was expressing to them that I thought meaning is found in relations and that the definitions of things are often less useful to us than seeing how and why things are related to each other.

 

It seems to have some similarity with your distinction between data and information.

[Ouroboros]

That's only because you're a freak.

Sad, but true.

 

This makes me think of a discussion I was recently having with someone about meaning. I was expressing to them that I thought meaning is found in relations and that the definitions of things are often less useful to us than seeing how and why things are related to each other.

That's very true. There's a reason why dictionaries put in examples of how to use the words. It's easier to understand it in context.

[Legion]

I think "cause" sometimes is misunderstood as only being "one cause". Swarm behavior, I'd say, is when there are multiple material, efficient, and formal causes simultaneous. And from the swarm emerges a pattern that is "metaphysical" to each cause individually.

 

Yeah, the thing I try to bear in mind more frequently these days is that when we ask, "Why?" about things there is usually not just one answer, but a collection of answers. And if I focus on one of them to the exclusion of the others then I'm only getting part of the picture.

 

I liked it when you posted it, and I still like it.

 

Several years ago, when I was driving home from work. I was on the toll road and was contemplating about cause and effect for that exact moment of time. The reason I was on the road. How I was driving. Why I responded to environmental inputs and situations. I realized that my consciousness is the sum of all those things around me, not just "me" internally. "I" could not exist without the ambience (as you call it).

 

I'm glad to hear that you liked that post. It sounds as if your experience that day was an enlightened moment Hans, a moment of clarity.

 

I think when it comes to analogy and metaphor, that's where myth also comes in and religious language (or poetry, music, art). It describes a certain aspect of reality or our world in a form. Like the old folk tales that had monsters and mythical creatures in them, but the purpose was to explain mores and values held by the tribe/group.

 

Oh sure! I think there are deep, shallow, and even meaningless analogies. And I think there are good and bad metaphors. I think metaphors are particularly tricky, because I think we often don't recognize a metaphor as being a metaphor.

[VacuumFlux]

This makes me think of a discussion I was recently having with someone about meaning. I was expressing to them that I thought meaning is found in relations and that the definitions of things are often less useful to us than seeing how and why things are related to each other.

 

I don't think science can define anything in isolation. Equations are statements of relationships. Even a property of an object like weight/mass/inertia can only be measured by how that object interacts with something else. A wave packet is a description of the potential of the results of that wave interacting with another wave. No one talks about a single point mass in a perfect vacuum; if there's nothing for it to interact with, there's nothing to talk about.

 

I think that's a pretty good summary, and reflects the way I've tended to think about it (though much more carefully thought out than I normally bother with).

 

I think most practicing scientists are impatient with philosophy VacuumFlux. They believe that most of this was settled long ago. I owe much of my thinking on this subject to the biologist Robert Rosen, and if anyone looks into his book Life Itself, they will see that I borrowed heavily from it. He was forced through necessity to re-examine the basement of natural science.

 

I was thinking back on my undergrad physics education trying to remember how much philosophy was addressed in class. I don't think we talked about it much at all until relativity, and even there the discussion was along the lines of "no, this is not intuitive, but we've got experiments and even reliable technology that uses it, so the universe is just weird". In quantum, there was a bit more philosophy and philosophical history (at least in the text book), but I think the end result was "well, we know there's no hidden variables, so the universe really is this weird. *shrugs* No one really understands." We did have one professor whose undergrad degree was in philosophy and would gladly talk about all sort of topics with anyone who stopped by for office hours, but we didn't talk much about philosophy in class. I currently work with experimentalists, and I'd guess that if they think there are unsettled philosophical questions, then that's the theorists' problem.

[Legion]

I currently work with experimentalists, and I'd guess that if they think there are unsettled philosophical questions, then that's the theorists' problem.

 

Yes, that sounds indicative. Rosen, a theorist himself, spoke of this. I will here quote him. He is writing here within the context of the antipathies between the sciences and the humanities and between 'hard' and 'soft' science.

 

"I have, much against my will, been immersed my whole life in one of these dualities, namely, the antagonism between 'theory' and 'experiment'." - Robert Rosen, Life Itself

 

On numerous occasions he also said, "Measurement is an abstraction."

 

It seems to me that he must be correct. A process which takes some phenomenon, in all it's unknown richness, and creates a number or some other representation must be a process of abstraction.

 

Come to think of it, his contribution to science, relational biology, rests on a method of encoding (measuring) organized natural systems.

[VacuumFlux]

I currently work with experimentalists, and I'd guess that if they think there are unsettled philosophical questions, then that's the theorists' problem.

 

Yes, that sounds indicative. Rosen, a theorist himself, spoke of this. I will here quote him. He is writing here within the context of the antipathies between the sciences and the humanities and between 'hard' and 'soft' science.

 

"I have, much against my will, been immersed my whole life in one of these dualities, namely, the antagonism between 'theory' and 'experiment'." - Robert Rosen, Life Itself

 

I really ought to go talk to a theorist some time, or at least read stuff by them online, to get their perspective on this divide. I think in some sense it is necessary, particularly in larger projects. From high energy physics (for those who don't know, think colliders like the LHC at CERN) I get the impression that theorists spend all day in front of a computer or with pencil and paper (but Mathematica does a lot of the fancy math) brainstorming, then coming up with complex possibilities about how the world might work, and writing papers discussing models that may or may not correspond to anything in the real world. The experimentalists are a little more practical, and work with the theorists (ideally) to design ways to test whether or not the models match reality. Then the experimentalists work with technicians (who are often looked down on as mere technicians, which is quite rude but unfortunately common) to design hardware that actually works and runs reliably. Then the technicians build the machinery and keep it running. The experimentalists (well, mostly their grad students and post-docs) analyze the data to figure out what it tells us. Then the experimentalists show the theorists which models they've just falsified, and the theorists focus their next efforts on models that conform to known data.

 

The point of that last paragraph was mostly to point out the very necessary role of the technicians. It is wrong of the experimentalists to look down on the technicians for not being real scientists, particularly when the whole project would fail if we didn't have them. Does that mean it is wrong to roll my eyes at the experimentalists for not paying enough attention to the philosophy behind what they're doing, when that is not their role in the system? It's still a good thing to encourage people to be curious and well rounded, but I don't know that the more abstract thoughts are actually necessary for an experimentalist to be good at their job.

[Voice]

Legion, i'd like to talk with you about similarities between language and mathematics. Your fervor may burn me out quickly so we may have to make several short conversations.

 

Concerning ambiance, thought and presence, both "I" and "We", there is a unifying (shall we say) core (not necessarily localized as we might think of the core of a sun). My doubting, our doubting, all happens with a shared moment. Moment, awareness, consciousness, sentience all are one. As a civilian scientist, a freak who stayed with your post, and someone who speculates natures of spirit, I also fathom insight through the crux of moment. Let's talk about this as well. Apply your thoughts to definitions of moment.

 

Just curious, what is your degree (degrees?) in? From where? I assume you completed a college program.

[Legion]

.

Legion, i'd like to talk with you about similarities between language and mathematics.

 

Okay Voice. It seems to me that math IS language, albeit specialized.

 

Your fervor may burn me out quickly so we may have to make several short conversations.

 

My fervor? I'm not quite sure how to take that. I don't want to burn people out.

 

Apply your thoughts to definitions of moment.

 

It seems that you're asking about time. I don't understand time. I've heard it suggested that time itself is complex. And as I try to understand various natural paradoxes, I can't escape the feeling that my concept of time is somehow skewed or incomplete. It seems that if I restrict myself to a concept of linear time then some things cannot be understood.

 

Just curious, what is your degree (degrees?) in? From where? I assume you completed a college program.

 

I was majoring in math. But for a variety of reasons I never completed my degree. I'm mostly an autodidact. If I were to return to school then I'd probably go into sociology with an aim to bring relational ideas to bear and utilize a branch of math called category theory to model societies.

[Ouroboros]

If I were to return to school then I'd probably go into sociology

You should. I think you'd like it.

 

with an aim to bring relational ideas to bear and utilize a branch of math called category theory to model societies.

I took a very brief and cursory look at category theory, and I got the impression that it's similar (or the same?) to graph theory in computer science. I'm no expert in neither topic, but I have a better conceptual or intuitive understanding of graphs. (And no, graphs in computer science is not the same as charts, but this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory)

[Legion]

If I were to return to school then I'd probably go into sociology

You should. I think you'd like it.

 

"Should" is an ugly word Hans. But I think you're right.

 

I took a very brief and cursory look at category theory, and I got the impression that it's similar (or the same?) to graph theory in computer science. I'm no expert in neither topic, but I have a better conceptual or intuitive understanding of graphs. (And no, graphs in computer science is not the same as charts, but this: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Graph_theory)

 

Oh sure, there's a relation between the two, but category theory is much more general and powerful. I won't lie to you. I categories. I wish I could find someone to study it with me. (cough, cough, hint, hint, nudge, nudge, no pressure )

[Ouroboros]

I wish I could find someone to study it with me. (cough, cough, hint, hint, nudge, nudge, no pressure )

I just don't know where to start. Are there any videos? I like videos.

[Legion]

I wish I could find someone to study it with me. (cough, cough, hint, hint, nudge, nudge, no pressure )

I just don't know where to start. Are there any videos? I like videos.

 

Hmm... I don't know. I guess I could look. The thing is, categories are among the newest branches of math and I don't believe the full import of them has been realized yet. I have an introductory text entitled "Conceptual Mathematics" by Lawvere and Schanuel which I've been piddling around with for a bit. However, I am reluctant to dive into it full bore by myself, because categories are so rich that I just know another person's perspective would enhance my own and vice versa.

[Ouroboros]

Hmm... I don't know. I guess I could look. The thing is, categories are among the newest branches of math and I don't believe the full import of them has been realized yet. I have an introductory text entitled "Conceptual Mathematics" by Lawvere and Schanuel which I've been piddling around with for a bit. However, I am reluctant to dive into it full bore by myself, because categories are so rich that I just know another person's perspective would enhance my own and vice versa.

I see. I did try to find anything good on Amazon (preferably Kindle... I have too many books to count and there's no room left), but just like most extensive text books, they're quite expensive. I skimmed the Wiki article about it. Perhaps it's good enough to read as a start?

[Legion]

I skimmed the Wiki article about it. Perhaps it's good enough to read as a start?

 

It looks kind of intimidating to me.

 

It might be a good place to sort of feel around, but Conceptual Mathematics (CM) is the probably the best introductory text out there. It seems to me that the key in learning a new math is to do lots of excercises. And CM has lots of them. Yes, it is expensive. And comprehending it will require an investment of time. HOWEVER, I hear tale that many advanced computer programmers utilize categories. I even saw this one guy say that he hopes his peers do not discover it because it gives him an advantage over them.

[Ouroboros]

I skimmed the Wiki article about it. Perhaps it's good enough to read as a start?

 

It looks kind of intimidating to me.

Oh, you too! Phew. Now I'm not feeling so bad. Lol!

 

It might be a good place to sort of feel around, but Conceptual Mathematics (CM) is the probably the best introductory text out there. It seems to me that the key in learning a new math is to do lots of excercises. And CM has lots of them. Yes, it is expensive. And comprehending it will require an investment of time. HOWEVER, I hear tale that many advanced computer programmers utilize categories. I even saw this one guy say that he hopes his peers do not discover it because it gives him an advantage over them.

Huh. Well, since it's related to graphs, I can totally see the advantage. One of my sons took an introductory class in graph theory, and it can be used in games, economics, and many other areas.

[Legion]

It looks kind of intimidating to me.

Oh, you too! Phew. Now I'm not feeling so bad. Lol!

 

I'm not smart Hans. I'm patient and persistent.

 

Huh. Well, since it's related to graphs, I can totally see the advantage. One of my sons took an introductory class in graph theory, and it can be used in games, economics, and many other areas.

 

I'm fairly certain it's related to all of the maths. It has a generality and foundational nature on par with set theory. It's a math of process and relation. It is also infinitely hierarchical and capable of expressing paradox.

[Ouroboros]

I'm fairly certain it's related to all of the maths. It has a generality and foundational nature on par with set theory. It's a math of process and relation. It is also infinitely hierarchical and capable of expressing paradox.

Oh. Cool.

[Voice]

.

Legion, i'd like to talk with you about similarities between language and mathematics.

 

Okay Voice. It seems to me that math IS language, albeit specialized.

 

Your fervor may burn me out quickly so we may have to make several short conversations.

 

My fervor? I'm not quite sure how to take that. I don't want to burn people out.

 

lol...

Let me give you an example. Recently someone hooked me up with THE guy to talk to about metal bands in my area. A rare person. I called him. He told me what his band sounded like by giving me a youtube video. It was crazy wild speed metal. He is the singer. Well, that's how he talked too. In 10 minutes on the phone i was maxed out. Couldn't talk any more. He invited me to see his studios and i still haven't called because i would have to be with him for an hour and a half. Honestly i don't know how i could do that.

Fervor. Excitement at speed.

 

Apply your thoughts to definitions of moment.

 

It seems that you're asking about time. I don't understand time. I've heard it suggested that time itself is complex. And as I try to understand various natural paradoxes, I can't escape the feeling that my concept of time is somehow skewed or incomplete. It seems that if I restrict myself to a concept of linear time then some things cannot be understood.

 

Not time. That's the thing.

Here's something: This past winter i attended a lecture by a Dr. James Anderson, UK. He had for us a revolutionary definition which changes what we can do with mathematics. He came to it when he was plotting area coordinates within the limits of light as it passed through a lense and then came out the other side. His equations approached a limit of division by 0. Since it was mathematically "illegal" (my term for it) to divide by zero, he was unable to complete the plot needed to finish quantifying the phenomenon. He saw that to divide by zero, a move considered to be undefined, would be to reach infinity, absolute infinity. He wrote a simple definition of division by zero. n/0 = ∞.

8 years ago i was obsessed with formulating a field unification model. More than just a mathematical one, a universal one to include all things. It all came down to division by zero. I was blocked. One day in calculus class, listening to a professor drone in monotone, we worked mathematical gymnastics approaching divisions by zero.

"what would happen," i asked, "if you were to say for practical purposes that we just divide by zero?"

"Well, it could be anything" he said.

Key, that was it. So i went ahead and crunched into divisions by zero and established working models.

I left that Dr. Anderson's lecture a changed man. It gave me goosebumps. I was raving for a week, calling friends, telling everyone. I'm still telling friends.

 

I don't know why Einstein didn't do this. He must have forgotten to tie his shoe so to say. He needed this definition. His equations describing event horizons all went to limits approaching division by zero. What he could have done with this...

 

Consider moment.

It's not time. It has nothing to do with time. It's a crux of all things, mathematically, another division by zero.

Time is a construct defined any way we want, as you want. It doesn't matter. Most models will suggest It points to moment, but as far as time is concerned, leaves moment undefined.

What is moment? Again, apply your thoughts do definitions of moment.

 

 

 

Just curious, what is your degree (degrees?) in? From where? I assume you completed a college program.

 

I was majoring in math. But for a variety of reasons I never completed my degree. I'm mostly an autodidact. If I were to return to school then I'd probably go into sociology with an aim to bring relational ideas to bear and utilize a branch of math called category theory to model societies.

 

I wondered if you might say this.

The science you're speaking of is moving into studies of social networks.

[Voice]

We will attempt here to briefly entertain the following things in an effort to express a way of knowing (an epistemology) which will give us a foundation for natural science. This way of knowing posits that a relation between language and causality may be established. This relation is the essence of an explicit understanding. The following exposition is intended to reveal the modeling relation.

 

a first basic dualism

a second basic dualism

language (natural and formal)

entailment in formal systems

entailment in the ambience

the modeling relation

 

Science is built on the use of discernment which gives rise to dualities.

 

Bringing the thread back to topic, I'm uncertain as to the role you assign duality.

[Legion]

Oh Voice! I got distracted. Let me read these and compose what thoughts I may have. duh