What do all things have in common?


Are sets, in an abstract sense, one of the most fundamental objects in contemporary mathematics?

Equivalence Relation

Yes and no.

The equivalence relation lies deeper within the knowledge representation and it’s foundation.

There are other knowledge prerequisites which lie even deeper within the knowledge substrate than the equivalence relation.

The concepts of a boundary, of quantity, membership, reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, and relation are some examples.


Limits of Category Theory and Semiotics

Category Theory 01

They are wonderful tools to explain much of our world, but lack ‘The Right Stuff’ to handle the metaphysical underpinnings of anything near a Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Language , or a Philosophy of Learning.

This is, because Category Theory specialises on roughly half of the Noosphere. It does a wonderful job on exteriority, but cannot sufficiently describe nor comprehensively access interiority.

Interiority Exteriority

Therefore, as is the case with Semiotics, has limited metaphysical value with respect to philosophy in general.

Semiotics 2


For example: philosophies of mind, language, or learning are not possible using only category theoretical tools and/or semiotics.

Here is an example of one attempt which fails in this regard: http://nickrossiter.org.uk/proce…

(and here: VisualizationFoundationsIEEE)

Here are two problems (of many) in the paper:

4.4.2 Knowledge is the Terminal Object of Visualisation states:

“The ultimate purpose of the visualisation process is to gain Knowledge of the original System. When this succeeds (when the diagram commutes) then the result is a ‘truth’ relationship between the Knowledge and the System. When this process breaks down and we fail to deduce correct conclusions then the diagram does not commute.”

I want to also comment on Figure 3 (which also exposes missing or false premises in the paper), but I will wait until I have discussed the assertions in the quote above which the authors of this paper reference, accept, and wish to justify/confirm.

1) The purpose of a representation is NOT to gain knowledge; rather, to express knowledge. Also, truth has nothing to do with knowledge except when that value is imposed upon it for some purpose. Truth value is a value that knowledge may or not ‘attend’ (participate in).

1a) The ‘truth value’ of the System (‘system’ is a false paradigm [later, perhaps] and a term that I also vehemently disagree with) does not always enter into the ‘dialogue’ between any knowledge that is represented and the observer interpreting that knowledge.

2) The interpretation of a representation is not to “deduce correct conclusions”; rather, to understand the meaning (semantics and epistemology) of what is represented. ‘Correct’ understanding is not exclusive to understanding nor is it necessary or sufficient for understanding a representation, because that understanding finds expression in the observer.

2a) ‘Correct’, as used in this paragraph, is coming from the outside (via the choice of which data [see Fig. 3] is represented to the observer) and may have no correspondence (hence may never ever commute) whatever to what that term means for the observer.

The authors are only talking about ontologies. That is a contrived and provincial look at the subject they are supposing to examine.

There may (and usually are) artefacts inherent in any collection and collation of data. The observer is forced to make ‘right’ (‘correct’) conclusions from that data which those who collected it have ‘seeded’ (tainted) with their own volition.

‘System’ (systematising) anything is Reductionism. This disqualifies the procedure at its outset.

They are proving essentially that manipulation leads to a ‘correct’ (their chosen version) representation of a ‘truth’ value.

I could tie my shoelaces into some kind of knot and think it were a ‘correct’ way to do so if the arrows indicate this. This is why paying too much attention to a navigation system can have one finding themselves at the bottom of a river!

The paper contains assumptions that are overlooked and terms that are never adequately defined! How can you name variables without defining their meaning? They then serve no purpose and must be removed from domain of discourse.

Categorical structures are highly portable, but they can describe/express only part of what is there. There are structure, dynamics, and resonance that ontology and functionalism completely turns a blind eye to.

The qualities of Truth, Goodness, Beauty, Clarity,… (even Falsehood, Badness, Ugliness, Obscurity,…) can be defined and identified within a knowledge representation if the representation is not restricted to ontology alone.

In order to express these qualities in semiotics and category theory, they must first be ontologised funtionally (reduced). Trying to grasp them with tools restricted to semiotics and category theory is like grasping into thin air.

That is actually the point I’m trying to make. Category Theory, and even Semiotics, each have their utility, but they are no match for the challenge of a complete representation of knowledge.

Universal Constants, Variations, and Identities #19 (Inverse Awareness)

Inverse Square
Universal Constants, Variations, and Identities
#19 The Inverse Awareness Relation

The Inverse Awareness Relation establishes a fundamental relationship in our universe:

Micro Awareness = \dfrac{1}{scope}


Macro Awareness = \dfrac{1}{depth}

\dfrac {Micro Awareness}{Macro Awareness} = \dfrac{depth}{scope}

Which essentially state:

The closer awareness is in some way to an entity, the more depth and the less scope it discerns.

The farther awareness is in some way to an entity, the more scope and the less depth it discerns.

(Be careful, this idea of closeness is not the same as distance.)

Is Real World Knowledge More Valuable Than Fictional Knowledge?



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 taught that 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

Does Knowledge Become More Accurate Over Time?

Change lies deeper in the knowledge substrate than time.

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.

Is Mathematics Or Philosophy More Fundamental?


Is Mathematics Or Philosophy More Fundamental?

Answer: Philosophy is more fundamental than mathematics.

This is changing, but mathematics is incapable at this time of comprehensively describing epistemology, whereas, philosophy can.

Hence; mathematics is restrained to pure ontology. It does not reach far enough into the universe to distinguish anything other than ontologies. This will change soon. I am working on exactly this problem. See http://mathematica-universalis.com for more information on my work. (I’m not selling anything on this site.)

Also, mathematics cannot be done without expressing some kind of philosophy to underlie any axioms which it needs to function.


Implication is a ‘given’ in mathematics. It assumes a relation which we call implication. Mathematics certainly ‘consumes’ them as a means to create inferences, but the inference form, the antecedent, and the consequent are implicit axioms based upon an underlying metaphysics.

Ergo: philosophy is more general and universal than mathematics.

Often epistemology is considered separate from metaphysics, but that is incorrect, because you cannot answer questions as to ‘How do we know?” without an underlying metaphysical framework within which such a question and answer can be considered.

Universal Constants, Variations, and Identities #18 (Dimension)

Universal Constants, Variations, and Identities (Dimension)
#18 Dimension is a spectrum or domain of awareness: they essentially build an additional point of view or perspective.

We live in a universe of potentially infinite dimension. Also, there are more spatial dimensions than three and more temporal dimensions than time (the only one science seems to recognize). Yes, I’m aware of what temporal means; Temporal is a derived attribute of a much more fundamental concept: Change. One important caveat: please bear in mind that my little essay here is not a complete one. The complete version will come when I publish my work.

The idea of dimension is not at all well understood. The fact is, science doesn’t really know what dimension is; rather, only how they may be used! Science and technology ‘consume’ their utility without understanding their richness. Otherwise they would have clarified them for us by now.

Those who may have clarified what they are get ignored and/or ridiculed, because understanding them requires a larger mental ‘vocabulary’ than Physicalism, Reductionism, and Ontology can provide.

Our present science and technology is so entrenched in dogma, collectivism, and special interest, that they no longer function as they once did. The globalist parasites running our science and technology try their best to keep us ‘on the farm’ by restricting dimension, like everything else, to the purely physical. It’s all they can imagine.

That’s why many of us feel an irritation without being able to place our finger on it when we get introduced to dimension. We seem to ‘know’ that something just doesn’t ‘rhyme’ with their version.

Time and space may be assigned dimensionality, in a purely physical sense if necessary, but there are always underlying entities much deeper in meaning involved that are overlooked and/or remain unknown which provide those properties with their meaning. This is why the more sensitive among us sense something is wrong or that something’s missing.

Let us temporarily divorce ourselves from the standard ‘spatial’ and ‘temporal’ kinds of ‚dimension’ for a time and observe dimension in its essence.

Definitions are made from them: in fact, dimensions function for definitions just as organs do for the body. In turn, dimension has its own set of ‘organs’ as well! I will talk about those ‘organs’ below.

Dimension may appear different to us depending upon our own state of mind, level of development, kind of reasoning we choose, orientation we prefer, expectations we may have,… but down deep…

Everything, even attributes of all kinds, involve dimension. We must also not forget partial dimension such as fractals over complex domains and other metaphysical entities like mind and awareness which may or may not occupy dimension. Qualia (water is ‘wet’, angry feels like ‘this’, the burden is ‘heavy’) are also dimensional.

Dimensions are ‘compasses’ for navigating conceptual landscapes. We already think in multiple dimension without even being aware of it! Here’s is an example of how that is:
[BTW: This is simply an example to show how dimension can be ‘stacked’ or accrued. The items below were chosen arbitrarily and could be replaced by any other aspects.]

♦ Imagine a point in space (we are already at 3d [x,y,z]) – actually at this level there are even more dimensions involved, but I will keep this simple for now.
♦ it moves in space and occupies a specific place in time (now 4d) 3d + 1 time dimension
♦ say it changes colour at any particular time or place (5d)
♦ let it now grow and shrink in diameter (6d)
♦ if it accelerates or slows its movement (7d)
♦ if it is rotating (8d)
♦ if it is broadcasting a frequency (9d)
♦ what if it is aware of other objects or not (10d)
♦ say it is actively seeking contact (connection) with other objects around it (11d)
♦ … (the list may go on and on)

As you can see above, dimensions function like aspects to any object of thought.

Dimensionality becomes much clearer when we free ourselves from the yoke of all that Physicalism, Reductionism, and Ontology.

Let’s now look at some of their ‘organs’ as mentioned above as well as other properties they have in common:

  • They precede all entities except awareness.
  • Awareness congeals into them.
  • They form a first distinction.
  • They have extent.
  • They are integrally distributed.
  • They have an axial component.
  • They spin.
  • They vibrate.
  • They oscillate.
  • They resonate.
  • They may appear as scalar fields.
  • Their references form fibrations.
  • They are ‘aware’ of self/other.
  • Their structural/dynamic/harmonic signature is unique.
  • They provide reference which awareness uses to create perspective meaning.
  • Holons are built from them.


Sacred Geometry 29 by Endre @ RedBubble: