Philosophy Now Forum

Walking through a chilly storm tightly packed in my boiler suit, passing by a guy who weirdly went looking with a metal detector along the shores in the middle of storms, I came to a land formation I think in English is called in "headland" or "spit", both are translates from the dictionary.

So there I was in the place with the heaviest wind, and I lied down getting some cover for the strong wind and I relaxed, almost getting to sleep in my suit which was constantly battling to keep me warm. The harsh weather proved tranquil, and in the midst of the storm I pondered, I thought, deeply, about The Space of Needs, for which anyone who have read a significant amount of my posts should have heard about by now.

Specifically, I pondered long a question I'd had for a long time, about the mathematical properties of the Need Graphs, whose shape is like this (although this depiction is slightly outdated in terminology):



Specifically, again, how I can quantify the properties in the Need Graph, and, Eureka!!! I got it. Every object (every pocket of space with its surrounding borders) is a quantity of unity! The whole graph can be atomized into quantities of unity which are the same as a given quantity between x>0 AND x<1! With the central object being y=1. This is because the layer outwards of the central object summarizes to one because if you do not complete all of them they cannot be whole, so they must be less than 1 if incomplete and therefore not an actual object in the real world (which we would've else been able to count as a natural number).

However, another realization then dawned, and that is that the second layer (or ring if you want to call it that), can only be divisions of the pockets (the blocks) for which it relates to inwardly towards the centre, that is, if you are to regard their existence in relation to the centre, their summarized value is equal to the value of the first layer, and hence they must individually by divisions of that layer when their own number of elements exceeds the number of elements in the first layer (which they are supposed to do always). For instance, C.2 can only relate to "C", and C.2.1 can only relate to "C.2", but while C is 1/3 of the central object with a real value of 0.333333..., its two cousins in the second layer can only be 2/(1/3), which is 1/6, or else the value of the second layer would exceed the value of the first layer (and they could not be worth disproportionate, as all elements are equal when they are all required, no more and no less, to make out a specific form of unity).

Further on my thoughts went (where the reason for why "unifiables" are values at all is because Need is based in causal nature as a driving force for unity, and causal powers, that is "structures of causality", makes up the Need Space), and those thoughts of mine reasoned that while I had found a generic value for Need Graphs, every object could only be combined with any other object for which it had an orientation for. Because of this, every object in Need Space gets a unique name (or so I envision it) composed of the reference name for other objects it works as a recipe for (every object for which it can be part of). In this sense you get a practically infinitely big Periodic Table-style collection of elements which by the rules designated in their names can be combined to enforce any kind of specific reality (any kind of unity for which creates at least 1 of the given object, and two if you have a second set of equally applicable elements).

Please comment your thoughts and any objections

Can you give a practical example of how this all works?
p.s.
The text below this diagram is unreadable.

The text below the diagram is outdated, it comes from a previous exploration of the concept, so you don't need to know what it says.

Well it basically is a generalization of all forms of recipes, everything from the more real things such as cooking, to abstract logic.

However, another concept is necessary to understand and which makes it more complex than a cooking recipe, because when you get a recipe for cooking a meal, a lot of information and problems are inferred and/or solved by human trial and error as well as common sense and knowledge from the past. This is also true for abstract logic.

For practical purposes you cannot go on and on about the endless conditions the entirety of the universe have to be in to make the given set of elements manifest/materialize/summarize to what you want to know about it, and as such you can assign a tradition of understanding to any perspective (a perspective in this setting being a set of references to the knowledge about the objects for which we call the elements, like [element x, element y, element z] is a set of references to the knowledge that verifies the existence of those elements as we expect them to exist). The tradition can be added last to any perspective, and contains all inferences that are necessary to keep the set to a minimum: like [element x, element y, element z, element v, element w, tradition "blablabla"].

The tradition of understanding is a previous concept I developed, as a form of shared perspective humans subscribe to and mutually evolve together. I've also called the sum of traditions of understanding for "The Social Mind".

Then yet another crucial distinction between a cooking recipe or a set of abstract logical elements and their operations on the one hand, and the generic formula for Need Graphs (conditional structures) on the other hand as we've shown above, is that those are closed to their traditions, whereas you can redefine traditions in the perspectives such that they for instance become more encompassing: maybe the cooking recipe shall only contain the necessary food materials and not procedures? Or less encompassing, such that more details about the different brands of stoves and microwaves you want to use will give you a more accurate result or better result compared to what you expect from the recipe. It's kind of a situation of expansion and contraction.

The usefulness and my end-goal of Need Graphs is in "chasing accuracy", so the primary goal is to chase the less and less encompassing traditions such that the elements of the set can provide more and more accurate data to better meet expectations. As for a more real-world example, say you want to make a fruit salad: there will be minimum requirements and maximum requirements for how many different variations of fruit there must be in the bowl and the quantity, those can be the elements, then the rest is fit into a nice tradition we call "making fruit salad". However this is not an ordinary computation, so the elements would not be "input" in the ordinary sense, we are not computing the result, it's more a case of having already a value on the other sign of an equation, and trying to get down the definition on the left hand side that equates that value.

So instead of computing, which we'll probably have to do beforehand because the task ahead is a bit of a computing problem, we'd make a few new objects which instead of being physical objects are boundaries of possible semi-procedures written as descriptive text strings for convenience: ["get chosen different fruits and let the number of choices be between 3 and the sum of all different fruits in the world but not more than 25", "get chosen at least 5 fruits combined but not more than 25", "tradition of fruit salad making and preserving"]

Now notice that "choose" is not a procedure but a semi-procedure because (and this is a bit of metaphysics shortened) "choose" has no instance in the real world, instead, choosing is pattern of acting which is not an act of itself but which is attached to other actions in order to make them "choices". Therefore the set looks a bit weird. It's not a set of normal logical conditions either because it does reference the real world and actions in the real world, we are not just enumerating the rules for the fruit salad, but the rest of the procedures are inferred in the tradition and are hidden from us, because that's the only way to keep it short and readable, or else we'd get so much information (and I do not have patience to try writing a perspective with for instance a dozen elements! No way, that'd be a lot of computing job in my head). However, you CAN write lengthy, and when you do, you get very powerful ways of predicting when things become and when things cease to be, and what needs to be done in order to achieve the one or the other, which is really alpha and omega of all human existence: to get things to be a specific way at a specific time when it is convenient for us to have it that way.

As for the name of the first element of making fruit salad (and the rules are just made up, I just assumed 3 is a good basic number and that any quantity above 25 becomes a mess instead of a fruit salad), the name would be "fruit salad" (it would be more complex probably but I'll keep it simple) + any other instance where you need to get chosen 3 to 25 different fruits... which could happen in a "fruit salad fight" or whatever where you skip making the salad and just throw the fruit at each other... x) So for instance the name would be "x" + "y" (probably should develop some system of cataloguing), or the cumbersome name "fruit salad-fruit salad fight".

Got anything a bit more concrete as so far you seem to be saying you'll write a list of ingredients?

What you mean? What you want me to concretize? The long answer exemplified how it works if you wanted to know that. Anything specific you're unsure about?

The Voice of Time wrote:What you mean? What you want me to concretize? The long answer exemplified how it works if you wanted to know that. Anything specific you're unsure about?

Pretty much unsure about everything you write as whilst it may make sense in Norwegian it sounds convoluted in English(not questioning your undoubted use of English).

So can you give me an example of a value or need you've wanted where you've applied your analysis to achieve it?

I assure you it is as complicated in Norwegian as in any other language x)

Yes, I can give you an example. Philosophical exploration, which is something I've done since I possibly could and you too (indeed everyone has), you may just be too confused to see it. In exploring something philosophically, you start out with a perspective, a set of elements that is that thing for you, and what you don't know about it you leave in a tradition you call "future knowledge". This is a more generic way than my generics as here "being" can mean many things, and when your mind eventually usually learns about "definitions" you instantiate this generic into a "definition"... later on, as you acquaint science, you will learn about causality, and you will start forming in your head the notion of things "casual nature", what they are in respect to causality and the natural world. And there rises a new type of perspective, basically the same as mine, which is that things have a number of causes that makes it what it is, and those causes you don't know, is yet another "future knowledge" tradition.

The "future knowledge" tradition is a generic tradition for what you don't know about the being of a something... about an "object". We can however often instantiate this generic tradition because it seems to us the specific thing we have in mind cannot have more to it than we have loosely defined. Which is why a process, like making something, will be able to have a rather narrow relatively well-defined boundary, in its elements and in the tradition that represents what is to be known more of it.

An example for when I've used this: two days ago I was making pancakes... I don't know how to make pancakes, so I found a recipe on the internet. However, the recipe was more than I wanted it to be, so I had to take a chance and alter it a bit for sake of convenience and quantity. This means I had a basic notion of what the elements were in the "process of making pancakes in my house for myself at that time", and the rest fell upon the tradition... "making pancakes". So since I didn't have a perfect formula, I just gave it a try, and I followed the requirements of the elements and from intuition and experience of doing other things and seeing people do things and rationalizing in my head I slowly eroded the mountain that is "making pancakes", getting to a point where I had my pancakes in the end... that said, they were not perfect, but what I did wrong would also be a lesson, and the anti-action to what I did wrong will be part of my perspective the next time I'm gonna make pancakes (if I remember to), like using less vegetable oil and not playing computer games while my pancakes fry.

The usefulness and my end-goal of Need Graphs is in "chasing accuracy", so the primary goal is to chase the less and less encompassing traditions such that the elements of the set can provide more and more accurate data to better meet expectations.

As for values, things like "egg", while they vary in their quantity, you cannot make proper pancakes without eggs, so the value of eggs is 1/x where x = sum of elements. In this way, you could say that many of the things I learned on the internet would not be elements because they are not requirements, they are merely convenient ways of doing things. The real element would be more generic and allow for more variation.

But, you called it an "analysis", I think you should avoid thinking of it too much like that, and more like a formalization of the uncovering of the natural relationships between things, something which we already do but have no language specialized to handle. I'm kinda giving that language, which will enable people to build databases on more pressing things than frying pancakes, like scientific formulas etc..., and when you have it there, you can connect it with other things, you can more efficiently expand and refine it, more efficiently analyse the implications it has to the rest of knowledge, and you can far easier learn it in a more efficient and enabling manner.

For things that are tracked real-time, I have another example, namely my desire for food and drink. We all track that one in some way (some more efficient than others). Because the body naturally tells you when it is experiencing a deterioration as a cause of hunger or shortage of water, but although less easy to spot, it also tells you when you've had too little of vitamins, iron and so forth. You can set up different perspectives on this, because you can have a "well fed" object of need, either you are well fed or you are not. Alternatively, you can have a "state of bodily nourishment", which is more encompassing, and which you can see more clearly when it tracks the more basic units of the natural world, which are: either things are solid (in the sense that they don't disintegrate in any kind of way), or they are reactive (they disintegrate in some form of manner and this appears in the form of a morphing (a change) that is what we see as a reaction). Depending on how much you zoom in and out, meaning how accurate you want the elements to be (the "functions of the object of need", to get back to an earlier term), the more or less reactivity you would see, and this usually means more or less elements, as each element becomes more narrow but you get more of them so they cover the same ground but with more data to provide.

So with a "state of bodily nourishment", you could have a quite complex and accurate understanding of what is sought after to solidify your body and make it what we think of as more "healthy". With a "well fed" you get a perspective which variably is sufficient or insufficient depending on what's wrong and how you define it, although with such a title I expect it to be very rough data with few elements and easy to spot when something is wrong (either your stomach tells you it wants more food or it doesn't... either your head feels tired and you'll need some sugar for instance or you don't... either your mouth feels dry and you need some water or you don't)...

Understand it better now?

The Voice of Time wrote:...
Understand it better now?

Honestly? Not in the slightest, other than that you don't understand what a recipe is.

Well obviously the recipe is not the point x) In a recipe, the recipe is the point. In Need-Science it's the Object of Need. But please ask any more narrow questions and maybe we'll be able to get an understanding step by step.

The author of the theory of the philosophy of number based on perception of the world in the concept of philosophies of definition of the general consciousness. This theory defines constants of physical quantities as the set of a materialization of consciousness based on the general perception of world around concerning sequence of measurements. Genetic definition of this concept is based on distribution of the theory of the spheres which don't have diameter.
It is logical mathematical structure of unit in volume: (pi/6) in which there is no radius.
Structure of unit: 1 = [(2^-1) + (3^-1) + (6^-1)]. In this logic there are no geometrical constructions. In structure of unit there are only projections of our consciousness - the geneticist. This logic explains numerical structure of an atomic nucleus and genetic functions of chemical symbols.

https://www.mendeley.com/profiles/alexander-khripkov1/