The question for 'Synthesis' ...

Synthesis or not Synthesis...

In 1979 I finished a work lasting from a great idea from my youth in 1963 times about 'synthetic'. That remembered times I've gone humble, some drowning about that I want to get professional, but great scientists minded also too. 'The synthetic' in words of the minded question anyhow (how ever) was an sort of quasi-tabu from the other also too. Up to nowadays you will find rare philosophcals, where natural philosophics minded in the realm of synthetic. I droped that by my begin of messianianship and scientist also politicians too made nice protest to me about to have convenient understandment therefore, "to whom concerned". By chance of accident some teachers of maths made note to that crypt from Gregor Cantor Epsilon (theta, z), I inspectivly red, he had made approach for his idea about 'angles and hight' to/for manifold of quantities, lateron he stated that times before the so called cardinal and ordinal numbers (Aleph, Chep, hierarchy index). We had an little sitting "... I affirm but do not understand". I smile about that annotation but/and was aware that shitstorm I roused. 

The doctrine of order can be an interesting problem question; See what is in order infringe but is rather quite doctrine? Let me quote from the introduction to the book from Franz Schmidt 'Ordnungslehre' (1956): 

"Nicht von der >>der Weltordnung<<, sondern von Beziehungen und Beziehungsge-fügen, die in allen Bezirken der Welt vorkommen, wird in diesem Buche gehandelt; nicht von einem Sein, das uns begegnet, ohne auf ein einziges erkennbares Sein zurückgeführt werden zu können; nicht von der Einheit, sondern von dem Zusammenhang des Vielfältigen dieser Welt, das unvermischt und unverwischt begriffen werden soll. Wohl geht es um das Ganze, aber nicht als solches. Die die Philosophie seit je bewegenden Hauptprobleme werden in einen Zusammenhang gebracht, der zwar ihre Isolierung aufhebt, ihnen jedoch ihre besondere ontologische Struktur beläßt. Eben damit verlieren auch die einzelwissenschaftlichen Grenzfragen einen Teil ihrer Rätsel-haftigkeit. Der Grundriß einer speziellen Ontologie wird also hier geboten, ..." (S. 7). (please use an translator)

... that thus more is the very point about 'doctrine of order' rest for lasting in behave for final objects. The case from Gregor Cantor had faszinated scientificaly me long years from that times, and after I resumed some maths in respect to K. Jähnich and W. Klingenberg, some thoughts to K. Saur that times also in the DDR/D, I started to establish an good formulation for my faible.  

     In the book >Basics of Synthesis of the Absolute< I want to note some from for introduce:
"... Bevor wir daher auf's neue den angedeuteten Weg einschlagen, von einer ganz allgemeinen Beobachtung ausgehend die Naturgesetze zu erklären, müssen wir uns nach dem Grunde dieses Fehlschlagens fragen. Wir erkennen drei verschiedene Ursachen:
Erstens war die Kenntnis der logisch mathematischen Gesetze unzureichend. Es fehlten die geistigen Instrumente, so abstrakte Begriffe wie Einheit und Mehrheit zu bearbeiten.
Zweitens waren die von den einzelnen Wissenszweigen gefundenen, der Beobachtung zugänglichen Formen nicht genug elementar, sie stellten ein zu hohes Organisationsniveau dar, als daß sie aus der allgemeinsten Beobachtung hätten abgeleitet werden können, selbst wenn die logisch mathematischen Prozeduren bekannt gewesen wären.
Die dritte Ursache lag in der unzulänglichen technologischen Entwicklung, inbesondere der Meßinstrumente, die es nicht gestattet hätten, etwa gefundene Ergebnisse auch zu beobachten.

... Die vorliegende Arbeit setzt sich nicht die Aufstellung einer Epistemologie, sondern die einer Synthese zum Ziel. ... Um eine so durchgeführte Synthese kontrollieren zu können, muß sie genügend weit getrieben werden damit die Beobachtung in Form von Experimenten wieder eingreifen kann. Die Beobachtung ist also die Basis und soll letzten Endes auch die Kontrolle der Synthese sein." (S. 20-21).

Let me abbrivate the content in more slight words: We have an C^iwt is the basicaly dual origin is featureless by the causal, where IWT is "enter into contradiction" to something. The "I" (German: Ich) is an final single in multitude, its an 'I-unit-majority' is the 'subtance' of all that gostly spiritual, the unit I-majority is the primary substance. 

There are several logical conditions like sum of products of the quantity, complement, either or, except, non, o.a. that result by multitude development resp. action of interaction by that and the resulting loop-development. These built 'forms', where similiar forms construct an 'Milieu', thus as a medium to mean the whole of a mold set which allows a connection through more or less complex signals (chains, -waves, etc.). All of that 'signals' are send from an transmitter to an recipient is anyhow an so called 'black box'. Hereby are those neighboring groups, which are subject to this signal combination, compared with those that are taken only from a signal-argument type, have a greater probability of survival. The fine structure is simply the rough whole divided by the amount of the elements. The signal waves combination form a amount of signal connections with n-order (ordered) construed an manifold of form in distance they are in interaction. The so called resonance is the 'equivalent to resp. for' measure. 

Let me give an other one note from the book:

"... Je mehr wir uns in der Betrachtung der Vorgänge im Universum den elementaren Formen nähern, desto weniger wird das Bild eines homogenen, isotropen Raumes zutreffen: Bei genügend kleinen Betrachtungsbereichen wird die Eigenschaft der (einzelnen) Schleifenbildung, die durch das Periodenverhältnis von Sender und Empfänger bedingte Einseitigkeit der Signalverbindung der Eigenfrequenz (des kreisenden Signals) usw. durch zusätzliche Eigenschaften in diesem "Raum" erfasst werden müssen, bis schließlich die Eigenschaft der Kontinuität des Raumes selbst unzulässig wird und damit der Raumbegriff selbst zunichte wird. Dies wird insbesondere für Vorgänge zutreffen, die sich innerhalb elementarer Formen abspielen." (S. 144).

Hence the resulting structured tree of that 'cardinal and ordinal' are i.e.:

Map from the resulting (Cantor n)
"Interaction of Eigenfrequence"
succession.   

Map from the resonating group
interaction 

One of the tree/stemma from the calculus

There are much more, I will make an especial map. Here are only a few shown from the scheme and the operation calculus to get an impression that theory expertise is proper.



By that calculus and with the physical norms of constants like c speed of light, the Planck-wavelength results from (in the book its a couple of pages, so let me try the short):

P = (in German) "Haupt'perioden'akt'anzahl"
P1 * sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) = (2)P1 ... note that v/c is only an number.

thus the wavelength results to:  c*P2 = 3*10^10 * 4.857*10^-20 = 1.457 10^-9 cm.
You see the used Planck constant 6.6234 10^-27.

where pv - L is the Lagrange equation.

Also the age of the universe was calculated to 5.45*10^9 Lj is the maximum radius human are able to know. But, this age is now consistent with the order of the age of the earth coincide, so that has been erroneously concluded that the creation of the entire universe. ... From the vanishing point of the galaxies to a common origin, to close a common world age, that is completely incorrect (S. 246). By compute from that calculus the emittance/emerge of the signal which is conclued by the Planck-constant was 2*10^9 Lj far away.

So far for the short introduce these work >Grundlagen der Synthese des Absoluten<.

To understand the theory from the book one need a month to get a sufficient glimps. 

Conclusionally I think its hard to take but it will be some alternative possibility in that realm.

Summery: This theory gone top down, by an scientific theoretical spirit, from an minimum to the widest, took some intermediate conclusions, step further to the next stage of the 'cardinal and ordinal', made fine notice.
Please have a look to the G. Cantor theoretics and also to the biography.

     In 1985-1996 when I correspond with D.L. Szekely about the UNICODE I suggested a more 'character, sign, symbol' to the unification of science in reference to the semiotics from Max Bense in reference Ch. S. Peirce. The science need more scientific symbols for fulfill (only) part in means of categories for/to creative and complex, otherwise it much more dump and represent stupid about. Thats also the fact for interpretation in philosophy. It's at most the entity and single in technics are time spending problems. As much one is conform and trained with basicly one will get into that so called metaphysics has to be aware of conjunctive and conjunctions. Thats a wide theme also to serve nature in life. To have clear word recipe is'nt easy by that plenty and much given. The science need a machine to handel all that of the fine. This type of machine is'nt established even known.  Such a machine still does not exist and is only in the coarse approach the theoretical descriptions. In so deceives many, if not a lot of redundancy that time. This does not make it easier.