A categorical ontology of space and time is presented for emergent
biosystems, super-complex dynamics, evolution and human consciousness. Relational structures of organisms and the human mind are naturally represented in non-abelian categories and higher dimensional algebra. The ascent of man and other organisms through adaptation, evolution and social co-evolution is viewed in categorical terms as variable biogroupoid representations of evolving species. The
unifying theme of local-to-global approaches to organismic development, evolution
and human consciousness leads to novel patterns of relations that emerge in super-
and ultra-complex systems in terms of colimits of biogroupoids, and more generally,
as compositions of local procedures to be defined in terms of locally Lie groupoids.
Solutions to such local-to-global problems in highly complex systems with ‘broken
symmetry’ may be found with the help of generalized van Kampen theorems in
algebraic topology such as the Higher Homotopy van Kampen theorem (HHvKT).
Primordial organism structures are predicted from the simplest metabolic-repair
systems extended to self-replication through autocatalytic reactions. The intrinsic
dynamic ‘asymmetry’ of genetic networks in organismic development and evolution
is investigated in terms of categories of many-valued, Łukasiewicz–Moisil logic
algebras and then compared with those obtained for (non-commutative) quantum logics. The claim is defended in this essay that human consciousness is unique and should be viewed as an ultra-complex, global process of processes. The emergence of consciousness and its existence seem dependent upon an extremely complex structural and functional unit with an asymmetric network topology and connectivities—the human brain—that developed through societal co-evolution, elaborate language/symbolic communication and ‘virtual’, higher dimensional, non-commutative processes involving separate space and time perceptions. Philosophical theories of the mind are approached from the theory of levels and ultra-complexity viewpoints which throw new light on previous representational hypotheses and proposed semantic models in cognitive science. Anticipatory systems and complex causality at the top levels of reality are also discussed in the context of the ontological theory of levels with its complex/entangled/intertwined ramifications in psychology, sociology and ecology. The presence of strange attractors in modern society dynamics gives rise to very serious concerns for the future of mankind and the continued persistence of a multi-stable biosphere. A paradigm shift towards non-commutative, or non-Abelian, theories of highly complex dynamics is suggested to unfold now in physics, mathematics, life and cognitive sciences, thus leading to the realizations of higher dimensional algebras in neurosciences and psychology, as well as in human genomics, bioinformatics and interactomics.
I can’t tell whether these guys solved science or are just really, really confused.
I’ve been skimming it for ~20 minutes. Every single paragraph or page that I’ve read made sense to me, although for the non-math parts I have to trust that their citations and references are correct and in context.
I can’t yet say what the overarching purpose of the paper is exactly, beyond the general idea of “Hey guys, let’s formalise this shit!”, but I would put the chances of there actually being meaningful work in the PDF at between 0.6 and 0.7. I will certainly agree that there’s a ton of filler in there, but it’s quite useful if—as they claim—the target readership for this paper is an ensemble of philosophers, psychologists and scientists with the most diverse backgrounds.
It reminds me a bit of a paper by two of my professors, which took the Kantian philosophy of knowledge and rephrased it in the form of topology, in the process (allegedly) managing to clear away the ambiguity from a few philosophical terms. Though in their case they treated it quite lightly, as little more than LaTeX-ing up some of their coffee chats.
After looking: sadly, it seems no “solution of science” is forthcoming:
[W]e do not lay claim to
‘solve’ any major ontological problem in this essay, such as the question of
existence of an essence for every ontological item, or indeed how highly complex
systems, processes or ‘items’, in general, have come into existence...Instead, we are enquiring here if new
methodological tools may be brought to bear...
(from p.225, or p.3 of the PDF). One possible reading of this is: “we’re full of you-know-what, and we know it, but in the event that the reader is too clueless to notice, we don’t mind getting a publication out of it.” But of course the authors may be legitimately confused or deceiving themselves. Or it could be a hoax (a multi-article one, as the authors have apparently published more than one of these things).
The paper presents what appear to be accurate surveys of various topics in mathematics and physics, linked together with buzz-talk. It’s basically a work of postmodernism: Sokal, but possibly with sincerity and without the politics. To put it in terms the authors should be able to appreciate: it’s locally correct but globally nonsense.
Looks like category theory. There seems to be a bunch of weird theory of everything type stuff there, especially systems theory like this, but also people who appear seriously competent. No idea about these guys though.
Maybe if we look into a mirror and say John Baez’s name three times, he’ll appear here and say this is crackpottery.
Yes, but its not just category theory, it’s partially a philosophical theory for “super-complex systems” as well (from what I understand). But the prereqs to understand this paper are far beyond what I’m at right now, so I really don’t know what to say about it other than that a theory as broad as that one should have a lot of evidence for its formulation.
I feel like I need to post this somewhere. This is the most ridiculously broad journal article I’ve ever seen. The paper is Categorical Ontology of Complex Spacetime Structures: The Emergence of Life and Human Consciousness, and here’s the abstract:
I can’t tell whether these guys solved science or are just really, really confused.
I’ve been skimming it for ~20 minutes. Every single paragraph or page that I’ve read made sense to me, although for the non-math parts I have to trust that their citations and references are correct and in context.
I can’t yet say what the overarching purpose of the paper is exactly, beyond the general idea of “Hey guys, let’s formalise this shit!”, but I would put the chances of there actually being meaningful work in the PDF at between 0.6 and 0.7. I will certainly agree that there’s a ton of filler in there, but it’s quite useful if—as they claim—the target readership for this paper is an ensemble of philosophers, psychologists and scientists with the most diverse backgrounds.
It reminds me a bit of a paper by two of my professors, which took the Kantian philosophy of knowledge and rephrased it in the form of topology, in the process (allegedly) managing to clear away the ambiguity from a few philosophical terms. Though in their case they treated it quite lightly, as little more than LaTeX-ing up some of their coffee chats.
Before looking at the paper: my guess is a Sokal-style hoax, or spoof of some sort.
At least one of the authors appears to be a legitimate mathematician.
After looking: sadly, it seems no “solution of science” is forthcoming:
(from p.225, or p.3 of the PDF). One possible reading of this is: “we’re full of you-know-what, and we know it, but in the event that the reader is too clueless to notice, we don’t mind getting a publication out of it.” But of course the authors may be legitimately confused or deceiving themselves. Or it could be a hoax (a multi-article one, as the authors have apparently published more than one of these things).
The paper presents what appear to be accurate surveys of various topics in mathematics and physics, linked together with buzz-talk. It’s basically a work of postmodernism: Sokal, but possibly with sincerity and without the politics. To put it in terms the authors should be able to appreciate: it’s locally correct but globally nonsense.
Looks like concentrated confusion to me.
That’s probably the most likely answer, but I don’t understand it well enough to judge its validity.
Looks like category theory. There seems to be a bunch of weird theory of everything type stuff there, especially systems theory like this, but also people who appear seriously competent. No idea about these guys though.
Maybe if we look into a mirror and say John Baez’s name three times, he’ll appear here and say this is crackpottery.
Yes, but its not just category theory, it’s partially a philosophical theory for “super-complex systems” as well (from what I understand). But the prereqs to understand this paper are far beyond what I’m at right now, so I really don’t know what to say about it other than that a theory as broad as that one should have a lot of evidence for its formulation.