Dear 'real.democracy',

Here's a try at such a translation --


I sympathize with your difficulty with this material.

I wish I was a better expositor of it, but I can only hope that my skills in
communicating this material will grow with time, and with practice, because I
think this material is very important.

This material is important, I think, because it "models" -- in the sense of
"exemplifies" -- dialectical thinking, potentially rendering dialectical
thinking more "teach-able".

And, unless the skill of dialectical thinking spreads rapidly throughout
humanity soon, I think that we will lack the capability to make the
revolutionary transition out of capitalism, before capitalism [which = we
ourselves acting as capital] kills us.

One of the recent posts for the F.E.D. source of this material, located at --

http://www.adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/MetaMonadology/\
MetaMonadology-entry.htm

-- reads as follows --

"What this text addresses, in toto, is the '''psycho-historical''', cognitive
revolution that F.E.D. is offering. It's deeper title, then, should be:

Announcing a Cognitive Revolution, Necessary Precursor to Humankind's
Self-Liberatory Self-Transformation Beyond the Capital-Relation as Predominant
Social Relation of Re-Production of Modern Society

As I state at the outset of Part II of this text:

"I believe that experience with compact, explicit dialectical models; with
the 'algorithmic dialectics' and the 'dialectical algorithmics' of, e.g., the
N\Q categorial ideography, can help to catalyze, in the 'experiencer', a
cognitive revolution. It can help to catapult that experiencer [deeper] into
'''the dialectical operations stage of adult human cognitive development'''.
That, at least, has been my experience.

I also hold that such a revolution in cognition, diffusing in widening
waves, rippling throughout the global populace, is prerequisite to a successful,
liberatory transition to the higher polity — to the political-economic democracy
— of 'democratic-communist' society".

I.e., to the 'externality-equities based economic democracy that F.E.D.
advocates [for more on this, see http://www.equitism.org].".


I ditto that assessment.

This material has had an enormous impact on my thinking, and on my very being.
It has catapulted me into awareness, and possible solution, of some of the
deepest mysteries about our species -- about our past, and about our implicated
future.

Now, I understand the vital difference between what the ancient Greeks meant by
<<arithmos>>, which, we today, translate simply as "number", and the
vastly-reduced meaning that we, today, under the alienating psycho-historical
influence of our praxis of "[the law of ]value", mean by "number".

I understand much of what Plato must have meant by his <<arithmoi Eide-tikoi>>,
his "assemblages of <<Eide>>/<<Ideas>>", the core of the Platonic dialectic, and
why they were <<a-sum-bletoi>> -- "un-add-able" --, and why so different from
his <<arithmoi monad-ikoi>>, much like our "Natural Numbers", 1, 2, 3, ..., and
from the <<arithmoi aisthetoi>>, the assemblages of sensuous object[-unit]s.

I understand much of why, at the heart, even, of formal mathematical logic --
much to the chagrin of the capitalist anti-dialectical logicians -- you can't
define the basic postulates for the Natural Numbers, as "UNQUALIFIED ONTOLOGICAL
QUANTIFIERS" without those postulates inescapably also applying to an exact
opposite system of arithmetic, that of the "UNQUANTIFIABLE ONTOLOGICAL
QUALIFIERS" that encode a dialectical logic, a PURELY QUALITATIVE system of
'''numbers''', or "ordinalities", within which quantity has no meaning, in the
sense that it is not expressible.

I also understand much of why Boolean Algebra, and its undergirding "Boolean
Arithmetic", which also model formal logic, have THIS SAME arithmetic of
UNQUANTIFIABLE ONTOLOGICAL QUALIFIERS, as their intra-dual, created by
profoundly negating the postulate of Boolean Algebra which Boole named "The
Fundamental Law of Thought", but which is, in fact, only "The Fundamental
Limitation of UN-Dialectical Thought".

Like any arithmetic, this dialectical arithmetic is, in a way, very simple.

If we use the signs "X ---> Y" to stand for "X becomes Y", then this arithmetic
models essentially the following "self-reflexive" ["squared"] process --

first thesis ---> first thesis squared =

first thesis + first anti-thesis --->

[first thesis + first anti-thesis] squared =

first thesis + first anti-thesis + first syn-thesis

+ second anti-thesis ---> . . ..


Thus, for the example that we have already been discussing, the above pattern
particularizes to --

Quantifier Arithmetic ---> Quantifier Arithmetic squared =

Quantifier Arithmetic + Qualifier Arithmetic --->

[Quantifer Arithmetic + Qualifier Arithmetic] squared =

[Ontological] Quantifer Arithmetic +

[Ontological] Qualifier Arithmetic +

[Ontological] Qualo-Quantifier Arithmetic

+ Metrical Qualifier Arithmetic. . . .


And, I now understand how to see the whole, self-constructing <<kosmos>> hidden
in the brief, 14-symbol, self-reflexive formula --

C(t) = <q|n>^2(^t)

-- wherein q|n stands for the earliest <<arithmos>>, or cosmological
"population", of pre-atomic / pre-sub-atomic <<monads>>, or "units", or
"[onto-]logical individuals" that has been identified by physics, plus anything
else unknown to present science -- the earliest-known [sentential]
"SUBJECT-ivities", or AGENTS-of-action, and also the earliest-known [sentential]
"OBJECT-ivities", or recipients-of[[THEIR- OWN]-action.


I also remember that there was a time when the "Hindu-Arabic numerals" -- our
"simple" 0, 1, 2, 3, . . . -- were a mystery to most of humankind.

Today, we spout them off with seeming effortlessness, and even those who can't
read can count with them. ...

Regards,

Miguel


--- In real-democracy@yahoogroups.com, "real.democracy" <real.democracy@...>
wrote:
>
> You know, we don't have many members in this group, so it probably doesn't
matter too much, but if you really are interested in democracy, then your
arguments have to be "available" to the common man, and this is clearly not.
Can you translate this "in layman's terms"?
>
> --- In real-democracy@yahoogroups.com, "detonacciones" <detonacciones@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Real Democracy Group Members,
> >
> >
> >
> > Part IV. A New Model of the Universe / of the History of Nature.
> >
> >
> > NOTE ON NOTATIONS: 'q|XX' denotes q, underscored, and with the subscript XX;
'N\Q' denotes Q with the "pre-subscript" N, where N denotes the set of the
"Natural" Numbers N = { 1, 2, 3,... }, and where 'N\Q' as a whole is understood
to have its 'Q' underscored, and, in this context, denotes the N-based set of
pure, UNQUANTIFIABLE
> >
> > [meaning "unaddable": q|n + q|n = q|n; also, q|n + q|m does not
reduce to any q|x, for any x in N, if n is not equal to m, because q|n and q|m,
in that case, are ontologically, qualitatively unequal to one another, like
"apples + oranges".]
> >
> > "ontological qualifier meta-numbers" [purely-qualitative "numbers" /
"ordinalities"]:
> >
> > N\Q = { q|1, q|2, q|3,...}.
> >
> > '(^1)q|a' denotes q-underscore-subscript-a with pre-superscript 1.
> >
> > 'Delta-' denotes the delta-symbol underscored; it identifies a
> > purely-qualitative, non-quantitative, ontological increment.
> >
> > 'q|X [---> q|m' means "interpreted ontological qualifier meta-number q|X
corresponds to the uninterpreted qualifier meta-number q|m [given that m is in
N], of the generic meta-Natural meta-Numbers arithmetic, N\Q."
> >
> >
> >
> > [CONTINUED FROM Part III., POSTED HERE PREVIOUSLY]
> >
> >
> > 2. On the Generic Meanings of "Non-Cross-Product", "Self-Crossed", Terms in
this New Model of the Universe. [CONTINUED & CONCLUDED]
> >
> > That is, the third system in this progression of ideo-systems -- N\q|QN, or
N\q|U, or N\U -- is characterized, by its primary qualities, as an arithmetic of
"meta-numbers" which are interpretable as "quantifiable ontological qualifiers",
e.g.:
> >
> > 2u|n + 3u|n = 5u|n,
> >
> > for any n in N.
> >
> > The fourth "ideo-system", in this progression of ideo-systems of Dialectical
Arithmetic, is the "second contra-thesis system / category of ideo-ontology" --
"contra" to all of the foregoing systems -- N, N\Q, and N\U.
> >
> > It is a system of "unquantifiable METRICAL qualifiers", the primitive
prototype for the later-to-emerge fully-algorithmic arithmetic for the
"dimensional units', or "dimensional <<monads>>, of "dimensional analysis"
full-blown.
> >
> > As of the seventh "ideo-ontological category", and system, of Dialectical
Arithmetic, q|MQN, there has emerged an arithmetic for the explicit,
fully-algorithmic "Ontological and Metrical Qualification of Quantifiers", or,
symmetrically, for the "Quantification of Metrically Qualified Ontological
Qualifiers", suitable for the formulation of the State Variables and Control
Parameters of an advanced formulation of [Nonlinear] Dynamical Systems Theory.
> >
> > Thus --
> >
> > N\q|Q x N\q|Q = N\q|Q + N\q|QQ = N\q|Q + N\q|M
> >
> > = the system of arithmetic of the N\Q "meta-numbers"
> >
> > plus
> >
> > the system of arithmetic of the N\M "meta-numbers"
> >
> > -- where N\M = { m|N } = { m|1, m|2, m|3, ... }
> >
> > -- and where the full systems-progression "cumulum", to stage 2 of this
"Dialectic of the Systems of Dialectical Arithmetics", is --
> >
> > <q|N>^(2^2) = <q|N>^4 = N + N\Q + N\U + N\M.
> >
> >
> > For more on this Dialectical-Algebraic Model of the dialectical progression
of the systems of Dialectical Algebra, used as an example below, and formulated
in the ideography of the F.E.D. First Dialectical Algebra, see, for example --
> >
> > http://www.dialectics.org/archives/pdf/Fract1-1.pdf
> >
> > -- and the other texts in that series.
> >
> >
> > C. "Formal Subsumption" of Predecessor Ontology, by the Latest-to-Emerge
Neo-Ontology.
> >
> > Suppose we observe an historical sequence in which the ontological category
connoted by qX gives rise to the ontological category connoted by qY --
> >
> > q|X ---> <q|X>^2 = q|X + q|XX = q|X + q|Y
> >
> > -- and, later still, in which the ontological category connoted by q|Y gives
birth to the ontological category connoted by q|Z --
> >
> > q|Y ---> <q|Y>^2 = q|Y + q|YY = q|Y + q|Z.
> >
> > If so, then we call the epoch for which the ontological category connoted by
q|YX first appears, the epoch of the "Real Subsumption" of q|X, and of all of
its predecessors, by q|Y.
> >
> > Likewise, we call the subsequent epoch, for which the ontological category
connoted by q|ZY first appears, the epoch of the "Real Subsumption" of q|Y, and
of all of its predecessors, by q|Z.
> >
> > Contrasting with those designations, we call the epoch immediately preceding
that for which q|YX first appears, but for which q|XX, or q|Y, first appears,
the epoch of the "Formal Subsumption" of q|X, and of all of its predecessors, by
q|Y.
> >
> > Likewise, we call the epoch immediately preceding that for which q|ZY first
appears, but for which q|YY, or q|Z, first appears, the epoch of the "Formal
Subsumption" of q|Y, and of all of its predecessors, by q|Z.
> >
> > The above designations represent a universalization, to
historical-dialectical processes in general, of the concepts developed by Marx,
in the specific context of the historical dialectic of capital as subsuming
social relation of production, under the names "The Formal Subsumption of Labor
by Capital", and "The Real Subsumption of Labour by Capital", as set forth in
his [unpublished] 6th Chapter of the first volume of his treatise "Capital, A
Critique of Political Economy".
> >
> >
> >
> > D. "Ontological Self-Conversion", by "Self-Subsumption".
> >
> > Can 'connotograms' of the form q|XX be interpreted consistently, in the
same, standard way that 'connotograms' of the form q|YX, where Y NOT= X, are
interpreted, per the F.E.D. standard?
> >
> > An interpreted/assigned ontological qualifier 'connotogram', such as q|YX,
wherein X NOT= Y, can, as noted earlier in these preliminaries, be interpeted as
connoting a '''hybrid''' formation, or process, of the conversion of the
ontology connoted by the 'connotogram' q|X into the ontology connoted by the
'connotogram' q|Y -- i.e., the conversion of the individual "units", or
<<monads>>, that constitute the q|X ontological category, into the '''higher''',
or '''meta-''', <<monads>>, the 'meta-units', that constitute the q|Y
ontological category.
> >
> > That is, q|YX connotes the conversion OF q|X-type individuals, BY q|Y-type
individuals, INTO q|Y-type individuals.
> >
> > The example used earlier, from the Universe-Model to be exposited here, is
that of first generation stars, connoted by q|as [--> q|6, which converted
units, or <<monads>>, of the ontological category, or <<arithmos>>, known as
sub-atomic particles, connoted by q|s [---> q|2 [mainly in the form of the
units, or <<monads>>, of the <<species>> of that q|s <<Genos>> known as protons,
ionized Hydrogen atoms, "the acidic species", etc.], into individual atomic
nucleus units, the units, or <<monads>>, of the ontological category, or
<<arithmos>>, known as atomic nuclei, and connoted by q|a [--> q|4, a
<<Genos>>-<<arithmos>> whose <<species>>-<<arithmoi>> include the ontological
sub-categories known as Helium nuclei [or "alpha particles"], as Lithium nuclei,
as Carbon nuclei, and as Oxygen nuclei, etc., whose individual units, or
<<monads>>, are, precisely, individual Helium nuclei, individual Lithium nuclei,
individual Carbon nuclei, and individual Oxygen nuclei, etc., respectively.
> >
> > Consistent with this "conversion" interpretation, then, what should the
'connotogram' q|ss [---> q|4 connote?
> >
> > It, q|ss, should connote the conversion OF q|s-type individuals, BY q|s-type
individuals, INTO -- what type/kind/ontological category/<<Genos>>/<<arithmos>>
of individuals?
> >
> > INTO q|s individuals again [i.e., "simple reproduction", or even "expanded
reproduction", of the population(s) of individuals who should be classified into
the same ontological category, q|s, again]?
> >
> > The "self-interaction", "self-reflexion", or "self-refluxion" [self-action,
<<auto-kinesis>>, self-<<karma>>, or '''self-multiplication'''] of the
<<monads>> of q|s, under the "<<aufheben>> evolute product rule" Axiom for
multiplication, as stated here in an earlier post, does encompass the "Boolean"
moment of the simple [or, within the same quality, or ontological category,
merely quantitatively expanded] reproduction of q|s, reflecting the "mere
conservation / preservation" moment of the meaning of the Hegelian <<aufheben>>
operation.
> >
> > However, that multiplication rule also encompasses the "contra-Boolean"
moment, of the other two "moments" of the Hegelian <<aufheben>> operation,
namely, the moments of "elevation" and of transformation/transcendence, i.e., of
qualitative/ontological expansion, or qualitative expanded reproduction;
expanded reproduction by production of qualitatively new, unprecedented ontology
--
> >
> > q|s x q|s = q|s + q|ss
> >
> > -- wherein q|ss connotes mainly the latter two moments of the
self-<<aufheben>> self-negation process.
> >
> > In particular, per the F.E.D. standard, "Meta-<<Monad>>-ology"
interpretation, q|ss connotes the "qualitative increment" of a new ontological
category, or <<arithmos>> of <<monads>>/individuals, each <<monad>>, or "unit",
or "[onto-]logical individual" of which is a META-q|s <<monad>> / "unit" /
"individual", made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of <<monads>> /
"units" / "individuals" of the q|s predecessor ontological category /
<<arithmos>> of <<monads>>.
> >
> > What kind of <<monad>>, of what category, or <<Genos>>-<<arithmos>>, does
"an <<arithmos>>/ontological category of meta-sub-atomic particles, each one
made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of sub-atomic particles" connote?
> >
> > To this observer, the phrase above connotes an "atom", or, more
specifically, an "atomic nucleus".
> >
> > Thus, to this observer, the ideogram 'q|ss' connotes the ontological
category also connoted by 'q|a' --
> >
> > q|s x q|s = q|s + q|ss = q|s + q|a
> >
> > -- and --
> >
> > q|ss = q|a, [---> q|4.
> >
> >
> > Thus, the "ontologically dynamical" process -- the process of
"onto-dynamasis", per F.E.D. -- connoted by --
> >
> > q|s x q|s = q|s + q|ss = q|s + q|a
> >
> > contains the term q|ss, which connotes processes of the SELF-Conversion of
sub-atomic particles into [ionized] atomic nuclei.
> >
> > Recent cosmological research has turned up massive evidence that the
production of the vast populations of atoms of the "higher atomic species"
manifest in our contemporary <<kosmos>> was not entirely accomplished by stars
alone, via the thermonuclear fusion process known as "stellar nucleosynthesis".
> >
> > Prior to the emergence of stars, a process of '''cosmological
nucleosynthesis''' is in evidence, which produced mainly atoms of the two
"lowest atomic species" -- atoms of Hydrogen and of Helium.
> >
> > The physical-spatially self-concentrating, self-densifying processes of the
pre-atomic, sub-atomic particles -- the self-interactions of "free" sub-atomic
particles, such as protons and neutrons, connoted by q|ss, produced these first
<<species>> of the <<Genos>> of "atoms", or of "atomic nuclei", connoted by q|a.
> >
> > Thus, this observer receives the symbol q|ss as connoting the
self-conversion of sub-atomic ontology into atomic-nucleus ontology, via the
original, or <<arche'>>, process of "nucleosynthesis" -- not "stellar
nucleosynthesis", but "pre-stellar nucleosynthesis", or "cosmological
nucleosynthesis".
> >
> > Thus, 'connotogramic ontological qualifiers', terms of the form q|XX, can be
interpreted as connoting the SELF-conversion of individuals of the q|X ontology
into individuals of a higher, "META-", ontology, and as also connoting the
[cosmological] formations which accomplish said SELF-conversion.
> >
> >
> >
> > E. "Original"/"Primitive" Accumulation of Neo-Ontology by
"Self-ReflExion"/"Self-ReflUxion" of Predecessor.
> >
> > The process of 'pre-stellar nucleosynthesis' referred to as "cosmological
nucleosynthesis" in the sub-section above, was the process of "Original
Accumulation", or of "Primitive Accumulation", for the "atoms" ontology [or,
more specifically, for the ionized, cosmological plasma, "atomic nuclei"
ontology], q|a [---> q|4, from out of the "resources-base" of the pre-existing
populations of protons, neutrons, etc. -- of the "sub-atomic particles"
ontology,
> >
> > q|s [---> q|2.
> >
> > The process of stellar nucleosynthesis, within those "ontologically hybrid"
cosmological formations known as stars, was and still is the process of
"ongoing, reproduced, reproductive conversion", and of "reproductive
accumulation", of atoms, or of ionic atomic nuclei, from sub-atomic particles
[e.g., from "free" protons and neutrons], and also from "lower atomic species"
-- all / both connoted by
> >
> > q|as [---> q|6.
> >
> > Thus, terms of the form q|XX may be interpreted as connoting processes of
"Self-Terminating Original Accumulation" OF the q|XX ontology, BY the q|X
ontology, FROM the q|X ontology itself as "resource-base".
> >
> > Thus also, terms of the form q|YX, wherein X NOT= Y, may be interpreted as
connoting processes of "Ongoing, Continually Reproduced, Not[-Yet]-Terminated,
Reproductive Accumulation", OF q|Y ontology, BY q|Y ontology, [but] FROM q|X
ontology as "resource-base".
> >
> > This means that the processes of "Original Accumulation", or "Primitive
Accumulation", and of 'Reproductive Accumulation', described by Marx in his
"Capital: A Critique of Political Economy", and in his "Grundrisse", are not
applicable to that human-social relation-of-production, known as <<Kapital>>,
alone.
> >
> > On the contrary, these <<Kapital>>-relation, human-social-relations ontology
instances of these two processes -- of "Original Accumulation", and of
"Reproductive Accumulation" -- are but two individual <<species>> among many
other <<species>>, of these two universal <<Gene>> categories of
historical-dialectical process.
> >
> >
> >
> > 3. How the "epoch-counting" tau of this (^1)<q|n>^(2^tau) Model Maps to the
Standard "Real" time variable, usually denoted by t: "Diachronic
Meta-Fractality" and the Phenomenon of "Temporal Acceleration" as "Diachronic
Scaling".
> >
> > F.E.D. refers to QUALitative, and to "QUALO-Quantitative", or
"Quanto-QUALitative", self-similarity structures, which feature a scale-regress
in their similitude-recurrences, as "META-Fractals".
> >
> > In particular, F.E.D. refers to the irreducible, non-amalgamative sum, or
"cumulum", of ontological qualifiers -- generated by the (^1)<q|n>^(2^tau)
"Dialectic of Nature" model of the <<kosmos>> -- as modeling the [taxonomy level
one] "diachronic meta-fractal"of this <<kosmos>> as a whole, viz. --
> >
> > q|n + q|s + ... + q|a + ... + q|m + ... + q|p + ... + q|e + ... + q|b + ...
> >
> > -- wherein q|m connotes the cosmo-ontological category/<<arithmos>> that has
molecules as its <<monads>>, wherein q|p connotes the cosmo-ontological
category/<<arithmos>> that has prokaryotic cells as its <<monads>>, where q|e
connotes the cosmo-ontological category/<<arithmos>> that has eukaryotic cells
as its <<monads>>, and where q|b denotes the cosmo-ontological
category/<<arithmos>> that has "multicellular organisms", or "meta-biota" --
"meta-phyta" and "meta-zoa" -- as its <<monads>>, . . . , with each term given
explicitly above connoting a "meta-fractal similarity-recurrence" of each of its
predecessor terms [if any] in the chronologically-ordered
[order-of-appearance-ordered] series-sum given above.
> >
> > But, if the "similitude-recurrence scale-regress" feature is a required
feature of any structure that F.E.D. terms a "meta-fractal", what is the
[diachronic?] scaling feature that defines a "diachronic meta-fractal"?
> >
> > Well, certainly, there is a physical-spatial volume, physical-spatial size
gradient in this "cumulum".
> >
> > That is, proto-nuclear sub-atomic particles, because they "contain" a
[usually] heterogeneous multiplicity of pre-nuclear particles -- e.g., protons
"contain" quarks -- are generally larger than pre-nuclear particles in terms of
their three-dimensional-spatial "size", in their "volume" -- in the amount of
3-D space that they "take up".
> >
> > Likewise, atomic nuclei, because they "contain" a [usually] heterogeneous
multiplicity of sub-atomic particles -- e.g., the ordinary Helium nucleus
"contains" two protons and two neutrons -- are generally larger than are
sub-atomic particles in terms of their three-dimensional-spatial "size", in
their "volume" -- in the amount of 3-D space that they "take up".
> >
> > And again, molecules, because they "contain" a [usually] heterogeneous
multiplicity of atoms -- e.g., a water molecule, "H2\O", "contains" two atoms of
Hydrogen and one atom of Oxygen; a Carbon Dioxide molecule, "CO|2", contains one
atom of Carbon and two atoms of Oxygen -- are generally larger than are atoms in
terms of their three-dimensional-spatial "size", in their "volume" -- in the
amount of 3-D space that they "take up".
> >
> > However, this "spatial size" scaling pertains more to the
"one-slice-in-time-at-a-time" view of the "synchronic meta-fractals" that result
from the diachronic growth of the 'multi-ontology cumula', or "multi-ontic,
multi-meta-monadic cumula", that result from the diachronic processes -- indeed,
from the concrete-time-generating processes, or "chrono-genic processes" -- that
are modeled by formulae like (^1)<q|n>(2^tau), rather than to any concept of
"diachronic scaling".
> >
> > That is, this spatial volume scaling of the <<monads>>, or units, of the
similarity-recurrence <<arithmoi>>, or "ontological categories", is "synchronic
scaling", not "diachronic scaling".
> >
> > "Diachronic scaling", per F.E.D., refers to the time-scale of recurrence; to
the time-interval between -- to the amount of duration between --the occurrence
/ irruption of a given ontological category / <<arithmos>> of <<monads>>, and of
the similarity-recurrence immanent in the occurrence / irruption of its
successor ontological category / <<arithmos>> of <<monads>>.
> >
> > F.E.D. holds that, generally, the successive time-intervals or
duration-intervals between successive "contra-thesis" '[meta-]<<monad>>-ic'
irruptions exhibit a diminishing scale-regress, with shorter and shorter
intervals of duration between each successive [meta-]monadic emergence in the
cosmological progression.
> >
> > Thus, it took less time for meta-biota, q|b, e.g., fish, to emerge from
eukaryotic [meta-]cellular organisms, q|e, e.g., yeast cells, than it took for
the q|e to emerge from prokaryotic cellular organisms, q|p, e.g.,
archeo-bacteria, than it took for molecules, q|m, e.g., polypeptide,
poly-amino-acid proto-proteins, to emerge from atoms, e.g., from Carbon,
Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Hydrogen atoms, than it took for atomic nuclei, q|a, to
emerge from proto-nuclear sub-atomic particles, q|s, e.g., protons and neutrons,
than it took for proto-nuclear sub-atomic particles to emerge from
pre-sub-atomic, sub-nuclear particles, q|n, e.g., from the various <<species>>
of the <<Genos>> "quarks".
> >
> > This shortening of the time/duration that it "takes" to get from one
"self-hybrid" ontological category / [meta^(n)-]<<arithmos>> of
[meta^(n)-<<monads>>] to the next, successor [meta^(n+1)-]<<arithmos>> of
[meta^(n+1)-<<monads>>] -- to traverse the "whorl" on the meta-fractal,
trans-spatial helix, of cosmological "meta-evolution", between each pair of
mutually-similar but qualitatively-different, ontologically-different nodes on
that rising spiral -- is termed, by F.E.D., "temporal acceleration".
> >
> > The validity of this concept of "temporal acceleration" depends upon moving,
from viewing "time" as an absolute, abstract "ticking", of an
external-to-the-universe "clock", a "clock" "ticking" with abstract regularity
for a transcendental time-keeper, who is also '''squatting somewhere outside the
universe''', to a relative, universe-immanent, "contental", "concrete"
definition of '''concrete duration''', in which "time" is conceived as being
PRODUCED, as CREATED, by the inherent activity of the [ev]entit(y)(ies) which
constitute(s) this universe -- by the self-generating events going on inside
this universe -- and in which a "rate of change of time" is thus measurable, if
measured relative to that event-content.
> >
> > Thus, suppose that, e.g., (a.) the "distance-in-ontology-state" from a
universe with atoms and earlier-emerged ontology extant, to a universe with
earlier-emerged ontology and atoms AND molecules extant is defined to count as
one unit of ontology-state advance -- of advance in the ontology-content of the
<<kosmos>> -- and that, e.g., (b.) the "distance" from a universe with
proto-nuclear sub-atomic particles ontology plus earlier-emerged ontology
extant, to a universe with earlier-emerged ontology plus proto-nuclear
sub-atomic particle ontology PLUS atoms ontology extant, is, likewise, counted
as one unit of "meta-evolutionary" cosmological progress[ion].
> >
> > Then, if the duration that the universe took to traverse transition (b.) is
longer than the duration that the universe took to traverse transition (a.),
then, per F.E.D., this "speed-up" in "cosmological meta-evolution" would
constitute an instance of "temporal acceleration" -- i.e., of that form of
"diachronic scaling" which is native to "diachronic meta-fractals", such as the
taxonomy level 1 cosmological "diachronic meta-fractal" modeled by the N\Q
formula (^1)<q|n>(2^tau).
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Miguel
> >
> >
> >
> > [TO BE CONTINUED]
> >
>