[Mike 5]

OK give me a breather, it's taken a lot for me to post this first step, and I need to find the best way to explain it. Do you have specific questions to guide me to explain it, because for all my bluster, and all the clarity I see inside, I am scared firstly of my inexperience in explaining this, and secondly nervous of the brilliance of others looking to demolish new ideas.

I'm planning two more concrete explanations next. One involves digital audio engineering, firstly because that is the domain where I first developed Fractal Dialectics, and secondly it is an analogue motion of only out and in for a loudspeaker, and so a simplification of more complex motion of fluids and graphical image data processing - but should be applicable in theory to any analogue motion and data.

Secondly there is the recursive structure of a notation for positions in a looped system of finite elements, that in my view is sufficiently like numbers to replace many forms of calculation and I hope provide a full mechanics.

I am too close to all this to express it smoothly at my first attempt. And it is deeply ambitious, but like a virus, the concept grew way beyond my initial application in audio engineering and synthesis. It feels like a mountain inside me even to explain it, so if you do have specific questions, I will do my best.

However it is not maths as we know it - and your post implies maths is number because of your word quantity.

No, Fratal Dialectics is about data, structure, change and space. Excellent list - thank you, although space may be already evident by the combination of structure and change.

Data is the appearance of number or the format of recorded measurement. For Data you have to have a theory of what you are facing, and so here I bridge to places mathematics avoided, but all data is attached to reality by explicit theory, and it is all future compatible and redefinable when new theory comes along.

Data is within a window or range. Data can never be infinite. The tsunami clearly was exceptionally poweful and outside the expected range for data, but in retrospect the tsunami was finite.

The Richter scale resolves quantity into number values by doubling the previous earthquake intensity which adds one to the Richter value, and that is the kind of conversion I am proposing. But I avoid numbers as such by defining some totality and then - arbitrarily if necessarily - cutting that totality over and over into left and right portions, until you have the level of detail that is compatible with your purpose.

Quantity is the axiom I am replacing. Quantity cannot exist independently of real things you are measuring, and to that extent my ideas are lke some kind of antimaths. So, yes, you have to define - arbitrarily if necessary - what you have, and then you choose - heuristically - how to divide the first split. From that point onwards the divisions generally default to mid points or lumps in the data.

Data is lumpy and we want to know about lumps in data. Those lumps are within flow. So I'm looking to discard number and discard quantity as a concept and use the forms within the data as the actual - asymetrical - reference points to replace numbers, but it is still a work in progress because I have not quite resolved the way to know some lump was spotted in the flow of data whereas some other division was just interpolated for balance.

I am struggling to express all this, I appreciate your focus as it forces me to clarify this bit by bit.

The essence remains what will be three or maybe just two "laws" of fractal dialectics, from which the other rules are necessarily derived:

1) all material forms rotate. (therefore anything that does not rotate is not material, and further details on all that)

2) This has got to be something about viewpoints, the incompleteness of a single viewpoint, the stillness of viewpoints, but I also want some expression of opposition, polarity of viewpoints without necessarily restricting viewpoints to pairs of opposites. This second statement needs to expand the first and tie in many many consequences. The "dialectics" will ideally be expressed in this second statement

3) A statement covering recursion, fractal structures, simple bifurcations and curving dendritics whilst leaving a doorway open for neural networks, and addressing the means to denote the left or right choices - perhaps reinforcing rotation as the essence here.

i am kind of randomly mentioning disparate ideas that do I believe form a single structure, but ... there is an underlying idea that is bothering me today, in formulating all this.

Rotation appears to me the essence of our ideas of separateness, which give rise to number and quantity of course. Rotation also gives rise to skin, clingfilm, that conceptually and practically keep this separate from that. I want to leave a doorway as explicitly as possible that although as humans we say this and that are separate, they are divergent and not parallel. By this I mean that conceptually we could trace all things back to some big bang, conceptually, without saying that actually happened, but I am struggling to leave in some reference to these original umbilical linkages that are cut when something rotates independently but a moment before was attached as one thing.

I am sure that flow of words is just confusing. This is a work in progress, and there are elements not yet discarded.

Also this thread started on MBranes and because of other posts and your replies, I opened into Fractal Dialectics as such, but now it feels this is the wrong place to have posted this way.

Ah, Juxtaposition, everything is juxtaposed somewhere like curating a museum.