Closed Loop Interval Ontology
       The Digital Integration of Conceptual Form


Please sign in
or register

Email *

Password *

Home | About

Select display
Show public menu
Show all theme groups
Show all themes
Show all terms
Order results by
Most recently edited
Progress level

Searches selected display

Aligning the vision

Project under development
Evolving and coalescing

Guiding motivation
Why we do this

A comprehensive vision
Ethics / governance / science

Cybernetic democracy
Homeostatic governance

Collective discernment
Idealized democracy

Objectives and strategy
Reconciliation and integration

Reconciliation of perspectives
Holistic view on alternatives

What is a concept?
Definitions and alternatives

Theories of concepts
Compare alternatives

What is truth?
How do we know?

How meaning is created

Synthetic dimensionality
Foundational recursive definition

Universal hierarchy
Spectrum of levels

A universal foundation
The closed loop ensemble contains
all primary definitions

Dimensions of set theory

What is a number?

Venn diagrams
Topology of sets

Objects in Boolean algebra
How are they constructed?

Core vocabulary
Primary terms

Core terms on the strip
Closed Loop framework

Hierarchical models

Digital geometry
Euclid in digital space

The dimensional construction
of abstract objects
Foundational method

The digital integration
of conceptual form
Compositional semantics

Closed loop interval ontology
How it works

Cognitive science
The integrated science of mind

What does it mean?

Formal systematic definitions
Core terms

Data structures
Constructive elements
and building blocks

Preserving data under transformation

Steady-state cosmology
In the beginning

Semantic ontology
Domain and universal

Foundational ontology
A design proposal

Coordinate systems
Mapping the grid

From other sources

Foundational computation

Project under development
Evolving and coalescing

"By trying and erring, by groping and stumbling -- so progressed our knowledge. Hampered and yet spurred by a hard struggle for existence, a plaything of the environment and a slave to the traditions of the time, human beings were guided in this progress not by logic but by intuition and the stored-up experience of civilization. This applies to all things human, and I have made painstaking efforts to show that mathematics is no exception."
Very slightly edited for sensitivity to gender

Tobias Dantzig, Number: The Language of Science, 1930, p.187

The Closed Loop project has been evolving for many years as studies in conceptual structure and categories, and is only recently beginning to take shape within the definitions and boundaries of the Closed Loop concept.

We are now approaching the project as a process of top-down integration, where after repeated testing and confirmation, we are tending to presume that this design makes sense, and it is indeed reasonable to pursue its highly inclusive objectives based on this approach to a universal container and integrated body of definitions.

Some of the original work on category theory and synthetic dimensionality can be found at

What is an interval??

A vast jig-saw puzzle
The closed loop vision
Why do we need a database?
A few hundred elements
This project and database
Numbers, alphabets, symbolic structures
What is a universal container?
Russell's Paradox
Universal hierarchy of symbolic representation
The digital integration of conceptual form
What is the digital integration of conceptual form?
The integral vision
The power of analogy

A vast jig-saw puzzle
Polished | Back

This project combines hundreds or thousands of small specialized ideas ("concepts"), which we seek to combine into a single integrated framework with a perfectly smooth connection between all the pieces.

We want to define these pieces as emerging from the continuum, driven by human motivation and taking infinitely fluent form, capable of describing absolutely anything to any desired/motivated degree of detail.

Of course, this is an amazingly difficult challenge, something like a dream out of mythology. Philosophy and mathematics and indeed the entire world of human thinking today and throughout history are and always have been fragmented into endless numbers of little pieces, combined in locally-specific ways as make-do heuristics that were good enough to meet immediate needs.

But we are following the alluring magnetism of a comprehensive vision of wholeness, of integration, of unity, of "truth and beauty". We think this is motivated. We think it is part of collective human evolution -- something like "the destiny of civilization".

And it seems that collective evolution today is reaching a critical point. Yes, we have "soiled our nest", like baby birds. Throughout history, we took what we needed, and we acted in a local and immediate context, with a short-sighted perspective, without respect to "the whole" -- at least partly because we had no idea that the whole even existed.

But now we do. We "saw the earth from space" and life was transformed. Immediately, projects based on "The Whole Earth" began to emerge. A new ethic of wholeness began to emerge at the leading edge. Our awareness of large-scale issues has been growing for at least fifty years, as scientists began defining and announcing critical global-scale issues like "the ozone layer". Hundreds of similar influences are shaping leading-edge thinking today.

This vision was formed many years ago under the influence of social and cultural transformation, and the emerging new capacity of electronic networks. Computer science has been fascinating and potent since its birth, and today it is reaching amazing levels. And correspondingly, the collective human crisis of short-sighted evolution is reaching critical levels.

Today, this project, running in a high-capacity intent database system, supports what I like to call a "mind storm" -- a kind of large-scale and semi-chaotic process that involves bringing many pieces together into creative relationship, and letting inspiration and creativity respond to emerging new combinations that seem to make sense.

As I work on this project, I create new categories. I add features any time I can think of one, and think it is worth doing. This framework seems scalable. I can "stick new stuff in there" any time the inclination arises. The Closed Loop ideal and vision is pretty amazing. Yes, it is mind-blowing, and "something entirely different" from the way we have always understood reality. But I find it inspiring and its credibility and feasibility seem to be growing. I am excited about this creative process. Given time and endurance, I think it's fair to expect something of consequence...

Sat, May 8, 2021

The closed loop vision
Sketch | Back

We are exploring and proposing a generalization of mathematical and semantic space, based on a single algebraic/topological form which we are supposing can contain in a compressed format all definitions and partitions and distinctions which combine to form the world of mathematics and abstract symbolic representation (language and semantics).

Every value is defined as an interval in a bounded range.

Hierarchy of meaning structure:

  • One, the whole
  • Meaning -- complex "points" made in complex high-dimensional space, somewhere within the common space
  • Dimensions
  • Words
  • Alphabets
  • Numbers
  • Bytes
  • Bits
  • 0 or 1
  • The continuum

Everything is constructed in digital terms, in strict digital mathematics

In a simple interpretation of the way computer systems model numbers and alphabets and arithmetic processes

Sat, May 8, 2021

Why do we need a database?
Draft | Back

This project is extremely ambitious, spanning the full breadth of deep intuition and modern mathematics and science.

That is a vast span, and attempting to bridge it -- or even talking about this attempt -- is for good reason likely to prompt immediate skepticism or even ridicule. Indeed, defined in this way, the project may be impossible.

But here in this online context, with a vast ocean of data available with instant high-bandwidth access, including billions of references through Google, with a vast pool of graphic images from everywhere, and the astonishing depth and breadth of Wikipedia -- it seems this undertaking begins to be feasible.

We see the potential -- and we see the value of the effort. We think this is feasible -- and very likely essential to human welfare over the long term. Yes, this is hard, and mind-blowing and very over-loading and difficult to the point of impossible to hold together in one mere puny human brain.

But take it one step at a time -- one item at a time, one facet of the large fuzzy vision at a time -- and the project begins to look more likely.

And that's what we are doing,

Yes, we bounce around in a kind of random free-association way, finding things that seem interesting and helpful and illuminating, and tacking them into the project somewhere.

But a picture is forming. We are beginning to see the outlines. Yes, it is overwhelming and iffy at best, but the core principles are getting simpler and clearer, and we are beginning to trust the guidance of the Closed Loop idea.

So as the project grows, we ask "how does this particular idea fit in?" "How does this idea serve the project?"

  • How does this idea serve the clarification or simplification of science?
  • How does this idea sere our broad humanitarian ideals?
  • How is this idea an "essential piece of the puzzle"?

Our database framework vastly expands our "cognitive bandwidth"

  • Cognitive bandwidth
  • Simultaneity -- "everything at once"

Sun, May 9, 2021

A few hundred elements
Draft | Back

This project runs on an SQL database, and supposedly presents something like a hierarchical word processor, of a very basic sort. We are gathering elements to the database, generally organized in terms of "theme groups" -- major topic areas -- and "themes" -- subject areas that are aligned somewhere with that theme group. We are also developing a basic vocabulary -- like a glossary of basic concepts and terms, generally concerned with epistemology. What is a dimension, what is a unit, what is an interval, what is a metaphor, what is equivalence or identity or equality? What does it mean when we say "two things are equal" -- when clearly they are not the exact same thing -- but are "equal" in some sense that we have to clarify. We are looking at 100 issues like this.

Today, at this early stage, our database system is starting to work fairly well, and we are starting to slowly load in data -- ideas, content, specific statements and interpretations, graphics and diagrams -- all of which is intended to illustrate the broad thesis that "in significant ways, the Closed Loop contains philosophy and science and mathematics."

This is a big deal, and a very broad reach. What are the historical precedents?

You are putting together 100+ definitions, and this project is a house of cards -- it could collapse at any of 100 failure points, true.

As far as I can tell, from my limited research, "nobody has done anything quite like this" -- but maybe this project could be described as inspired by Leibnitz or Ramon Lull -- and who knows how many medieval visionary philosophers who drew complex ontological diagrams as explanations of the universe.

This project is almost a cosmology -- a theory of the universe -- a proposition that we might defend by insisting that we mere humans only know reality -- and/or have mapped reality -- in terms of our concepts.

What we think we know are our concepts and the empirical experience that we believe we have correlated and organized within or by those concepts.

Is it true that "all science is conceptual"? That even mathematical explanations are "mere maps" of an inexplicable territory?

What we do know -- is that mathematics works. Our rockets do reach the moon -- or mars.

But one other thing we know -- is that we mere humans do not always understand one another very well, and in an era of accelerating complexity, this can be dangerous. Maybe Closed Loop is a step towards a collective human awakening that can get us through this crisis.

Thu, May 6, 2021

This project and database
Polished | Back

I am a database developer, working with MS SQL and the ColdFusion programming language -- a bit old-fashioned, true, but employing simple principles that are consistent with this overall vision for ontology, in a traditional "rows and columns" form that enables a strong global/local consistency and connection.

The core architecture of the project runs on three categories or classes of logical objects:

  • Theme groups -- broad general categories like topic headings, under which a lot of subjects can be organized
  • Themes -- semi-independent subjects which can be grouped together under theme groups and displayed in any order. Themes can appear in multiple theme groups as appropriate
  • Terms -- words or simple basic concepts that tend to form a core vocabulary, supposed including all the basic concepts from cognitive psychology, semantics and epistemology and the foundations of mathematics

The actual programming mechanics of this project are simple and unsophisticated, but very adaptable and fluent. My framework is just simple "server-side" programming. Click something on a web-page, that click sends a signal to the ColdFusion and database servers, which then send a response. By today's standards that is primitive. But I don't want to learn sophisticated programming. I want to develop sophisticated applications of simple technology that I can handle.

The rows and columns model is basic to this entire structure. Our intuition is that this model preserves global/local connections through basic and linear forms of recursive nesting. Our model of the world involves recognizing that the global is constituted from the local, and that the local is a reprisal of the global in much more detailed specific form.

We are presuming that this framework may be the optimal way to organize a form of democracy-mediated global homeostasis running on basic principles of cybernetics. This idea is a reprisal of the ancient cybernetic idea of "governor" as defined by James Watt in the steam engine. It is a traditional formula for stability across the world at all levels, consistent with the notion of homeostasis as it occurs in the human body an in all living things.

Mon, Apr 12, 2021

Numbers, alphabets, symbolic structures
Note | Back

Numbers and alphabets are finite-state digital objects defined in a finite set that can be fully ordered (numerical order, alphabetical order).

We are presenting the argument that "anything in the world" that can be described can be described by a limited set of finite-state variables.

Modesl are always defined for specific purposes.

Sun, Mar 14, 2021

What is a universal container?
Placeholder | Back

Set of all sets - Universal Set

We might be exploring the possibility that the "twist" in the Closed Loop is a way to overcome the challenges of universal sets and of Russell's paradox.

Sun, Mar 14, 2021

In set theory, a universal set is a set which contains all objects, including itself. In set theory as usually formulated, the conception of a universal set leads to Russell's paradox and is consequently not allowed. However, some non-standard variants of set theory include a universal set.


There is no standard notation for the universal set of a given set theory. Common symbols include V, U and ?.[citation needed]

Reasons for nonexistence Many set theories do not allow for the existence of a universal set. For example, it is directly contradicted by the axioms such as the axiom of regularity and its existence would imply inconsistencies. The standard Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory is instead based on the cumulative hierarchy.

Russell's paradox

Main article: Russell's paradox

Theories of universality

The difficulties associated with a universal set can be avoided either by using a variant of set theory in which the axiom of comprehension is restricted in some way, or by using a universal object that is not considered to be a set.

Restricted comprehension

There are set theories known to be consistent (if the usual set theory is consistent) in which the universal set V does exist (and {\displaystyle V\in V}V\in V is true). In these theories, Zermelo's axiom of comprehension does not hold in general, and the axiom of comprehension of naive set theory is restricted in a different way. A set theory containing a universal set is necessarily a non-well-founded set theory. The most widely studied set theory with a universal set is Willard Van Orman Quine's New Foundations. Alonzo Church and Arnold Oberschelp also published work on such set theories. Church speculated that his theory might be extended in a manner consistent with Quine's,but this is not possible for Oberschelp's, since in it the singleton function is provably a set,[4] which leads immediately to paradox in New Foundations.

Another example is positive set theory, where the axiom of comprehension is restricted to hold only for the positive formulas (formulas that do not contain negations). Such set theories are motivated by notions of closure in topology.

Universal objects that are not sets

Main article: Universe (mathematics)

The idea of a universal set seems intuitively desirable in the Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, particularly because most versions of this theory do allow the use of quantifiers over all sets (see universal quantifier). One way of allowing an object that behaves similarly to a universal set, without creating paradoxes, is to describe V and similar large collections as proper classes rather than as sets. One difference between a universal set and a universal class is that the universal class does not contain itself, because proper classes cannot be elements of other classes.[citation needed] Russell's paradox does not apply in these theories because the axiom of comprehension operates on sets, not on classes.

The category of sets can also be considered to be a universal object that is, again, not itself a set. It has all sets as elements, and also includes arrows for all functions from one set to another. Again, it does not contain itself, because it is not itself a set.


Project under development
What is a universal container?

Russell's Paradox
Placeholder | Back

Russell's paradox (also known as Russell's antinomy), discovered by Bertrand Russell in 1901, showed that some attempted formalizations of the naïve set theory created by Georg Cantor led to a contradiction.

Russell’s paradox

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was involved in an ambitious project to rewrite all the truths of mathematics in the language of sets. In fact, what he was trying to do was show that all of mathematics could be derived as the logical consequences of some basic principles using sets. At this time (around 1900), it was generally believed that any property of objects could define a set. For example, the property “x is a natural number between four and seven” defines the set {4, 5, 6, 7}. We could also write this set as {x| x is a natural number between 4 and 7}. What was believed was precisely that for any property “P” that you can think of, it made sense to talk about the set {x| x has property P}. Certainly, sets that consist of numbers make sense this way. But when you allow any objects in your sets, you can run into trouble.

Russell was the first one to notice this.

Russell’s insight was the following. First, it is possible for a set to be an element of itself. (Remember that elements are the objects which make up the set, e.g. the number 4 is an element of the set {4, 5, 6, 7}). An example of a set which is an element of itself is {x| x is a set and x has at least one element}.

This set contains itself, because it is a set with at least one element. Using this knowledge, Russell defined a special set, which we’ll call “R”. R is the set {x| x is a set and x is not an element of itself}.

Russell then asked: is R an element of the set R? Let’s think about this question.

If R is an element of R, that exactly means that it is an element of itself.

Which means that it can’t possibly be in R - by definition R is the collection of all sets which are not elements of themselves.

Since this option is impossible, we must agree that R is not an element of R.

But in that case, R is not an element of itself, so by definition it belongs to the collection of sets which are not elements of themselves. Uh-oh! [It is worth pausing a minute here and reassessing the situation on your own. Do you believe that R is an element of R or not? Neither? What’s the problem?]

Mathematicians and logicians thought for a while that the problem with the set R was going to undermine their whole project to do all mathematics in terms of set theory. Fortunately, they eventually came up with a technical solution that changes the way sets are constructed (slightly) and prevents R from being considered a set (whew!). This technical solution is why you sometimes see a set being described in the form {x ? X| x has property P}, where “X” is supposed to denote some other set, or “the universe” (whatever that means!) We won’t worry about that issue in our class, as most of our sets will be sets of numbers and these are always safe.

So did Russell succeed? Yes and no. The program to do all mathematics in terms of set theory was the birth of modern day logic, a rich and exciting area of mathematics. But ultimately, the logician Kurt G¨odel showed that the original goal of the project – to deduce all mathematics from some axioms (rules) concerning sets – was itself mathematically impossible!

For more details on this story, I recommend the excellent book Logicomix by Doxiades and Papadimitriou. You may be delighted to know that a) it’s a graphic novel and b) the Reg library has a copy.

Sun, Mar 28, 2021

In the foundations of mathematics, Russell's paradox (also known as Russell's antinomy), discovered by Bertrand Russell in 1901,[1][2] showed that some attempted formalizations of the naive set theory created by Georg Cantor led to a contradiction. The same paradox had been discovered in 1899 by Ernst Zermelo[3] but he did not publish the idea, which remained known only to David Hilbert, Edmund Husserl, and other members of the University of Göttingen. At the end of the 1890s Cantor himself had already realized that his definition would lead to a contradiction, which he told Hilbert and Richard Dedekind by letter.[4]

According to naive set theory, any definable collection is a set. Let R be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. If R is not a member of itself, then its definition dictates that it must contain itself, and if it contains itself, then it contradicts its own definition as the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. This contradiction is Russell's paradox. Symbolically:

{\displaystyle {\text{Let }}R=\{x\mid x\not \in x\}{\text{, then }}R\in R\iff R\not \in R}{\text{Let }}R=\{x\mid x\not \in x\}{\text{, then }}R\in R\iff R\not \in R In 1908, two ways of avoiding the paradox were proposed: Russell's type theory and the Zermelo set theory. Zermelo's axioms went well beyond Gottlob Frege's axioms of extensionality and unlimited set abstraction; as the first constructed axiomatic set theory, it evolved into the now-standard Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (ZFC). The essential difference between Russell's and Zermelo's solution to the paradox is that Zermelo altered the axioms of set theory while preserving the logical language in which they are expressed, while Russell altered the logical language itself. The language of ZFC, with the help of Thoralf Skolem, turned out to be first-order logic.[5]


Closed loop interval ontology
Project under development
What is a universal container?

Universal hierarchy of symbolic representation
Sketch | Back

The grand scheme --

Objective -- to build a single hierarchical structure that follows basic/generic computer design from a bit-structure level through a process of assembling data structures composed of bits and bytes, building every type of standard computer data structure, and in those terms, interpreting every element of semantics and mathematics

Find a good graphic on the hierarchical structure of computer operating systems


This is a master-feature of this project. In some ways, it is the grand container for the entire project.

Maybe what we want to do is to offer a single framework that defines all aspects of "the construction of a semantic object"

This task involves several layers

  • Hardware -- the mechanism that support the definition
  • The interpretation of the "state" of the hardware -- in terms of bits, binary off/on 0/1 two-state logic from which everything grows, and within which, from which, everything is constructed
  • The definition of language built on top of this mechanistic framework

    • Pixel grid (matrix) of on/off state "in a medium" -- like a computer screen or a sheet of paper
    • The creation of fonts and alphabets, so that symbolic representation can be "actual" and not merely "mental" or in the mind
    • The construction of numbers
    • The construction of "words" from this alphabet
    • The assignment of "meaning" to this "symbolic state of a medium"
    • The construction of mathematics and logic from this process
    • The construction of abstraction and generalization from this process

Definition of the continuum as a digital discrete/state object, from which all distinctions and complex structures are created

Sat, May 8, 2021


The digital integration of conceptual form
Sketch | Back

This project combines the insights of philosophy, cognitive psychology and semantics with the language and analytic methods of computer science.

Our argument is

  • There are many ways to discuss these subjects -- and this plethora of descriptions and approaches and disciplines can become confusing, overwhelming, and inconsistent
  • The methods and language of computer science, when generalized into mathematical descriptions, are capable of describing most cognitive phenomena

All semantics and code structures are constructed using digital mathematics -- which is made consistent with strong theories from cognitive psychology, semantics, ontology and philosophy

Digital models have a strong ontology grounded in real-world engineering and constructivist definitions

All semantic elements can be constructed from digital elements

words, meanings, alphabets, numbers, arithmetic and algebraic processes

this includes basic concepts and principles from epistemology, such as metaphor and other forms of comparison

it includes everything needed in a theory of classification

The digital approximation of continuous reality

Fri, Apr 2, 2021

Digital data, in information theory and information systems, is the discrete, discontinuous representation of information or works. Numbers and letters are commonly used representations.

Digital data can be contrasted with analog signals which behave in a continuous manner, and with continuous functions such as sounds, images, and other measurements.

The word digital comes from the same source as the words digit and digitus (the Latin word for finger), as fingers are often used for counting. Mathematician George Stibitz of Bell Telephone Laboratories used the word digital in reference to the fast electric pulses emitted by a device designed to aim and fire anti-aircraft guns in 1942.[1] The term is most commonly used in computing and electronics, especially where real-world information is converted to binary numeric form as in digital audio and digital photography.


Since symbols (for example, alphanumeric characters) are not continuous, representing symbols digitally is rather simpler than conversion of continuous or analog information to digital. Instead of sampling and quantization as in analog-to-digital conversion, such techniques as polling and encoding are used.

A symbol input device usually consists of a group of switches that are polled at regular intervals to see which switches are switched. Data will be lost if, within a single polling interval, two switches are pressed, or a switch is pressed, released, and pressed again. This polling can be done by a specialized processor in the device to prevent burdening the main CPU. When a new symbol has been entered, the device typically sends an interrupt, in a specialized format, so that the CPU can read it.

For devices with only a few switches (such as the buttons on a joystick), the status of each can be encoded as bits (usually 0 for released and 1 for pressed) in a single word. This is useful when combinations of key presses are meaningful, and is sometimes used for passing the status of modifier keys on a keyboard (such as shift and control). But it does not scale to support more keys than the number of bits in a single byte or word.

Devices with many switches (such as a computer keyboard) usually arrange these switches in a scan matrix, with the individual switches on the intersections of x and y lines. When a switch is pressed, it connects the corresponding x and y lines together. Polling (often called scanning in this case) is done by activating each x line in sequence and detecting which y lines then have a signal, thus which keys are pressed. When the keyboard processor detects that a key has changed state, it sends a signal to the CPU indicating the scan code of the key and its new state. The symbol is then encoded or converted into a number based on the status of modifier keys and the desired character encoding.

A custom encoding can be used for a specific application with no loss of data. However, using a standard encoding such as ASCII is problematic if a symbol such as 'ß' needs to be converted but is not in the standard.

It is estimated that in the year 1986 less than 1% of the world's technological capacity to store information was digital and in 2007 it was already 94%.[2] The year 2002 is assumed to be the year when humankind was able to store more information in digital than in analog format (the "beginning of the digital age").[3][4]


What is the digital integration of conceptual form?
Sketch | Back

  • What is a concept?
  • What is a digital structure?
  • How can a concept be a digital structure?
  • Why is it advantageous for the science of concepts to understand concepts as digital structures?
  • What is the integration of conceptual form?
  • What is the digital integration of conceptual form?

  • How is this consistent with the cognitive psychology of concepts?
  • How is a concept a formal structure?
  • How can a concept be a digital structure?
  • How can "all concepts" not only be "integrated", but integrated as a "digital structure"?

Mon, Apr 5, 2021

The integral vision
Polished | Back

This idea is grounded in and led by a classical metaphysics of spirit, in a form consistent with the vision of great prophets and mystics and saints and religious teachers since the beginning of history. We speak of "the beginning" and where ideas come from, and what they are made out of.

And yes, of course, ideas in "the real world as it actually is" are a spontaneous overwhelming jumble coming from everywhere, in endless and very complex combinations. But the instinct here is that these combinations are formed by simple common underlying principles, that we can know in mathematical and scientific terms. Every human being is different, every moment of human experience is different, every culture is different. But the incremental elements from which ideas are created can be understood as common to all of them.

Yes, this project is like a vast jigsaw puzzle, where we can identify hundreds of pieces and explore how they fit together to form a whole -- under the intuitive conviction that they DO "form a whole"

But there are other analogies. This project is like a child's construction set -- like "Leggos", like "Erector Sets", like "Tinker Toys", like "Lincoln Logs". Or it's like an adult construction project, like assembling a building or (build an entire neighborhood) an entire housing development.

Wold civilization today is passing though an intense crisis of complexity and fragmentation. Cultures which have arisen independently throughout history are now converging into one another in a common global melting pot. And our most urgent problems are global and our conflicts are increasing dangerous complex.

We need a common ethic of the whole. We need new guiding principles for governance. We need "homeostatic cybernetic democracy". We need cooperation and convergence into a common human mesh, where all things are guided by common boundary values on ecology and economic and individual personal behaviour.

And we need to see how to do this. We need to see that it is possible -- despite very great reasons for skepticism and doubt, despite despair over the human track record of rage and cruelty and selfishness. In the context of all this, this project starts at the beginning -- from the bottom up as the analysis of the continuum as a structure composed of bits, and from the top down, as an analysis of the whole, the one, with all of reality -- all of human ideas and all of culture -- caught in the spectrum between those two polarities. We are proposing to show how this makes sense, is feasible, and how this form can be sealed into unity, into a sealed Oneness that contains it all in an inviolate stability, into a form that honors and embraces all of human creative history, forming a kind of guiding compass for a world that must converge toward The Whole.

We need a core common vision, towards which the world can incrementally transition. This vision must contain science and it must contain spirit and it must contain governance. We can conceive of a global homeostasis mediated in its particulars through electronic networks, and guided from the deeply human level by handshaking agreements between cultures as we confront the tremendous stresses prompted by global evolution and global transition and deep-seated human foibles.

This project is both synthetic and analytic. It creates and compiles and assembles its solutions. Yet it is also empirical, because it proposes to connects to the world as it is, starting from now.

It is a spiritual or humanistic vision, expressed in the language of engineering. As such, it spans the great gulf between cultures and traditional departments of knowledge.

Mon, Apr 12, 2021

The power of analogy
Sketch | Back

It could be argued that this project emerges from poetry -- from a deep instinct for metaphor and analogic comparison -- "this thing is very much like that thing, in these regards". Maybe we push it and say "this thing IS that thing".

Our "unit spectrum" is the core idea of the project -- rendered amazing through the dimensional twist.

But the design flows from analogy. So many forms in mathematics and semantics and visionary philosophy take approximately the same form. We re trip over the differences and announce them as unreconcilable. Or we can follow an instinct for simplification and trust the instinct for comparison.

This project tend to the latter option.

Sat, May 8, 2021