DIALECTCS

DIALECTICS

PRESOCRATIC AND HEGELIAN DIALECTICS

THE MEASUREMENT IN QUANTUM-MECHANICS AND ITS PHILOSOPHICAL DIMENSION

CONTRADICTIVE MONADOLOGY AND UNIVERSAL BIO-CARTOGRAPHY

―CONTRADICTIVE ELEMENTARY UNITE―

Contents:

PRIMARY NOTATION AND PROLEGOMENA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

DIALECTIC THINKING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

OPPOSITION-CONTRADICTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

PRESOCRATIC DIALECTICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

ANAXIMANDER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

HERACLEITOS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

ZENO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

HEGELIAN DIALECTICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

THE MEASUREMENT IN QUANTUM-MECHANICS

AND ITS PHILOSOPHICAL DIMENSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

CONRTADICTIVE MONADOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

A Primary Notation: If man is not a creation of God, but a result of the universal evolution process, his structure must contain recorded, all the moments of this universal evolution process. So the human existence, form, and structure are faces of this recording. For the same reason human cerebrum is also a codified structure of experience and knowledge of this universal evolution process in every man. It is, nowadays, somehow accepted, that all these recordings in human structure and cerebrum, are concentrated codifications in his microstructure record, which is his DNA. This recording is a specific logics-lingual syntax (a language of nature), which contains or responds to all universal moments from the point of view of every specific man and which has not been completely de-codified or read yet.

When experience enters in the human hereditary knowledge mechanism, (which mainly is the human cerebrum), stimulates and awakes this mechanism, reminding its ancient founding formation deposits, which travel deeply into the ancestors, the animals and the nature, decoding them. Because a new experience is not exactly the same with the responding in the hereditary mechanism, it reforms-enriching the old founding formation of this mechanism also. So the decoding process of the knowledge mechanism, by the entrance of experience, follows a new conscious codification, which reforms the cerebrum’s structure also. This course of de-codification and conscious re-codification, is Conscience and Logic, while the part of the knowledge mechanism, remaining in the old hereditary state, is Sentiment, Intuition and all the inexplicable and considered metaphysic attributes of the human nature, that is, the Aesthetics.

According to this ontological preposition: “knowledge is possible”, because by the experience and critique, we decode the world evolution course, which is multi-dimensionally recorded in our codec knowledge mechanism and recoded as conscious. All structures of human hereditary knowledge mechanism, are decoded-recoded again and again, in an endless process in the human cerebrum and are concentrated to DNA. Thus, with the discovery of the human DNA, as a hereditary knowledge potentiality mechanism, all the discussion about the terms of metaphysics as science and any relation of metaphysics with human intellect and mentality, collapses. Intellect and knowledge do not have any relation with metaphysics, because science forbids it. So all the literature about mechanisms concerning the psychology, the soul or the spirit, in relation to the knowledge and the human behaviour has fallen to emptiness, since nowadays these are a subject of neurobiology. Thus the “a priory knowledge potentiality”, is now considered to be the natural structures of the universal evolution process recorded in human cerebrum and because this is a hereditary experimental accumulation, that is why human knowledge receives experience exactly as really is. So the world is the one we come in immediate touch and has nothing to do with Ideas of any kind phenomena, which the Ideas reflect to our world and knowledge. 1

PROLEGOMENA FOR A FUTURE DIALECTIC THINKING:

Although Dialectics appeared first, as conscious logical practice, by Anaximander and Heracleitos, after the appearance of conscious Rationalism by Parmenides and the Formal Rationality by Aristotle, Dialectics was pushed aside. And although the dialogue about a dialectic logic continues until today, there was never a clear perception about "what is or it is not" Dialectics, because the texts of these great ancient thinkers came to us, fragmentally and scorched by the sacred Christian fire. The reappearance of the Hegelian "Science of Logic", although gave a respiration and created a huge philosophical movement to all directions (materialistic and idealistic), did not give a dialectic-formal-logic instrument as the one of Aristotle proposed for rationality. Moreover, though marxist dialectics opened again the way for the social vision, finally collapsed. This way, dialectics was put aside again, considered to be dead, not only to the scientific research, but to the social vision also, because though socialism accepted Dialectic Materialism as a motion and progress mechanism, in science and every-day life couldn’t avoided rationalism and formal logic. So dialectics remained dead-unburied and its ghost, goes around the philosophical and scientific cycles for centuries, because though man did not succeed to use it, did not stopped to dream by means of this. Because rationalism, since antiquity, was reinforced with differential and integral mathematics for the overpassing of its static syndrome, there are thinkers who accepte dynamic and differential rationalism as dialectics and others who claims that real Dialectic Logic should be avoid as a curse of thinking.

This work brings again in the surface of interest, the inquiry “if a Dialectic Logic could be an autonomous one or it is a supplementary differential-dynamic process of rationality. Thought this matter concerns the logics-lingual syntax of the scientific process, it also concerns philosophy, because it holds as a matter of logic since antiquity.

There are scholars who consider philosophy as the history of philosophy and dialectics as the history of dialectics, so they should not participate in this dialogue, because they will create confusion; this work do not address to them. They must wait for the thinkers who “draw up” from the “fountain” of logic and thinking, deriving from the scientific evolving process to compose a contemporary dialectic thinking, and if they succeed that, the turn of them will come, if they understood, to inform the public what has been done. According to the majority of them though, “nothing new, from these which have been said, is possible to be said”. Something which seems to be true, because man dreamed for centuries and for almost everything. This although is accepted from a great part of thinkers, is the mistake of them who believe that the world is finished, phenomenal and closed system, which operating, from a moment and after, will repeat a predeterminate and finished series of games, which could be named “synthetic prototypes of the end”, and that is why they believe nothing new is to be said. Though these games are the result of the system’s operation, simultaneously must be as ideal at the beginning of that operative system, composing this way a world of ideas. This rational dynamic process, was named by Aristotle Entelechia (Εντελέχεια is the system, whose the terms of composition, presuppose and not fail functioning to perform its final integration and perfection). It is sure though, that dynamic and differential rationality, being reinforced with a huge armoury of mathematics, according to the majority of the scholars, has completely covered the space of dialectics. So the inquiry is raised, “why, since we posses a so progress and perfect logical system, to change it with another one, which has not be reliable yet?”. The answer comes from the contemporary science and especially from Quantic scientific thinking, which insists that determinism and dynamic-differential rationalism cannot prescribe reality any more. Moreover, “diving” in the research of pre-socratic dialectics, it seems that these thinkers of our dark past, didn’t say their last talk. They insist that our world is more democratic than our thinking, demanding that for the same philosophical and scientific inquiry, could exist more than one answers, some times opposite. Thus they insist, together with the finished, teleologic, phenomenal, closed, objective rationality world, Logic proposes a world of real evolving process, which does not obey to rationality but to dialectic logic; and from this point derives the demand and the inquire “ if and how a dialectic logic as autonomous could be possible”.

If rationalism is a science, we should ask our selves if dialectics could have the legal claim to be another, autonomous one, from rationalism. To accomplish that claim, we should be able to propose the constituting differences of these two ways of thinking. If we fail to do so, we must bravely accept that an autonomous dialectic logic cannot exist and it could be only a supplementary instrument of formal rationality.

Notice A: Great scientist David Bohm claimed that: Quantum-Mechanics theory of fields prescribes the motion of particles as a destruction-creation process. Looking at the description image of a moving particle, its motion mathematically appears as a destruction of this one in one position and recreation of another to another position. This also means that a moving particle do not possess continuously its “Identity”.

Notice B. Heracleitos claimed: In the same river, we enter and not enter, we are and we are not. The same material, we do not touch twice, because everything, departs-returning, collapses-composing, exists-not existing. And Zeno claimed: The moving one, moves neither in the place it is, nor in the place it is nott. Thus is because, it moves-changing inside itself.

So we realise that quantic science, accepts the behaviour of the quantic particles, the way pre-socratics Anaximander, Heracleitos and Zeno do.

Notice C: To distinguish the meaning of contradiction, from inconsistency and inconsequence, which in english follows the word contradictory, i use occasionally the word “contradictive”. I intend this way, to give to the word “contradiction”, the evolutionary dimension which philosophically follows this word in dialectics.

DIALECTIC THINKING

Notice: The word "dialectics" is etymologically accepted, to be originated from the dialogue. If that is correct, dialectics should be dialogics. Pre-socratics though, who were undoubtedly the first and the most consequent dialectic thinkers, named dialectics Logos (Language, Logical Speech). [In the ancient greek dictionary Liddell and Scott "διάλεκτος" (dialectos), is a language spoken in a particular way― being somehow a specific language in the common language]. Thus, Logos is a specific logics-lingual system, which presupposes the mutual-penetration of opposite meanings, composing the Contradiction Unity of a related quantitive-qualitative Metron (balance). When the related metron of a contradiction unity's the opposite “legs” is disturbed, this unity collapses, transforming to another Metron of contradiction unity. Anyway, the dialogue is not the constitution difference of dialectics, since the dialogue characterises rationality also .

Intrduction: My work Dialectic Thinking is based on a contradiction perception of the evolving world. Thus on specific and significant “knots” during its dialogic consequence, steps simultaneously on affirmation and negation. Although this dialogic behaviour is legislated during the process of the tex, makes it difficult and hard to the formal and conventional reader, whose gnostic ethos has been formatted in the limits of determinism and rational objectivity. So i propose the reader to pay more attention in the part about “Pre-socratic Dialectics” and will be reward.

The conscious dialectic thinking is an adventure of logic, which departed from Anaximander, passed to Heracleitos and integrated to Zeno. Because their work arrived to us in a fragmentary state, was dressed with a cloud of doubt, so was underestimated, misapprehended or confused with sophistry, and for a reason more, because it didn’t proposed a formal dialectic logic instrument, like the one of Aristotle for rationalism, was abandoned. This situation thought, with the entrance of Relativity and Quantic Theories in the scene of science, changed, because determinism and rational objectivity could not prescribe the world precisely. So contemporary science looks for a kind of dialectic logic, but it has not find one yet, because the Hegelian “Science of Logic” which is accepted as the more integrated and reliable, did not keep its promise and duty. Thus, the inquiry for a new dialectics and a formal logics-lingual syntax instrument, agreeing to the contemporary science, has raised.

This work, separates the journey of dialectics to its integration, in four stages: A. The pre-socratic approach of the contradiction logics-lingual syntax, not forgetting the verses of Lao Tsu. B. The elucidation of the Hegelian Dialectic Logic. C. The philosophical dimension of measurement in quantum-mechanics. D. A preposition for a contradictive monadology and a contradictive rationalism.

The first three stages compose a prologue for the last stage, where i expose my opinion about a contradiction unite, upon which will step, my thoughts for the creation of the contradiction logics-lingual syntax of a formal dialectics instrument. This effort though, needs a revolutionary mathematical description, which will refer to the collapsing-composition nature of the world, events and things, which i am not able to accomplish.

Because this work is under the pre-socratic dialectics contradiction view, being simultaneously a memorial offer to them, thought it is dialogic inelegant, i repeat, on purpose, some of their significant verses. I insist to that, because they help to understand and de-codify the contradiction of dialectics.

Beginning this work, i enclose some dialectic verses of Anaximander, Heracleitos, Zeno, Lao Tsu and Einstein, which urge and stimulate the human mint toward the contradictive thinking:

―Faith leads to ignorance.

―This world, which is common to all people, is not created by god or man, but it was, it is and it will be eternal fire, burning “up and down” in Metro (in balance).

1. The great strait course owes to be curve.

2. The great square do not have corners.

3. The cycle is a polygon of infinite corners.

4. In the same river, we enter and not enter, we are and we are not.

5. We do not touch the same material twice, because everything changes violently and rapidly, Departs-Returning, Scatters-Gathering, Composes-Collapsing , Exists-NotExisting.

6. The Straightly and Normally Moving-One, will return to its departure position once.

7. The moving one, moves neither on the space it exist, nor on the space it does not exist.

8. Tending something to zero, tends simultaneously to infinite. The instantaneously motion, is simultaneously immobile.

9. The light itself is dark.

10. Great and small coincide to infinite.

11. The perfect is imperfect. The finite is dynamically infinite.

OPPOSITION AND CONTRADICTION

Although i consider dialectics to be a contradictive logic process, due to the idealists and phenomenologists persistence for an existence of opposing dialectics, i will accept that there are two kinds of dialectics:

A. The opposing dialectics, according which: the world and the logics-lingual syntax describing it, is composed by ultimate, finite, unchangeable elements, which contrasting interact each-other without violating the ultimate limits in-between them. These elements compose an differential-dynamic objective-rational, system, which has absolute terms of operation, and after a moment, it will eternally produce a predetermined, finite, concrete series of games, which would be named: “synthetic prototypes of the end”. These games, which are the limits of that system, exist as ideal, simultaneously from the beginning, waiting for their accomplishment from the operation of the system. This process called by Aristotle “Entelechia”. That is to say, a system whose terms presuppose its absolute and perfect final integration. These final games of operation could also be named “World of Ideas”, whose the phenomenal evolving process, will be accomplished by the operation of that dynamic-differential, objective rational system and reversely.

B. The contradictive dialectics, according which: the world and the logics-lingual syntax describing it, is a Whole in a continuous evolving process and for this reason, is not composed of ultimate unchangeable elements, but of contradictive self-overpassing ones, which inter-acting, do not leave any unviolated limits in-between them, composing contradiction unities. (The opposites in a contradiction unity, thought give birth to each-other, simultaneously refuse, rejecting and fighting each-other).

According to the pre-socratics, to exist something in this contradictive world, should be in a continuous collapsing-composition process, by an under existing lever of fire-elements. The fire-elements of the under existing level are in a collapsing-composition process also, till the ultimate level of the world (the way Zeno proposed), where the ultimate elements tending to zero size, tend simultaneously to infinite, being at the same time, of zero and instantaneous speed. (This ultimate contradiction level is the universal potentiality level, which comprises all faces of world and simultaneously none). Objects or events, consist of energy elementary units (quanta, eternal fire elements or “pyridia”, as pre-socratics use to call them) receipt-emitting passage-antipassage in a specific position. These elements departing from the object’s position, make a multi-dimensional journey to the Universe returning back to their departure position. The course of these elements is considered multi-dimensional, because they depart-returning continuously, after the inter-axion contact with every other object they meet during their journey. The composition of an object, by this multi-dimensional process, consists of an unconstrained depart-returning number of elementary unites traveling courses (from the departure position to the universal inter-acting other objects positions and oppositely). Since the universe of Heracletos is not finite and closed but open and infinite, every course of these departure-returning inter-acting elements, do not accomplish a perfect cycle, but a thick spirally-helicoid course; so the departing elements returning to their departure position, do not verify them-selves absolutely as thy were and exactly in their former position, but a little farther and a little different, being simultaneously Them-selves-Others-Elsewhere, composing, this way, the straight course of the object’s motion, which coincides with its evolving process. (Motion of an object and its Identity contradict, because they are a result of sub-elements of a sub-level departure-returning course, which verifies-falsifying both object and their changing position, during the object’s composition). Motion this way coincides with the object’s evolving process. So the removal of objects is an illusion of determinism, because things having a continuously changing identity and being continuously others, do not deserve to move as their-selves.

A. PRESOCRATIC DIALECTICS

Pre-socratic dialectics is based on Anaximander’s contradiction aspect, that infinite evolution process is a result of the collapsing-composition process of beings and universe. Heracleitos accepting that aspect, proposed Logos, which is the logical organised contradiction logics-lingual syntax of the evolution process. Logos is the first and rather the most reliable Dialectic Logic. Logos, as Heracleitos claimed, is Logic, Language and Essence, coinciding with living Material and therefore the Nature’s infinite evolution process, being the Dialectics of Nature. Farther-on, Zeno by his paradoxes, reveals the antinomies of rational formality and rationalism dialogic bases, at least when it manages and associates with Being, Motion, Time, Space and Speed. Zeno, this way, leads us to a kind of Negative Dialectics, which Plato developed by a different way in his Dialogue ”Parmenides” later. Hegel departing from this point, organised his “Science of Logic”, which was based on the Platonic idealism, the Parmenidian phenomenology and the Kantian metaphysics; and this was accepted as the Dialectic Logic of the modern world.

In this small tractatus of mine rises the inquiry, “why pre-socratic dialectics were abandoned for the sake of the Hegelian logic”, for one more reason that Hegelian logic, as i will mention, is neither logic, nor dialectics and thought it was a genius concept, spread the confusion to dialectics for centurie

ANAXIMANDER

―“Anaximander claimed that both, authority and element (great and small) of beings and universe is infinite. Thus he also claimed infinite not only has the quantitative character of the unfinished, but the qualitative character of the contradictive elementary unit evolution process. The contradictive elementary unit being in an continuous evolution process, changes continuously, being infinitely other. So things and universe are, as big and small, under the authority of infinite, wherefrom skies, worlds, and all beings are born and contained. ―He claimed that time is related to the genesis and perish of the specific related materials. ―He also determined that Infinite coincides with the eternal motion, in which other beings are born and other die, having as a result the eternal universal evolution process”. ― He claimed that evolution process is not a result of the four elements of nature’s mortification, but of the continuous fight of the opposites. ―“Anaximander claimed hat the first animals were born in a liquid-watery environment having scales but when the environment became drier they threw out the scales and adapted their selves to the new environment” ―“He also claimed that human beings were born in between fishes and when they where capable got out, going to the land”.

Comment:Anaximander conceived that the contradiction of infinite and evolution process had as a result the evolution of specimens also. The Darwin “Evolution of Specimen’s Theory”, is an elegant achievement of rational conclusions and remarks, in-front of which the Anaximandrian aspects pale as primitive, if we do not consider that it was proposed 2500 years before. The prepositions of Anaximander, although came to us in a fragmental state and we do not know the way they were proposed, have something that Darwin’s theory falls short of: Anaximander with his evolution aspect, proposed the bases of dialectic thinking also, which about Darwin did not seem to care.

HERACLEITOS

―Everything communes to Logos, and because of that, they change; and thought they are assured for that, do not feel it and do not understand it. ―The changing one, agrees to itself; it is the ambi-coursing harmony (both way harmony), like the one of violin and bow. ―This world which is the same for everyone, was not created by god or human, but it was, it is and it will be, eternal fire, which burns-exhausting in balance (metro). —Everything transforms to fire and fire to everything, as merchandises to gold and gold to merchandises. —We neither enter in the same river, nor we touch the same material again, because everything changes violently and rapidly, Departs-Returning, Collapses-Composing, Exists-NotExisting simultaneously. — Rectilinear motion is a result of rotation in the lathe.

Comment:The world, according to Heracleitos, consists of the eternal fire (energy), which burns up and down in Metro (in balance). That is, a continuous birth and death interchange of beings, which collapse-composing from the eternal fire passing inside them, in a position, every specific moment, in Metro (balance). Metro is the contradictive essence of Logos: Logos presupposes always a Metron-balance of the one leg of contradiction to the other one. So Metron is the specific character of the contradictive relation, composing occasionally a contradictive Identity; Thus, Metron is a dynamic balance composing an Identity in continuous modification. So, Identity is Always Other, Else-where. Nowadays we know that everything alternates to energy and energy to everything. Indeed Einstein expressed that aspect mathematically by the equation Ε=mc².

If we compose the previous prepositions, we will be driven in the following conclusion: Every thing or event, exists because other elementary under-events of fire (pyridia, quanta or energy) pass inside them in a specific contradictive Metron. These elements depart from the specific event and traveling toward the universe, interact with the events of the near by environment, after that to the farther ones and finally to the Far Away Universal Antilogous of the event; and returning back to their former position compose a continuously changing (collapsing-composition) reality. Because the Universe of Heracleitos is open and infinite, these elements of eternal fire (pyridia, photons or quanta of energy) returning back from universe to the event, do not perform a perfect circular course, but a thick elliptic-helicoid one. This way, they do not verify absolutely the event in its former position, but they verify-falsifying it, a little farther and a little different. Thus, the event moves, being simultaneously Another-Similar to Itself and in Other Place. According to Heracleitos events move-evolving simultaneously, being an evolving Identity.

ZENO

―Something to exist, should have a size and some distance from another. The same occurs and for the margins in-between them. I will say this once and forever: it is neither possible to exist an ultimate part of any material, nor an ultimate margin in between things. It is not possible something to exist only by itself. So if there are many things, should simultaneously be big and small. So small to be of zero size, so big to be of infinite size.

―If there are many things these are similar and not similar to themselves.

Comment:The rationalists, putting aside the ambiguity of the Zenonian verses, come to the conclusion that Zeno claims: that because the existence of many thinks contradict, these could not exist. I believe, this is a simplified approach to the multi-significant character of Zeno’s prepositions. Thus Zeno in these verses with the relativity of big and small, one and many, reveals that one and many compose an ultimate contradiction unity, where the one meaning gives birth to the other but simultaneously fight each-other also. Zeno presents there, the ultimate contradiction level of the world, which being simultaneously immediate and immobile is the contradictive essence of universe. This is the Being, the Material itself and the universal potentiality level. That opinion goes against the atomic theory of Leukippos and Democritos, who accept the existence of ultimate, unchangeable, not separate elements, as the atoms where supposed to be and the existence of empty space ultimate margin in-between them. Although science was nourished with Democritian-atomic aspect and did everything to discover the existence of ultimate unchangeable elements of the world, did not succeed it. Modern science concludes that everything transforms to energy and energy to everything as gold to merchandises and merchandises to gold, as Heracleitos said.

―The moving one neither moves in the space it is, nor in the space it is not.

Zeno in this verse does not doubt the existence of motion as the doxographs, Hegel and the majority of his interpreters claim. Zeno doubts the way we accept the Existence of Beings, Motion, Speed, Time and Space upon motion occurs .

Hegel claimed: something moves, not because it is one moment here and another somewhere else, but because this exists simultaneously here and not here, so motion is a contradiction. Hegel presents this way,the contradiction of the removal, accepting the identity of the “moving-one” not to change during motion. Oppositely the moving-one according to Zeno, because it is in a collapsing-composition state, being continuously Other to Other Place, really do not removes upon a place, but it moves inside itself, changing its identity. Motion according to the pre-socratics coincides with evolution process. We also conclude that, because of the collapsing-composition process of beings, Time is the Frequency of the passing-by elements repetition rhythm, and Space is the Wave Length of their spread around. According to this option, because things collapse-composing, being continuously different, do not deserve to have speed the way we accept it. Their speed would coincide to the speed of their modification from the one form to another one.

LAO TSU

It would be a serious omission speaking about dialectics, to forget the verses of Tao by Lao Tsu; So I will remind two of them and to include them with the pre-socratics:

―The great straight course owes to be curve. ―The great square do not have corners.

Lao Tsu describes this way reveals the dialectics principal, where the great quantity occasionally transforms to its opposite or to a new quality.

―Relating to the pre-socratic thinking notation, i remind that: According to Bohm, “in the quantum-mechanics field theory, every motion is described as a creation-destruction of the elementary particles. The motion of a free particle is described as a destruction of a particle in a position and creation of an other in other position. So motion is generally accepted a series of destruction-creation which has also the result of their change.

Contemporary science accepts, that in the ultimate limits of our world, the micro-particles collapse-composing continuously loosing their stability and their formal identity. Therefore quantum-mechanics agree to the pre-socratic collapsing-composition real dialectics evolution process and not to the idealistic Parmenidian-Platonic-Hegelian phenomenal evolving process.

At the end of this work, for the pre-socratic dialectics to be complete and integrated, i will propose the anatomy of contradiction and the monadology referring to this anatomy, as basis for a contradictive dialectic formality.

Before all of these though i must do a comment to the way Hegel organises his dialectics and see if this could solve the problem of the lack of a contemporary dialectic logic.

B. HEGELIAN DIALECTICS

The Hegelian "Science of Logic" is a masterpiece of sophistry, where Hegel tries to convince us, using over-complicated definitions and designations, that the universal evolution process to which we come in natural touch, is a phenomenal reflection of a hidden unchangeable reality or that we are not able to receive the reality as it is, but we receive only its phenomenal reflection of which the grater part is not real. He claimed that the elevation of that phenomenal appearance to Logic Itself will lead us to the absolute truth which is god and only the god.

Hegel § 1 page 53: Philosophy has the same objects of research with religion. Both have as an object the truth, in the higher meaning, that is god and only him is the truth. In addition both of them deal the territory of the finite: the Nature and the Human Spirit, the relation between them and each-one of them with god.

Hegel § 88 page 216:...we must be surprised listening nowadays opinions like ”from nothing cannot become something and only from something could become something” and not to understand that on this opinion, Pantheism and Atheism, are based on.

Comment: The Hegelian “Science of Logic”, with an incoherent "Nihilology" (science concerning the Nothing, Zero), accepts a phenomenal evolution process, concerning only Logic It-Self, to depart from the Absolute-Zero and to arrive to the Absolute-Being, as an absolutely determined-one; this way Hegel “reveals” the “ex nihilo” by god creation of the world. So the deepest meaning of his Logic is Theological. Hegel preferred in this case, instead of Logic to use the Old Testimony.

Moreover during the process of his dialogic coherence, he transformed the contradiction to opposition, giving a hided but clear subordination-tribune to determinism. That’s why the majority of his verses, following two logics-ligual syntaxes, create so much confusion, that do not obey neither to dialectics nor to rational determinism. The confusion is intensified by his intention “to equalise or to assimilate, these which he considers to be absolutely opposite and for this reason to be accepted as the same”. This assimilation could exist in very special situations, but by the abstract and superficial use, Hegel practice it, demolishes logic, because this way everything could happen and be said for every case. When we pursue a Dialectic Logic, but not to roll down to sophistry, that “equation” must be accepted only for the ultimate level of the world (the ultimate contradictive elementary unit) as Zeno has described it: For something to exist, should have a size and some distance from another. The same is valid for the margin in between. That also must have a size and always must something to exist in between. I will say that once and for ever: it is neither possible to exist an ultimate part of some body nor of the margin in between. (it is not possible to exist ultimate atoms). It is not possible also something to exist by itself. So if there are many things these should be simultaneously big and small. So big to be of infinite size, so small to be of zero size.

The Hegelian “Science of Logic”, due to the denial for Logic and Things correlation, do not deserve to be neither Science nor Logic, and because of its idealism, do not deserve to be dialectics also. Although it is one of the most brilliant philosophical concepts, harmed more than anything dialectics. And although Hegel wanted to rise it as a scientific tool, he never succeed it.

For the understanding of the Hegelian dialectics and justify my accusations against this logic, the reeder should have in mind his fallowing verses:

―A. § 8 page 68: There is nothing in sensation, which could not be contained in intellect. By means that mind and with its deepest term spirit is the cause of the world.

―B. § 40 page 122: The critic philosophy considers experience as Unique base of knowledge; but also considers it not to be true, but only knowledge of phenomena.

―C. § 84 page 201:..The Thing (the essence of the world) should not cary the fault of contradiction, this blames logic capacity (the essence of spirit).

Comments: A. If ”thinking and spirit is the cause of the world” or at least exists before the experimental reality and because Thinking and Being coincide, thinking could not begin from nothing (from zero), as he claimed, but he could not also base the intellectual process of his work on that. So his claim about the unity of the pure Being itself and the pure Zero itself to the Evolution Process collapses.

B. We conclude, from that verse, that Being consist of the Ideal Things-Themselves and contradictive experimental-phenomenal evolving process. According to him, we are able to know the experimental process, but we must refuse that it is true.

C. According to Hegel, because experimentally we only are in touch with the contradictive phenomenal appearance and not with the reality of Things Themselves, Logic following the contradiction do not coincide and correlate with the reality of things.

Parmenides, who proposed the phenomenal appearance of the dayly world, in his poem “About Nature” and things, did the obvious: As a main principal of logic, rejected the Not-Existing, accepting that only the Being exists; after that he rejected contradiction because It Is-Being Not, and so containing partly the not-existing, embodies the fault. Thus he proposed in his rational process, the use only of the Existing-One, creating with the other principals rationalism.

―D. § 6 page 61: It is significant to point out that philosophy has as a content, that which is produced in itself and produces itself in the territory of the spiritual life, so the external and the internal world of conscience has as a content this reality... In did, that agreement with reality at least could be accepted as an external criterion of the philosophical truth. Thus we must consider that higher and final purpose of this science is the reconciliation of the self-conscious logic with the existing logic capacity, that is the reality.

―E. § 24 page 102:...thoughts could be named objective and between them the forms could be concluded, which forms at the beginning are searched in the common Logic (the formal one) and usually are conceived as forms of the conscious thinking. So Logic coincides with Metaphysics because it conceives things in thoughts, which are the essence of things.

Comments: D and E. It is so that he although intends to propose his dialectic logic, will never abandoned the basic terms of the rational formality. Thus he considers higher and final purpose of his logic, the reconciliation of the formal rationalism with his dialectics of the phenomenal contradiction of thinking. His logic departs from New York intending to go to Baltimore, but considers very clever to pass before from London. That is why he continuously reforms the dialectic contradiction to rational contrariety, giving a reference to the formal rationality. It is so, that the use of two logics-lingual syntaxes in the same thinking to create obscurity and urgent need of continuous re-definition of the proposed meanings.

―F. § 19 p 92: Logic is the science of the Pure Idea, that is the Idea the abstract element of thinking.

―G. § page 209: The pure Being is the pure abstraction so it is the absolutely negative; which being conceived as immediate, is Zero.

Comment: F and G. Hegel accepts the Kantian aspect about the “Logic purity” which is related to the “a priory human knowledge capacity” and coincides to Metaphysics. So the Mind, with its higher meaning, could be the cause of the world and the world of conscience to be the content of the reality. That is why he wants his logic to depart from the preconscious pure Being-Itself, which as undetermined coincides with the pure zero itself. Since Logic (according to him) is developed in the abstract element of thinking, it should be the abstraction of a specific experimental event or thing. But it is obvious that we cannot have any abstraction of Nothing, and this way the characters of “pure” and “itself” loose their meaning. The materialistic dialectics (of Nature) demands Logic and experience to coexist. These inter-extent deeply to each-other, not leaving any unviolated limits in-between them, being inseparable. Experience cannot be fertilised without a related logic capacity and logic capacity cannot be developed without experience. These inter-develop in the universal evolution process creating man as an existing reality.

Conclusion: The Hegelian “Science of Logic”, being idealistic, owes to refuse contradiction and to be appositive. As appositive though cannot be, by all means, dialectic, because refusing the contradiction of the existing reality, owes to accept the phenomenal evolution process and refute the real contradictive evolution process. Because of all these, Hegel owes to accept not coherence between logic and things, and therefore, his “dialectics” could be neither science nor logic. Finally, logic in his work, gives place to faith, since Hegel claimed, that “god is the only truth”.

That’s why his logic did neither offer to science the services he promised, nor a dialectic formality as the one of Aristotle for rationalism. And that is why his dialectic formal principals could not be tools for research but final conclusions which rationalism do not refute in many cases.The faithful and the mystic climb the lather of determinism and when they reach their higher grade of arrogance, drop and forget the lather, creating a world of their own. And since this work is rather a theological preposition we should not forget to talk a little about it: Theology is the most arrogant activity of the human thinking, because the theologist places the “voice” of god in his moth substituting him as enable to commune with his creations. Even more theologists overpass the teaching of Christ, the son of god, concerning that he needs help from the genius theologist. The verses of Christ are very simple and cannot offer dialogic pleasure, these are made to be understood by “the poor in the mind” and so by every body. The dialogic complexity of Hegel, did not succeed to offer nothing to faith also. The “Science of Logic” did not make the believers more faithful, on the contrary made them more faithless.

Generally faith and mysticism emit a mental stench, because they nourish where dialectics goes to stool.

C. MEASUREMENT IN QUANTUM-MECHANICS AND ITS PHILOSOPHICAL DIMENSION

The inquire, if philosophy should have a share in science or science in philosophy, has never stopped to exist. Philosophy, as generally accepted, begun from Anaximander as a primordial science of nature, where intuition, imagination, observation and some primitive experimental proceedings, composed a unity. According to Anaximander, Space, Time, Thinking and Being compose an infinite collapsing-composition evolving process. After him, Heracleitos, this social and natural evolution process, comprised in Logos, which was the first Dialectic Logics-Lingual Syntax.

Since Aristotle science begun somehow to separate from philosophy, but till Newton did not exist any clear separation. Nowadays, neo-positivism defined philosophy as a specific science, in the limits of the “Logic of Language”, so any other philosophical thinking, was considered as an indefinite and “windy” meditation. Since then, determinism became synonymous to the logic of science, where the space of philosophy in was vanished. With the enter though, of the “Relativity Theory” and the “Theory of Quanta” in the scientific scene and determinism to decline, the great scientists begun an intellectual war upon developments and interpretation of their scientific achievements. Thus, although distinguished neo-positive philosophers were closing the door of science to philosophy, the same period, great scientists putting a side these neo-positive theories, opened the door to philosophy, offering royal share. They indicated this way, that there is neither vanguard science without philosophical criteria, nor contemporary philosophy without scientific knowledge.

Although the content of ancient greek philosophy, concerned ontology and ethics, finally coincided with the art of thinking, which is Logic. The first great quarrel about “which Logic is the correct one”, was the one of the two great bards of thinking, Heracleitos for dialectics and Parmenides for rationalism and primordial determinism, which seems to me that never ended and continues nowadays.

Since Newton is the most integrated representative of rational objectivity, it would not be necessary to refer to Aristotle. Yet this which should be overpassed, with the coming up of Quantic Thinking and Relativity Theory, is not only the rational objectivity and science, which is defined by the newtonian thinking as determinism, but it seems that the Aristotelian rationalism and typical logic also are violently disputed.

The Newtonian way of the world conception, could be accepted as a highly integrated Aristotelian. There is a great course departing from Aristotle, which finally ends to Newton. Every hurl that injures Newtonian thinking, would just the same injure the Aristotelian logic also, upon which determinism is based on. Because of the fact that science disposes nothing more than rationalism and typical logic as a tool of research today, though scientists want to reject determinism, keeping its heart, which is rationalism and typical logic, creating confusion and bigly.

The Newtonian way of accepting the world, could be consider as the one of powers and particles, which dispose attributes, as mass which is static, since does not changes during the time and speed which is dynamic and changes during the time. According to the newtonian concept, the world process is a result of powers acting externally to the particles and this way, creating combinations and collisions of particles. The universe of Newton was absolutely determined and rationalised in the limits of the pre-existing Time and Space. There, it is accepted that the attributes of the particles exist, regardless if we observe them or not. Newtonian determinism with its Aristotelian logical corpus, was generally accepted as indisputable in everyday life and in scientific community, until the moment of the “Time and Space Relativity Theory” preposition. There Einstein indicates that the meanings of Time and Space cannot be accepted anymore as separate, but as a space-time unity. Although Einstein never accepted that this preposition was straightly against the Newtonian objectivity, it is obvious that changed radically the view of science about that matter.

At aproximately same time, Planck discovered the quantic nature of the warm object energy emission. His theory shows that energy is emitted in specific ultimate quantities, whose size depends on their frequency, that is, their colour. This work doubted violently the authority of the newtonian thinking about the micro and macro world.

According to the Newtonian concept, to ascertain the position of a bullet, which is accepted as a thing or an object, we light up the bullet a specific moment and this way we stabilise it ideally in a photographic film. The influence of the light on the object, by which this process is accomplished, do not concern the research, because it considers to be of no interest. For an electron though, due to its speed and small size, the matter gets different dimensions. The photon which will hit the electron, should be of high frequency to give measurement results and this way it alters the existence-state of the element for research.

There is the classic experiment for understanding the description of quantic elements, which comprises the launching: A. of small balls, B. of water waves and C. of electrons. After the launch of these “objects”, they move to a curtain where there are two holes. Behind the curtain there are detectors, which record the behaviour of the launched objects. A. If we launch black balls from one hole and white balls from the other hole, we have the expected result of objects. B. If we launch water waves, we have the expected result of water waves. C. If we launch electrons from one hole we have the expected result of particles, but when we open both holes the result is not the expected one. The electrons depart as particles, but when they arrive to the detectors they behave as waves. Therefrom, the inquire derives “how electrons could dispose simultaneously particle and wave attributes” . Thus, a problem of description raised in the micro-world, where the Newtonian concept about the world was doubted and much more disputed.

For the description of a phenomenon in contemporary science, we must propose a model, which by a mathematic process should consider all the modifications of the event and the state of the attributes that follow the phenomenon. So in the case of an electron as a quantic event, a mathematic structure is necessary, which could comprise all the static attributes of the event, like energy loading and mass, but the dynamic attributes as position, impulse, and direction of spin also. This mathematic structure should reflect the wave-particle behaviour of the event. That description problem was solved in three ways, from Heizenberg, Dirac and Strentiger. It is regarded that all solutions are of equal mathematic worth, but the one of Strentiger, was generally accepted, as more efficient.

Strentiger conceived an equation which can describe all the modifications of the quantic event, in every possible position in time and space. This way of description differs from the Newtonian one. According to the Newtonian concept, the attributes of the bullet are presupposed to be in relation to that object and they just exist. The description of Strediger though, which concerns the quantic objects, counts the possibility which the value of the electron attributes will take during its measurement. This prescription do not concern the innateness of the electron attributes before its measurement. The Newtonian concept considering the electron as a bullet, (as a particle), accepts its position and impulse to be absolutely exact and real, something which agrees with common logic. The wave-function of Strentiger though, which is the quantic concept, is simply a wave of possibilities, which are formed during the measurement. Yet this is the only way to describe the scientific results in quantum mechanics, being tested for years and being accepted as efficient and according to the experimental reality. The great scientists though, are not just satisfied with the results of their research, but they proceed to ontological and philosophical interpretations. This is where the interpretation problem of the experimental data arises.

The quantic event, before measurement, is described from a wave-function which, according to some scientists, represents ideally the attributes of this quantic event, let say the position of an electron. I must point out though, that there are equally significant scientists, who consider this wave-function as real. That wave-function represents the possibility of an attribute existence, determining this way, the values which potentially it will take during the measurement. The instrument of measurement, in common logic, is a device which records reliably the result of the experimental process. The opinion of many great scientists, though, about measurement in the quantic world is very different. They sustain that the instrument of measurement and the object for measurement interact so much, that it is impossible to be considered as separate. According to them, these compose a quantic unity. Even more there are great scientists as Noumann, who insist that human conscience participates so much in measurement, that there is not a way to separate it from the quantic unity.

An other matter which divides the scientific community is, what attributes has or not a quantic event before measurement. The basic concepts are two: A. The concept of Copenhagen which refuses the objectivity of the quantic events and is followed by Bohr, Heizenberg, Strentiger, Noumann e,t,c, and B. The concept of objectivity followed by Eintein, De Broglie, Bohm etc.

According to Heizenberg the quantic reality consist of two situations: The potential one and the actual one, which are connected with the act of measurement: The actual world (the world of the phenomena) really exists, but under that, there is the clear potentiality, which is the predisposition to be realised when it will be measured, that is, when it will be observed. Against that opinion, Bohm proposes the existence of hidden parameters; according to that if these parameters would be known, the objectivity will somehow be restored.

Einstein accuses the school of Copenhagen, that in this world of potentiality, is silently accepted, immediate inter-actions, which go against the Relativity Theory. To prove that and with the assistance of Rosen and Podolsky, proposed “the mental experiment of the tween electrons producing machine”. According to Einstein, if these tween electrons potentially dispose opposite spin and exist in a distance of many years of light, one of them should react simultaneously, becoming opposite, when the other presents its spin. [It is said that this experiment was realised efficiently and the instantaneous reaction was verified].

Finally the objectivists not being able to reject quantum mechanics reality, they compromised to a different approach in that mater. That indicates the following preposition of Bohm: Every movement in the quantum mechanic theory of fields, is described as a creation- destruction of the moving elementary unite. . . . . the movement of an elementary unite, is accepted as destruction in one position and creation of an other element in other position. That reminds very much the Heracleitian Dialectics: in the same river we enter and not enter, we are and we are not. The same material we do not touch twice, because everything changes violently and rapidly, departs-returning, composes-collapsing, exists-not existing.

It seems that the Aristotelian formal logic and Newtonian determinism objectivity do not match with the quantic world. Quantic world needs another logic, where everything should be accepted in a continuous collapsing-composition evolving process. In that collapsing-composition world, neither Time as duration can be accepted, nor Space as a place upon which everything exists and moves. Time there, is the frequency of the collapsing-composition Metron and Space is its relating wave-length; for that reason speed really does not exist, the way we accept it. Also, because the Identity of the quantic events is in a continuous collapsing-composition process, having contradictive nature, the Principal of Identity and the Principal of Not-Contradiction of the Formal Logic are canceled and should be modified to a Contradictive Identity Principal and to the Amphi-Dromic Rationality (both-way logic). So quantic proceedings need another logic. That situation though has not been considered neither by Einstein, nor by the Strentiger’s equation. They use both newtonian Time and Space, with the quantic Frequency and Wave Length in the same mental process. This activity perhaps is the cause of the observed paradoxes and antinomies.

D. CONTRADICTIVE MONADOLOGY

Notation:

A. This work is an elaboration and recapitulation of my earliest works: “Contradiction is Motion and Materiality” published at 1983 and “Logic, Action and Language” published at 1994, both by Dodoni.

B. This work is an effort to answer to the following inquiries:

1. How a contradictive elementary unite, a contradictive identity and a contradictive rationalism, are logically possible.

2. How universe, as an open system, is logically possible.

3. How motion and change as real and not phenomenal, are logically possible.

4. How universal unity of great and small, (mega and micro), is logically possible.

5. How intellect, intuition, conscience and aesthetics are logically possible.

6. How universe as an intercommunication “plot”, where every-thιng in it, would be and behave as a message, is logically possible.

7. How this communication plot would exist, as a contradictive ontological logics-lingual syntax and Contradictive Bio-geometry, is logically possible.

INTRODUCTION:

1. The world (material reality) exists in two ways, which though stand against, they do not refute each-other, but integrate to a contradictive unity.

2. This reality exists as many separate specific finite events and as a unity of all these (as a whole), simultaneously.

3. From the point of view of the specific finite events, to which we only can be in touch, the world is always a finite event.

4. Every finite event has as limits the other specific finite events, to which inter-act every moment, inter-form and inter-determine, in a narrow or broad relation.

5. There is a quantitive scale expressing this inter-termination and inter-formation. This departs from the deeply inside self-datermination of the specific One, passes to the inter-formation and inter-determination with the events of the nearby environment, gradually to the farther and faraway ones and finally with the whole (the universe), which is the Other-self, that forces the specific-one continuously to change. That is, its Universal antilogous, which represents the far away decentralised part of an event, while the specific event it self, to be the concentric part. For the above reasons the specific and finite One, is in a continuous change comprises potentially a face of infinite. The continuously changing one, being in an evolution process do not have absolutely determined limits, being infinite.

6. The world, as a Whole, is a Unity of all these inter-terminations and inter-actions, which every moment is Unique and Always Different. So, the world itself, as a Whole, exists overpassing continuously and instantaneously itself. That is, to be Always Itself-Being continuously Other, being the Contradiction as Essence Itself, the Potentiality (the dynamic base of the world), the Evolution as essence itself and finally the Materiality itself. The world itself, as a Whole, is a continuous explosion of change, which simultaneously-instantaneously returns palpitating back and forth, from infinite to its former situation and position.

7. So from the point of view of the specific continuously changing events, but also from the point of view of the whole, Past and Future do not really exist, only Present exists. Present (Now) ExistsAlways-NotExisting, because in its every moment Is-NotBeing Other (different). It is the zero edge of the fading (perishing) present, which tending to zero, tends simultaneously to infinite BeingNot Being-Always-Other. So Time, being always “Now”, do not exist as duration. Duration as Time Itself is a deterministic illusion.

8. The whole (the material universality) as a continuity of the specific separate events, is the abstract expression of their interaction generality. This situation in its higher grade though, over-grades the abstract generality to a higher specification, which is the Eternal Motion Itself (Motion as a specific essence). The world consists of unlimited separate evens, which the more constant are considered, the more specific they are, but in their supreme constancy and in their minimum time duration, constancy is overpassed to the eternal motion, which needs another calculation and logical approach.

9. There are two ways of logical approach to the material reality, which inter-extend each-other, so that the specific enters inside the abstract and oppositely. This way the abstract and the specific compose a unity to a higher specification, which responds to the Eternal Evolution –the Motion as an specific essence–.

10. Our world is so continuous as its discontinuity permits. It is so concrete as abstract is, it is so finite as infinite is. The specific, discontinuous and finite event, extends to the continuous, abstract and infinite one, which is the universe and the universe, return its depth diving into the specific one.

It is so that: the more we dive into the small and specific, the more away we travel into the universe and oppositely.

event and position

11. Every event exists in a position because of the flow-antiflow(flow-reflux) process of under-events in this position, which make the event to be a collapse-composing reality. Thus every event in a position, has a specific way to emit-receiving under-events (messages), to and from universe. This has as a result, a specific intertermination-interformation and opposition-unity of every specific event with its environment, which is the way the event “perceives” the world.

This perception means that every event emits-receiving messages (under-events), which arrive to universe passing by all the events of environment and interacting with them, brings the difference to its formal position changing itself.

12. There is a scale of the specific events “perception” for the world, which scale emits-receiving flow-antiflow(flow-reflux) of messages, which depart from the confrontation, (interreaction-intertermination) deeply inside the event itself (self-termination), passes to the confrontation to the near-by events, next to the farther ones and finally to the Universe as a Whole itself, the Eternal-Other-Self, the Universal Antilogous (the Far Away Universal Reply), which forces the event to change continuously. This interacting-perception differs with the distance of the events travel, (being so bigger as farther they travel).

13. Every confrontation is a junction of depart-returning messages. The messages traveling to the universe reform the events of the environment they meet, being simultaneously reformed by them, and finally returning back, reform the event of their departure. So after an unconstrained process of gradual departure-returning messages to all events of universe, the specific event transforms the universe being transformed also simultaneously by the universe.

14. The above means, that every message performs unconstrained “cycles” of departure-returning, composing a scale of differntiality, which transforming the universe is simultaneously transformed by that.

15. Every “cycle” of the departing-returning messages, is a junction which puts the limits of the event specification. The message though, passing by all the junctions of differentiality, terminates itself to its opposite view. The integration of the event “self-perception” is realised when the event itself has been overpassed, because the transformation of its far away opposite, having gradually been absolutely similar to it, do not exist any more as itself being as Other.

16. During this process of message exchanging, (emit-receiving messages to the universe and from that), the bigger distance messages travel the more different they return, so they verify the event of the departure, but simultaneously being different, they falsify it also. That has a result, the event to be verified a little further from the position it was. It is so that the event itself to depart from the same position of itself and to return-getting away, enters to a continuous identification to itself. This identification departing from the greatest one (as the eternal departure) and gradually getting smaller, ends to the minimum identification (where exactly is the position of the eternal return). Between these extreme positions there are unconstrained junction-positions of departure-returning, where the event is able to exist as related and similar to itself. In the two extreme positions though, the event do not exist because it has fallen in the under substance of the world, the immediate and immobile (the Potentiality Existing level of the world).

All this process could be named contradictive identity, which I will try to make a full description in the following work.

point, straight course, space and time

17. The world to evolve really and its every moment not to be repeated (to be unique), should be an open system, whose terms should be self-overpassing (being of contradictive nature). So the logics-lingual syntax to express this reality, should consist of contradictive elements being a Contradictive Geometry To make understood how an element would be a contradictive one, it is necessary to bring in mind the elements of Euclidean Geometry, which are just opposite to the contradictive elements. These are not simply elements of geometry, but from a philosophical aspect, elements of a cosmological logico-lingual system.

18. In Euclidean Geometry point, straight line and space, are ideal meanings, being each other separated and motionless “in the state of rest”. The Space is of three-dimensions, whose all directions expand to the infinite; this is considered to be separated from all the others but it can contain all of them, (its existence though do not depend on these). This could exist and be conceivable without all the others it contains, as an empty space, being finally an idea. Straight line expanding to infinite never meets itself; the point is ideal having no dimensions. Regardless something happens to any one of them, nothing is necessary to happen to the others. On the contrary, if we suppose the existence of a «Contradictive Geometry», this would have as basic characteristic the innate mobility and correlation of the elements it consists.

Space, time, straight line and point, altogether compose a unique event in a continuous motion, interaction and inter-formation, being everyone in a specific condition because the rest of all the others demand to.

19. Let’s see the meaning of this preposition: A point in the state of rest, can not be considered, but moving rectilinearly and normally in space; because of that, the accomplishment of straight line is not the ideal event, we imagine and sketch it on a flat paper. Straight line, in this case, is a straight and normal course of a moving point in space, and space, to be real (not ideal), has the continuous rotation as a state of rest.

Space, for a point moving rectilinearly and normally, is an unconstrained series of similar points, composing a unity. These points differ each others in their direction and the departure spot, at the specific moment all these are considered to depart simultaneously composing the specific space. In other words, the moving rectilinearly and normally point, should do so in a space consisting by other similar but in different direction points; that’s why “the state of rest” of the space in relation to the moving-One, rectilinearly and normally point, is a rotation (there is one more reason which we will realise during the process of this work). So it is necessary for the moving-One, to accomplish gradually its course upon the crossing positions of the Other similar moving points, the space consists of. These crossing positions of the One’s course upon the ideate courses of the Many Others, is the way the straight and normal course of the One is recorded upon the rotating space. The rotating space falsifies the straight course of the One because it is accomplished on the Many-Others “course-plot” in a curved form. (The One “intends” to accomplish straight and normal motion, but the rotation of space transforms its course to curved).

20. To have a better comprehension of space, point and straight-motion relation process, let’s make a mental experiment: Suppose the rectilinearly and normally moving point, «intends» to accomplish an absolute straight course. This moving point to catch up the space rotation, should accelerate so its course to be «straighten up»; so the moving-One to accomplish this task should cover any supposed distance A―B, instantaneously. Every «rectilinear» course of a point moving instantaneously, looses its course sense, because being instantaneous, it has been expanded to all universe and has returned back to its former position simultaneously. After this remark we have this paradox: the instantaneous acceleration of this point, don’t permit acceleration and motion, because the instantaneous expands to all universe, being simultaneously everywhere; so this is in the departure and arrival position simultaneously. This is an explosive change to infinite and return instantaneously back to zero point. So this point being of zero and infinite size, is at the same time, the instantaneous and motionless, One and Many; this is the contradiction itself, the potentiality level of the whole.

21. This paradox could reveal the relativity of space, point, straight-course and time, where the behaviour of all these, depend on their relation to All Others, forming this way a Unity. The size of the point is every time so big, as its speed permits and due to its speed, the motion course recorded in space “straightens up”. The more its speed increases, the greater space is limited and included in the “curvedness” of the course “straightness”, and smaller the size of the point becomes, demands an appropriate rotation of the moving point around itself. This way, point is a rotating anti-space that expands-unrolling into space, as space rolls-folding and rotates reversely, diving into the point. For this reason, the crossing positions of the course of the One, upon the courses of the Many-Others, which compose the corresponding space to the course of the One-point (moving normally and rectilinearly), forms a crossing position scale. This scale departs from the position of the One crossing one-Other, and gradually unfolds to positions of crossing-together two-Others, three-Others …etc, arriving to a position of the scale, where the One crosses all Many-Other courses simultaneously. The Point moves-expanding to the Space and the Space rotates-diving into the point, acting reversely to the point and composing together a contradictive unit.

22. The previous process is similar to the following: The rectilinearly and normally moving-One, crossing gradually the Many-Others courses, (having everyone of them separately a different direction), once will reach the position to cross the course of the One (of itself), having a reverse direction to the One of its departure, being at this moment the centre of the hypothetic rotating space; Hence from this position, it will begin to «return», crossing this way its own course and finally it will coincide reversely upon its own course. This process we described, is the space which corresponds to the moving-One, composing an open system, because the integration of this return is accomplished only to its direction, but has not return exactly to the hypothetic position of this point departure, since there is not an absolute one of this kind. (This preposition will be determined again, because it is very critical the space not be a closed system). Regarding carefully this process, we could realise that the course of the One, crossing the courses of Many-Others, is finally the same to the One crossing its own course; That is so, because the “curvedness” of the straight course, presupposes the straight course once to begin crossing its own course.

23. Space, following the curved (straight and normal) motion of the One reversely, moves-rotating, expands-constricting, departs-returning. It is so that space in relation and together with the moving-One point, behaves as a unit. The only space not obliged to have a motion course, but only to palpitate, is the Whole. Because this palpitation is instantaneous, is not a course, existing potentially and can not be terminated as any other essence, but as the contradiction nude. That means: to have all attributes and none, being the Instantaneous and Motionless at the same time. When space is not a whole, but a conventional one, the element of instantaneous disappears from surface and hides in the underground, being indefinite and forgotten. In extreme and boundary situations though, it shows its face astonishing us. Except of the «absolute» space, appearing as the contradiction nude, any other conventional space is curved, responding to its related point and its related «straight» course, having a paracentral (eccedral) oscillation. This way the point is real, having size, rotation and its straight course owes to have a curvedness, responding to the course of the point and its size. This space is constricted-rotating and limited by the curvedness of its straight course on one hand, and the rotation and size of the point on the other. Thus there is Space and Anti-Space (Time); the Space is constrained by the pointcourse curvedness and the Anti-Space, by the rotation of the point around itself. From a contradictive point of view though, both Spaces together compose one event: “the contradictive Space” which is inseparable from the events it is related with. Time in this Time-Space event, is the fluidity of point frequency in the specific position and Space is the expanse area of the point rotation round it self, in relation to a specific system of reference. This contradictive Space, even might be characterised as a Space-Time event, where Time would be the frequency of the points fluidity in position and Space would be their wave length.

24. The specific space departs-returning, not being able to verify absolutely itself, because, as we have notice, the moving-One-Point responding to this space, moving forward returns once to the direction of its own course, verifying the direction, but never absolutely the hypothetic position of its departure. This way, it verifies related positions to itself near by its hypothetic departure position, but not absolutely; the returning point meets its position, touching it more and more but never being exactly upon that. (The absolute departure is an ideal one and can only be conceived as, the immobile and instantaneous, the absolutely vacant and simultaneously the absolutely full). Thus the moving-One collapses-composing itself a little farther from its previous position, moving forward.

25. From a contradictive point of view, motion is the course of the collapsing-composition process of the events. This depart-returning course, responds to a process of an unlimited series of denial-verifications, that departs from the absolute verification and simultaneously the absolute falsification, where the space-antispace departs-returning instantaneously as contradiction-nude, and passing by all the positions of possible verifying-falsifying relation, ends to the absolute falsification, being at the same time, the absolute verification, which is again the instantaneous and the nude contradiction. There, space is always different and potentially, has all forms and simultaneously no one. All intermediate departure-returning positions, verify-falsifying, collaps-composing, situation represent a conventional and specific space, which although is constrained, has undetermined limits, because the moving-One has not an absolutely specific departing position and its limits are continuously changing. These limits, are always related to some departure of the moving-One, presenting itself as an ultimate unite at the moment. This way the specific and constrained space, is at the same time open containing potentially the infinite.

Explicative note:

26. Every rectilinearly and normally moving point has the syndrome of curvedness; henceforth a moment, it must create crossing positions upon its own course, by itself. These positions are where the moving-One repeats itself more than one time; this way a scale of positions gradualness is created, departing from the position of zero repetition, passes all possible (one, two, three…) positions of repetition and ends to the infinite one.(―The zero-infinite―positions of this scale, respond to the contradictive-instantaneous).

27.Now let’s see again this process from an other related view: The moving-One point performs an unconstrained number of departure-returning cycles, intending to verify itself. This way it terminates two spaces to which every time responds. (The great one, responds to the course curvature of the moving-One, and the small one responds to the perimeter of One’s rotation round itself, being its size). These cycles depart from the one which is never accomplished, because it has never departed, and ends to the one that never accomplished because it will never return. (Both of these cycles compose the zero-infinite unit, responding to the instantaneous). Between these two space relating positions, an unconstrained number of departure-returning relating positions exists, where the event is not verified absolutely but in relation to its falsification. At these positions the moving-One (the point) crosses its ideal course but never absolutely. (We call it ideal, because it is not there itself to be met again, but it has passed by this spot, creating positions of departing-returning repetition). This one never passes exactly by the position once passed, but gradually touches more and more the ideal spot of departure and verifying it gradually, creates a scale of verification-falsification relating positions. These positions depart from the greater falsification and smaller verification of this One and arrive to greater verification and smaller falsification.

28. The moving-One (point) departs-returning continuously to universe, determining the size of the space curvedness course in relation to the size of the position rotation around itself. (The smaller position self rotation, responds to a greater course curvedness, containing the adequate universal space). This relation departs from zero size position and infinite size space and passing by all position and space relations, (the bigger position, smaller the space becomes), arrives to a zero space and infinite position. (As we have noticed, at this extreme situation we have the instantaneous and immobile simultaneously, with all the consequents following this relation).

29. Accepting the existence of an unconstrained number of departing-returning points, which move rectilinearly and normally, it is necessary every-One of these to pass from the positions of all the Other points and all the Other points gradually (one by one) to pass from the position of the One. This way we have the accomplishment of Many Others by the course of the One passing through them, and simultaneously, the accomplishment of the One, by the alternating Many Others courses, through the One. Thus, on one hand, there is a position series, having a periodic repetition of different points through every one position and on the other hand, one position having a series of different frequency repetition courses of Many Other points through the same position. (These are the different crossing positions, of the course of the One by itself). They are two opposite quantity, flow-antiflow position scales: the One through Many-Others and Many-Others through the One. This has as a result the creation of a spherical order position system, with pole A, being the departure of the One and arrival of Many-Others and anti-Α, being the departure of many Others and arrival of the One. In this process (being the contradictive unit we have noticed before), the moving-One exists exactly where it consists by the anti-coursing of Many-Others. This anti-coursing, consists by the courses of similar Many Others, having everyone a different direction, that is a different angle of crossing, (something we accepted at the beginning of this concept, as an element of difference between the similar Many-Others). So these points arriving differently to every position of this quantity scale, compose the One as rotating and different every moment and simultaneously Many-Others exist the way they are, because the One counter-moves with a different repetition frequency (of its course-crossing by itself) through every One of Many-Others separately. We have noticed that the moving-One departing from the position A, arrives in position anti-A (being Many-Others), where the greatest crossing state of the One’s course by itself exists. At the same time, position anti-A, is the departure of Many-Others, where they exist as the anti-course and the anti-moving-One. Many-Others, as we shall see, during unfolding this model, are every moment and in every position One else, –a different Other–, having a different direction, because it arrives there having some other spot as departure in a different quantity scale, from the unlimited number our world consist of. Between positions A and anti-A, a gradual scale of flow-antiflow relating positions of the One’s course and Many-Others anti-course exists. Every position, although is an identity having its own character, is simultaneously an inseparable part of the scale of the whole. A scale of positions is a specific identity, being a different relation of the One and Many-Others, flow-antiflow process; This scale of positions, is simultaneously a partaker of the whole as a unity. Whole is a contradictive unity, being an ideal “scale board” of positions and point activity, being the matter we try to terminate in all its contradictive dimensions in this work.

30. As we noticed, this scale has an unconstrained number of point departure-returning positions. Every position is a result of different flow-antiflow relation of One and Many-Others moving points. This way every position have a different character with a definite emission-receiving of a specific event, departing for universe and returning to position. Every position is a vortex, where Many-Others dive, entering from one side and spring out by the other side, because the One contra-moves terminating, by the frequency of its repetition, the quantity and the wave-length of Many-Others. Any removal from position to position, modifies all relations. Any character of modification in the position of a receiving-emission point, changes its scale position, moving exactly to the justified position by its receiving-emission character. At the poles of the scale, there the unrepeated and the instantaneous repetition is, which reveals the infinite character of an open system, in all events of our world. Since every scale takes a specific character of emit-receiving-flow-antiflow position, its infinite character withdraws, carrying away zero element too. Then the infinite element of the scale, is modified to an infinite number of scales, changing face. Although every scale is characterised by the attributes we referred to, simultaneously has a departure reference to a different position in every other parallel scales; That is why it has an unconstrained number of faces and dimensions, containing one face of the whole, (from its evolutional point of view), until the moment of a specific research. Although it seems that two different situations exist, both are the same event from an other point of view; it is remarkable to notice this detail, to make clear that the departure-returning of the emission-receiving of messages in position, is not a closed system but an open one.

Explicative note:

31. The moving-One, we supposed that its course crossing by itself, is “the cause of –One and Many-Others– contradictive relation process” (coursing-anticoursing), in its complete integration is the instantaneous-immobility potentiality. This potentially is, the operation of the Whole, which being instantaneous is hidden. That operation of the whole exists in the depth of this hidden form of the world, as an instantaneous palpitation (expansion-shrinking). (This is the motionless-instantaneous crossing-distances of no size parts situation and zero-infinite unity). When we intend for distinguished units, moving rectilinearly and normally, the instantaneous disappears from surface hiding in depth and the relation of the moving-One and Many-Others counter-motion comes in surface, where the existence of the moving-One depends on the counter-motion of Many-Others and reversely.

32. The hypothetic leaping removal of the One, from position to position, which we could imagine as the ultimate removal distance on hypothetic axis with poles A-antiA, of the hypothetic flow-antiflow sphere is a result of the anti-moving course of Many-Others. This anti-moving course of Many-Others, travelling to the faraway limits of the sphere (and forward to Universe) returns to meet and verify the moving One. The returning Many-Other elements, meet the moving-One in its direction from position «α» to position «β» on the axis A-antiA; The Many-Others moving reversely to position «β» passing by «γ», («next» position of moving-One course on the hypothetic A-antiA poles axis). (I insist to notice this again, because of the importance, that Many-Others contra-moving, compose the leaping removal of the One from position «α» to position «β» on the axis A-antiA. Many-Others moving reversely from the supposed next position «γ» to «β» and «α»). The speed of the moving-One on axis A-antiA, from position «α» to position «β» being considered as the smaller leaping distance, is astronomically smaller from the speed of Many-Others reversely moving to consist the moving-One. (If we imagine the moving-One as a photonic quantum, and the Many-Others as sub-quantum elements of a deeper existing level, then the so called leaping removal, is the result of an almost instantaneous collapsing-composing process of the One, by the moving Many-Others. These Many-Others, though have enormously different speed, moving reversely and in different levels, coincide inter-terminating, inter-composing each other). In this case, a paradoxologist would say that one system moves from past to future and the other from future to past. From a quantic point of view though, it is possible time not to exist this way; because world is οnly Now and real time is the repetition frequency of passing elementary points in position. (Since space is the wave length of the points spread).

33. The positions should receive-emitting, a consequence of gradually alternating angle coursing-anticoursing units, having as a result a rotation. This rotation is terminated by the responding relation of receipt-emitting-coursing-anticoursing points in every position. This rotation departs as paracentral (eccentric), since its emission on the “coursing-anticoursing” scale should be singular (of one element) and its receiving is almost infinite at pole A, but after passing by all possible relating positions of emission-receiving-receipt-emitting on axis A-antiA, its paracentral character tends to be in balance until the centre of the hypothetic sphere, (having axis and poles A-antiA); after wards balance will gradually again be disordered reaching pole antiA, where it will be completely paracentral. All positions however, appear externally balanced, because the receipt-emitting of coursing elements disorder will be balanced by the responding disorder of the anticoursing elements. These positions differ its other, to the coursing-anticoursing relation frequency, having a responding angle of rotation, in relation to their position in axe A-antiA of the hypothetic sphere.

34. Micro (very small), which we could name «point», expands far away to Mega (great, universe) and Mega dives into Micro, being together One (a unit). The deepest limits of the inside coincide to the faraway limits of the outside, composing the contradictive unity. Events consist by an unconstrained number of this kind of points. Everyone of these points, departing for universe, returns verifying partially its moving self. This event referring simultaneously by a different way to all universe scales, expresses by these receipt-emitting process, its own view of all universe faces. Any position of these flow-antiflow scales, emits to universe, receiving from it messages, being a specific emit-receiving message cod. A scale consisting of this kind successive positions, begins from the position of higher receipt and lower emission, passes gradually by all possible positions of different relation emission-receiving messages and ends to position of lowest receipt and higher emission messages. Every position, responding to all these different scale point departures, even the instantaneous one, is able this way to change itself, emitting gradually to universe all possible messages, responding differently to all scales. These begin from the message which never departed, because it is always there, passes from all gradual series of departure-returning messages with a different point of flow-antiflow relation to universe, ending to the message which will never return. (We have noticed that both messages, “the one being always there and the one which never returns”, compose the contradictive unity of the “instantaneous-immobility and infinite-zero”, being the positions of A-antiA poles) This way, the event we call point in universe, sends an unconstrained number of messages, changing continuously its emitting-receiving code, to maintain its own position and simultaneously changes continuously position, to maintain its own receipt- emission code.

35. This could be expressed differently: the One and Unique consists of the anti-course of Many-Others (flowing in position of One) and simultaneously, Many-Others consist of the course of the One (anti-flowing in Many-Others positions). Many-Others are accomplished by the One and the One by Many-Others, composing together the Whole (Unity). This way, the course of the moving-One to sequent positions, is a collapsing-composition result of Many-Others anti-coursing (in the position of the One), realising-verifying it; and the One returns its dept to Many-Others, realising-verifying gradually all of them.

[Because universe is infinite and open system, every message that departs from a position to the universe, returning back, do not verify absolutely its departing position (as we have noticed), but it verifies-falsifying it. This because the returning message «steps» upon the departure position, verifying it gradually from more to less, going finally farther from the departing spot. This way the moving-One exists as a collapsing-composition even in a continuous changing position].

34. That we call «point» in universe, on one hand moves being the same continuously, (changing scale, being able to verify a similar One-Other in a different scale); on the other hand it collapses-composing, at the same scale and moves changing continuously its position by changing its emission-receiving code. This way a moving point (an event), is a distinguished and constant spot, but simultaneously an expanding cloud. We could imagine both of these situations together, as a cloudy «one stroke of the pencil line» having a solid “nose”, but moving, leaves back an elliptic and gradually expanding to the universe cloud. That «point-event», moving eternally, verifies-falsifying all the spots of its “tail”, being simultaneously verified-falsified by them.

36. Therefore that we could name «opposite» from a contradictive point of view, is the unconstrained universal plurality, formed in relation to the unity the One-event represents. The opposite to any specific-One, cannot be expressed as minus-One, but as an unconstrained series of similar and gradually differing from the One events. These depart very deeply from inside the specific-One, without leaving any independent «space» and travelling faraway out of the One, accomplish an unconstrained number of depart-returning courses, which verify-falsifying them selves, compose this an unconstrained contradictive moving relation as opposite to the One. Everyone of all these similar and unconstrained number of units, existing simultaneously in this relation, could be accepted as a distinguished scale of positions, which during this contradictive process of opposites as simultanea, must be considered as a distinguished departure position. This way we have Two, Three, Four… etc, (distinguished events and arithmetic numbers).

37. As a consequence of the previous prepositions, we could imagine our world, as a whole, consisted of such an elementary «junction plot» positions. Everyone of these positions sends specific messages of departing-returning, flow-antiflow, emission-receiving, so it would be considered as a distinguished event. The state and position of such events, consist by a distinguished «plot» of flowing-antiflowing-receipt-emission of under-events, which could be characterised as energy for these specific positions-existences (events) of that plot. So if anyone of these events receive energy (flowing of under-events), more than a necessary quantity, (it should be to another specific position of that plot); this collapses entering to the under existing energy flowing-antiflowing level (the under-event level) and it is recomposed to another position, justified by the new flowing-antiflowing-emisson-receipt, of the under-events state of the structure-plot. By this concept, the world should be a plot of an unconstrained number of messages interchanging positions. This message plotting, could be the worlds evolution process as essence and its operation would be the Dialectic Logic.

38. By means of a dialectic logic formality, “Identity” would be considered as an evolving self-overpassing event, like the contradictive unit i have presented. This way the “Identity Principal”, the so much necessary for the Comparative Process of logic, will turn to be “Principal of the Contradictive Identity”. This identity, which will be an evolving process (as we have described), to be functional in logic, its amplitude will be confined by the kind of research and the kind of involving units which demanded by the responding departures to the responding scales. This abstractly could be said, that every specific moment of this process would be a species of differential collapsing-compositive operation. This way the typical logic formality is overpassed, getting a living dimension.

39. For such a contradictive logic process to be possible, some ideal index recording boards must be contacted. These would be such as i tried to propose terminating the idea of contradiction scales of “emit-receiving-coursing-anticoursing messages plot” in this work. It’s necessary, these boards to be contacted with mathematic support, based on a Contradictive Geometry, i have sketched previously; this research process should also be related to the research limits of a specific event. These record-boards must define the possible flowing-antiflowing receiving-emission messages of the contradictive crossing position plot, which will represent a current and specific reality. This way, the removal from a crossing plot position to another, will be the result of a collapse-composing process, as it will be revealed by the ideal operation of the supposed record-boards (the crossing plot, flowing-antiflowing, positions system).

I speak about the ideal function and hypothetic recording boards, because we will never have an immediate experimental approach, at least the way we used to, because this evolving process is taking place in the so called under-quantic world, which can not absolutely be investigated. We should use hypothetic models and notice if these could be verified in levels we have experimental approach.

40. The contradictive unite, i speak about, could take a specific meaning every time its hypothetic departing position in the scale of a specific reference is determined; This reference would serve the specific research. That departing position of a specific reference system, simultaneously could be related to all other unconstrained number of moving points, in other systems of reference (scales), by a different way everyone to a different scale.

All these simultaneously departing points, travel-returning to universe, or positions emit-receiving messages, verify-falsifying all the positions of the other scales, except of the simultaneously departing positions of the other relating scales. Then every unique departure point of a specific relation systems scale, which cannot be verified from all this process, could be One, Two, Three…etc, and generally the numeral departure counting of other contradictive units. (We should not forget that all these units appearing as autonomous and independent, when they «touch» the position of Poles in a scale (A antiA), bring back to the surface the instantaneous and immobile element, which is the contradictive unity of the whole).

41. After this concept we have spoken about, a rational and organised process could be supposed. This should be related to departure positions, of scale references specific systems, during a specific research and the way departure-returning messages, would behave. That would be Dialectics.

EPILOGUE

42.This imaginary adventure of the One point moving rectilinearly and normally, in all its development, could be characterised as a “Contradictive Elementary Unit”. Although the way i have proposed it, does not look as a perfect one, the reader should have in mind, that deals about contradictive meanings, stepping many times simultaneously on the negation and the affirmation of thinking. Never the less, if science and Logic do not take under consideration this preposition about this conytradictive-dialectic unit or another work of that kind, -maybe better proposed-, will never be able to overpass the dialogic impasse, it has been trapped. Having that under consideration, the language of science will coincide to Contradictive Geometry language, where world should be accepted as a Bio-cartographic recording, the way this language demands. There will also be a logics-lingual syntax taking in consideration and having as term the Contradiction Elementary Unit, as it has been proposed by Zeno and the dialectic mental structures of the Heracleitic thinking, which i have reformed in this work. After that, all sciences, should be «seen» again and reconsidered, having in mind the Contradictive Elementary Unit and the Contradictive Geometric Bio-chartography of the world. This way, science will again be One, the Philosophy, and will coincide to the Contradictive Rationality Logics-Lingual Syntax, which is Dialectics as essence; The Heracleitian «Logos».

43. We could re-determinate the principles of a Dialectic Logic formality, stepping on the contradictive elementary unit. This way we could form three principles of the Dialectic Logic:

A. «The Principle of Dialectic Identity» where identity coincides with the Contradictive Unite, as it has been proposed during this work.

B. «The Contradictive Relativity Principle of the Opposites», which we have terminated in the contradictive opposition meaning.

C. «The Amphi-dromic Rationality Principle», being a both way Rational Activity Chain, presupposing Reason and Result to be intercollapsing-intercomposing each-other having an unconstrained number of dimensions, which reach up to the instantaneous-immobility, zero and infinite, (the contradiction nude and the potentiality). In this principle, rationality is considered to be a departure-returning evolving process, as it has been terminated previously during this work.

44. These principles worth only as operative tools in specific situations and contain a meaning concentration of all the previous work, which should be considered in the development for every specific case, but not as a formal stereotypes.

45. As we have noticed, Logic and Aesthetics are recorded in the human hereditary mechanism and Conscience is the de-codified part of this recording. This recording do not constrain the human notion and behaviour, because being contradictive is unconstrained and multi-dimensional.

46. This imaginary adventure of the normally and rectilinearly moving point, let be considered by the reader as a contradictive cognitive game. But this preposition could claim a scientific face, as “The Anatomy of Contradiction”.

47. The preposition and use of the Contradictive Logic, for centuries, was accepted as a cognitive game and it would stay this way, since rationalism departing from Aristotle, till the time of Newton has taken the position of Logic itself in our conscience. Rationalism as determinism and typical logic, being reinforced with differential and integral mathematics and with the necessity of the electronic computer, which is indeed as instrument of rationalism typicality, had puss away contradictive dialectic logic. With the appearance though of the “relativity theory” and the “quantic theory”, this situation has been violently reversed.

48. For the above reason we must not forget the notation of the great scientist and humanist Bohm: Every motion in the quantum-mechanics “Fields Theory”, is described as a collapsing-composition of the moving elementary units. . . . The motion of a free particle is described as destruction of that in one position and creation of another in other position. This realisation seems so much with the collapsing-composition of the heracletian dialectics, that brings back Contradictive and Dialectic Logic in the front of the stage. Dialectic Logic is not anymore a logical game, but a door to the future.

space and time

49. From a contraductive and a collapsing-compositive point of view, because things are always Other-Different and in other position, neither Time could be duration nor Space extension. In that ultimate level of the world which could be the quantic one, time is the repetition frequency of under-events in position and space is their wave length. So Time, Space, Speed and Being, in that level of the world, are very different from the newtonian and aristotelian concept. The Relativity Theory though and the Equation of Strediger do not take under consideration this fact and intermix the newtonian space and time with quantic time and space (frequency and wave-length) in the same calculations. Moreover these theories do not consider that speed, in Relativity and Quantic world, is not the same as in the Newtonian world. That being logically illegal, creates in specific cases logical problems and antinomies.

a final notation

50. The world is a dynamic process, which has a contradictive nature being in a continuous evolving process and for this reason, needs a contradictive rationalism to be described. Science should consider my prepositions about the Contradictive Elementary Unit and the Contradictive Rationality, as it is proposed in that logic tractatus, or other maybe works better proposed about that matter, because will not be able to forward theoretically any more.

It is necessary new mathematicians and thinkers to take under consideration this work and to depart for a long journey to the unknown. They must create a new mathematic logic instrument, which should step upon the collapsing-compositive hypothetical “tablets” i have proposed. Then all sciences will be in another theoretical base, which will consider the “collapsing-compositive” (contradictive) nature of the world and will be organised again.

This work was not understood by the english interpreters i was addressed to, so i translated it by myself, though the level of my english knowledge is low. Never the less this english being a summery and an approximate one to the greek prototype, gives the general idea of its meaning.

Αναζήτηση αυτού του ιστολογίου

philosophy

DIALECTCS

Σχόλια

Δημοσίευση σχολίου

Δημοφιλείς αναρτήσεις από αυτό το ιστολόγιο

PRESOCRATIC DIALECTICS

THE HEGELIAN AND THE PRESOCRATIC DIALECTICS AND A PREPOSITION FOR THE PRESOCRATIC INTEGRATION WITH A CONTRADICTIVE MONADOLOGY