Qualified Quantities
Cardinals or Ordinals ? - when Both
Numbers have dual sense: 1, 2 , 3, 4, 5 each can have both a status and position in a scale. Say simply 5 persons all one and in the way they are accounted, each different according the moment, numbered as the first, second or third and so on: one moment: here for example made all them 1 equal (almost never in reality) and set rank after time of arrival. Or each too, sucessively including the previous from one to another + 1 making 5 = 4 + 1 = (3 + 1) + 1 = (2 + 1) + 1 + 1 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1. Concepts that mixes order or ranks, cardinal units or ordinal. As nature shows or as we assume: be aware of what you mean.
See being together. There are different ways to be together and this like a sequence of properties and why to think that all should be only all at once, together ? Together can means:
- Units not together, basic contradiction. But a unit exactly the same as
other but not with; nothing to do with other but here, in the same universe
as others. A joke ? - No! just the principle of ergodic, and a
(misunderstood) principle of democracy: one human - one vote ambiguously
the zero of the amount when together, the principle of brownian motion (of
physics) and the start of any probability ambiguous.
a "no group" of perfectly equal units
- One human one vote, so why the vote ? ambiguous idea: a group or a
population where all particles' unit met together for one simple purpose,
be a vote in social affairs, independently driven from all others, but at
one moment, coinciding like when they put the vote in the ballot. But for
one vote which means? The one moment before and after: dispersion will
coincidence come again for sure ? - yes if fixed-point theorem (of formal
geometry) or because some of a stochastic dispersion of pixels of frame
will meet at the infinite, as a ghost enough looking like original picture
(a picture of chaos) or because a dictator rules? - better than a dictator
democratic unity ? - a common feeling that everyone will look at, everyone
all in the same directions; could be this a better evidence of Arrow's
theorem on democracy. May be if the rather than of the same nature the
dictator's hand is other: the practical issue of a theoretical vote, the
pivot axis of the spanish fan, the "anonymous hand of justice for all" and
so on. This sort of population simply follows a normal distribution (Gauss'
or bell's curve). Division gives equal weight or probability to be sorted.
a group of units with equal status joining with no more rules than one (unit) for one (equal status) for one (common purpose): pure democracy? (which ? no one?)
- Units, each one in ranks, ordered of all the same. Or one going in one
group, increasing by one at each time a unit gets in. Iteration, the most
simple gets one. Dimension + 1 makes integration. Ranks makes a scale. We
see a local time a before and an after. There is scale, there is order
could it be structure ? - with no contradiction ? - impossible! This too
often inspired perfection of dictatorship. The one higher incorporate the
ones lower, pyramidal structure and dictature achieved, if one lower unit
catch the power of highest unit (all) or a leader if an intermediate one (a
group). But why? - should be always this the only way to think the Firm,
the government, the struggle of useless competition. Paradoxes
get in. The one of the barber (Russel), the one of the liar exposed (a
greek philosopher): trust me I lie!
a group of units ordered one by one, under the property of order, a trans-paradox
- Units together in order with a rank and a unique measure, a norm or even
a metric. Exactly the same interval between. So linearity one to another,
and easy calculus and easy metric, from the natural accounting of one
another cardinal, joined along a scale more or less easily divisible
fractions or transcendental numbers from division. Affine forms of
calculus, relations with linearity but strange; because as in ergodic with
normal distribution or muliple normal distribution. Ergodic gets in the
wagon of operation. Operations without transformations?
a group of unit linearily behaving. The easiest calculus, so universal ? - or a universal abuse of lazzy humans: to say that 1 + 1 cannot be different than 2, that's a lie of the previous one: a fallacious determinism.
- Units together, all the same (or not the same), with order non regular
(or order regular) not without (or not within) or what allows the
environment (or what allows the de-specification (that can recatch more
potential? or less?) - Time varies (shows times), scales inflate or
deflate, from one universe or the other, according the particle ability to
disconnect, de-contextualize and re-contextualize or cannot desanchor ? -
from its environment or embbeding if not in neighbouring universe ? Action,
reaction, transformation, motivation, creation or revelation ? Things not
ignored by common sense but disliked by reasons of easy calculii. Groups or
groups' difference, correlated, non linearily playing, the diverse pathways
transformations occur, not from nothing, but surely not as the "simple
rationnal linear way boring accounting" of our lives. No more no less
guiltness than the ones whom would like to see everythings as they would
like: esoteric without reasonsability nor responsibility.
group unequal and coincidence at moments, for enough time or - enough events all the same, equally compromised, at their scale to a common equity: catastrophic constructive behaviours if covering well a universe - of potential possibilities.
- Complete the perspective with universe and see places were no unit and no
group, but place from where can emerge higher unit, not by pure spontaneous
generation, since this universe may form the unit and you would have the 5
- 6 were operations and transformations we systematically mind
universe or not universe, to be or not be anyhow things are there ? - that is the question - a closure ? may be an artificial one ? may its reason be spiritual ? as your peace likes.
Complex Cardinals
Out of metaphysics existentials tricks, let think about a complex society? - How could you mind that for any place their could be exactly only one rational mixture of defined abstracts of human values, wishing this one mine should be your's? - All the same, everywhere on Earth, that any cultural context should accept, as the etho-ethic-logical principle that should be obeyed? - unique lindedness. Ignoring different technological working capital, not even respecting honnest distributions of essential means like of energy, matter and entropy? - absurd. While fundamental principles most common to all are too often ignored by soft sciences experts, thrown away by specialists, improperly examined, uninfluenced they are by formulation or criteria and interpretations that could make them part of a democratic program... endemic academics.
See civilizations, despite that structural principles of building are not esoteric, where algebra of the simple universal kind can apply, in all world traditionnal architectures, none disobeying the structural rules, none have produced the same houses, same temples or same towns. Globalization promoted formalized structural rules and the programs of calculus for few cubic. What globalization produced has not been the same slums (out their widespread) because slum's culture is strong and too dependent from homes' close dumps sources of material and genuine individual skills necessary. Global village architecture shows 2 very looking alike neighbours: the copied clarks' bee nest of business center (dull forest of high buildings) and low cost post social ones (now most full of psychotic violence) areas of cubics dormitories full of unrest, shouts and soon to come outbursts: global village dormitories in suburbs of rational economics of violence, thugs and drugs.
Building democracies and societies should mind situations, projects, programs as genuine mixtures of operations for better adaptation to conditions. Essential scientific principles, will certainly prevail over time and, but according intituive knowledge or formal able local legitimate actors, they could have a more or less conscious practice. Mind them, so they could find, more freely, some proper social algebra and criteria. By imitation or consensus they can be adapted to genuine management and face their problems. Rather than forcing them to behave, according rigid of social algebra made universal receipt. Only to bring from one place to another essential and not reduced knowledge, that can inspire appropriation. Support explorations, inputs essential technological knowledge, take care too that technology need to be appropriated and essential evidence, not dress up for the service of uniformizing hegemony, as good as it could seem by proponant.
