Organic Mathematics

(A Non-formal Introduction)
Doron Shadmi shadmi_doron@yahoo.com , Moshe Klein gan_adam@netvision.net.il

Keywords: Continuous, Discrete, Distinction, Organic Thinking, Non-locality, Locality

6. Mathematical treatment of the axioms of physics

"The investigations on the foundations of geometry suggest the problem: To treat

in the same manner, by means of axioms, those physical sciences in which
mathematics plays an important part; in the first rank are the theory of
probabilities and mechanics. As to the axioms of the theory of probabilities, it
seems to me desirable that their logical investigation should be accompanied by a
rigorous and satisfactory development of the method of mean values in
mathematical physics, and in particular in the kinetic theory of gases."

( David Hilbert ICM 1900 Paris) [1]

1. Introduction
The 6th problem of Hilbert is about the connection between Mathematics and Physic.
In 1905 Einstein creates a revolution in Mechanics by developing SRT [2]. During 1933
Kolmogorov establishes the foundations of Probability Theory [3]. In 1935 the EPR
thought experiment was published [4]. Bell's Inequality (1964) [5] was checked by Alain
Aspect during 1981 [6]. This brings us to understand the importance of Non-locality in
our Universe. In his paper "One Mathematics" [7] L.Lovasz wrote that by defining the
bridge between Continues and Discreet Mathematics we may avoid dis-communication
between different mathematical branches, which enables to define the unity of this
science.
Organic Mathematics (OM) is based on the assumption that a point and a line are two
independent ur-elements that represent also two different ways of thinking: Parallel and
Serial. Parallel thinking is observed from the non-local aspect of a line with respect to a
point (a line belongs AND does not belong to a point), and serial thinking is observed
from the local aspect of a point with respect to a line (a point belongs XOR does not
belong to a line), where in both cases a point and a line are mutually independent exactly
like two axioms that are not derived from each other. According to OM the concept of
Number is the Bridging between Locality and Non-locality, where Bridging is any
interaction between mutually independent things (see pages 15-17). For example, the
Organic Numbers (their introduction in this article is based on partial example) are an
extension to the Partition function Pr(n) (see pages 6,7), where Distinction is their
essential property. The Organic Numbers in that article are nothing but a partial example
of strict observation of Non-locality\Locality Bridging (In the next pages we explore
Distinction as an essential property of Organic Numbers). If a line and a point are
mutually independent ur-elements, then the result of their Bridging has at least 3 essential
properties: Magnitude, Distinction, Order.

1
 A point is the ur-element that provides the maximum accuracy for Locality, by
minimal expression under Bridging. A line is the ur-element that provides the maximum
accuracy for Non-Locality, by minimal expression under Bridging. If a point and a line
are not bridged, then their properties as Locality (a point) or Non-locality (a line) are not
expressed and therefore not researchable. By OM, Cardinality or Magnitude is the
measurement unit of the existence of a thing.

a) The magnitude of Emptiness(=0) has no predecessor.

b) The magnitude of a Fullness(= ∞) has no successor.

Axiom 1: Any magnitude x is the result of the Bridging between 0 and ∞ magnitudes.

By axiom 1, x has a predecessor AND a successor.

By the standard paradigm (ZF) we have two basic states, which are:

c) The Empty set , where by axiom 1 it is the minimal object that has predecessor AND
successor.

d) A non-empty set, where by axiom 1 it is any non-minimal object that has predecessor
AND successor.

Both (a) and (b) have no members and they are distinguished from each other by their
opposite cardinalities. Furthermore, by OM, since (a) and (b) are atoms they are not
derived from each other, and can be used as two mutually independent states (similarly to
two axioms) that if bridged with each other, they define (c)(d). By OM, (c)(d) is the
result of (a)(b) Bridging, such that card(a) < card(c) < card(d) < card(b).

2. Cardinality Sets and Categories

Let X be a placeholder for any thinkable thing. X can be measured by using Set as a
measurement tool, where Cardinality is the measurement unit. For example, the ZF
axiom of the Empty Set states that: "There exists set A such that any set (including A) is
not a member of A". By OM this axiom is understood as follows: "There exists set A"
means that if set A is measured as a member of some set, for example B={A}, then the
cardinality of B is at least 1. We do not measure here the cardinality of the members of
set A, but we measure here the cardinality of the members of set B, and by doing that we
define the measurement unit of the existence of member A, which is not less than
cardinality 1. If we generalize it to "There exists set", then the magnitude of the existence
of a Set is at least 1. Following the same reasoning, the magnitude of the existence of
Emptiness is 0, where the magnitude of the existence of its opposite, called Fullness, is
∞. In each one of these examples, Set is used to measure the magnitude of the existence
of X (for further reading, please see Appendix page 25).
In the case of the Empty set, X is the absence of members. In the case of the Full set, X
is stronger than any member. "X is stronger than any member" is what OM calls
Relation, known as "Membership" by Set Theory or "Morphisms" by Category Theory.
In both theories Collection is the result of Relation Element Interaction (REI), where the
cardinality (the magnitude of the existence) of this result is > 0 and < ∞.
2
 The magnitude of the existence of a given set is not determined by its members if
these "members" are Emptiness or Fullness. Emptiness or Fullness are not researchable
directly, because Emptiness' existence on its own is too weak, and Fullness' existence on
its own is too strong. For example, The Empty Set is not itself Emptiness but it is an
existing thing that is used to define the Cardinality of Emptiness, where Emptiness'
"existence" itself is weaker than any existing thing. Also the Full Set (the opposite of the
Empty set) is not itself Fullness but it is an existing thing that is used to define the
Cardinality of Fullness, where Fullness' "existence" itself is stronger than any existing
thing.
In that case the concept of Set has a magnitude of existence that is stronger than 0 (the
magnitude of the "existence" of Emptiness that can be defined only indirectly by using an
existing and researchable thing like Set) and weaker than ∞ (the magnitude of the
"existence" of Fullness that can be defined only indirectly by using an existing and
researchable thing like Set). By getting the notion of the extreme non-researchable states
(Emptiness or Fullness on their own) one defines the general concept of Collection,
where its magnitude of existence is stronger than Emptiness on its own and weaker than
Fullness on its own.
If we generalize Sets or Categories by these notions, then Memberships (Set) or
Morphisms (Category) magnitude of existence are weaker than Fullness on its own and
stronger than Members (Set) or Objects, where Members (Set) or Objects (Category)
magnitude of existence are stronger than Emptiness on its own and weaker than
Memberships (Set) or Morphisms (Category). If Memberships or Morphisms are Relation
and Members or Objects are Element, then the magnitude of existence of a non-empty
collection is determined by the amount of its Elements, gathered by Relation. In order
to distinguish between the researchable and the non-researchable, let us symbolize it as
follows:

Emptiness on its own is represented by the background of this page.

Fullness on its own is represented by the opposite background of this page.

Relation is represented as _
Element is represented as •
Interaction (Bridging) between Relation and Element is represented as |

3. Distinction
OM's [0,∞] universe uses Distinction as an essential property of Organic Numbers, in
addition to Cardinality and Ordinality. It is possible because (c)(d) are the result of (a)(b)
Bridging. If (c) is represented by • and (b) is represented by _ where (c)(b) are atoms, and
(c)(b) Bridging is represented by | , then any (d) is the result of •|_ as follows:

Let us research card(b)=3

Fig. 1
As can be seen, we have more than a one state of Distinction, the most left is a
superposition of 3 possible identities, where the most right is 3 strict identities (where the
concept of Set is based on this particular Distinction (where order has no significance)).

Let us call (c) Locality and (b) Non-locality where | is called Bridging.
3
By using Non-locality\Locality Bridging, at least two fundamental notions are achieved:

A) Non-locality\Locality Bridging is actually also used by the traditional Cardinality's

point of view.

B) By using Non-locality\Locality Bridging as a fundamental property of the concept of

Cardinality we discover two important things:

1) No cardinality > 1 can be found without Non-locality/Locality Bridging, because

without bridging's non-local aspect it is impossible that two (or more) local
elements are gathered into some cardinality > 1.

2) If some finite cardinality > 1 is known we cannot immediately conclude what is

the exact identification of each gathered local element.

In that case the finite cardinality is known but the identifications of the gathered local
elements are in superposition with each other. For example, let us explore number 4:

Fig. 2

The lower right Bridging (marked by a rectangle) is the traditional collection where
Cardinality and Ordinality are strctly known. The upper left Bridging is the case where
cardinality is clearly known but the identifications of the gathered local elements are in
superposition with each other. Between these extreme states we define intermediate states
of identification distinction. Some claims are that we actually use Distinction as a
particular case with some Ordinals, thus Distinction cannot be considered as a
fundamental property of the collection.

This conclusion is true only if we continue to use the lower right Bridging (marked by
a rectangle, see Fig. 2) as the general form of the possible results of Non-locality\Locality
Bridging. However, as we have demonstrated, Non-locality/Locality Bridging is not
limited to any particular result, and each result can be used both as Non-local and Local
form of the concept of Collection. It is very hard to be understood by any viewpoint that
was trained to explore and define things by using serial (step-by-step) thoughts. Non-
locality\Locality Bridging can be understood only by using Parallel and Serial notions of
the explored subject simultaneously, and it shows the importance of the Mathematicians'
mental training as a significant factor of the Mathematical research. Let us examine
bridging cases 1 to 5(partial example):

4
 Standard collection
(No superposition)

Standard collection
(No superposition)
Fig. 3

As can be seen in Fig. 3, we are using the particular case of strictly distinct
identification as a general step-by-step viewpoint of the entire system, but any other case
which is not a step-by-step viewpoint, can be used as a general form of the entire system
as well. In order to understand it, the mind has to be trained to think simultaneously in
both Parallel and Serial points of view of the explored subject. We call this thinking style
Organic Thinking [8] (see also Appendix, page 21).

5
An example of distinct Organic Numbers 1 to 6 (partial example)

6
7
If we represent an Organic-Number by a tree-diagram we get:

. . .<------ Locality
| | |
| | |
| | |<------ Bridging
| | |
| | |
… __|_____|_____|__ …
^
\____ Non-locality

An example of Organic-Number 3:
. . . . . . . . .
| | | | | | | | |
| | | |___|_ | |___| |
| | | | | | |
|___|___|_ |_______| |_______|
| | |

From these representations we can understand that each Organic-Number > 1 has
several forms that can be ordered by their internal symmetrical degrees.

Let redundancy be more then one copy of the same value can be found.

Let uncertainty be more than one unique value can be found.

Let a,b,c,d be identities. A partial example of Organic-Number 4 is:

------------>>>

Uncertainty
Redundancy
d d d d d d d d
c c c c c c c c
b b b b b b b b b b b b b b
a a a a a a a a a b a a a a a a
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | |__|_ | | |__| | | |__|_ |__|_
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|__|__|__|_ |_____|__|_ |_____|__|_ |_____|____
| | | |

c c c
b b b b b b b
a b a a a b a b a a a d a a c d
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|__| |__|_ |__| |__| | | | | |__|_ | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | |__|__|_ | |_____| |
| | | | | | | |
|_____|____ |_____|____ |________| |________|
| | | |

a b c d
. . . .
| | | |
|__| | |
| | |
|_____| |
| |
|________|
|

So far, we observed (d) finite. In the next page we shell explore (d) non-finite.

8
Dedekind infinite: A set S is infinite if and only if there exists T as a proper subset of S
and a bijective map T → S.

Since Distinction is an essential property of Organic Mathematics, any non-finite set

has infinitely many superpositions in addition to any cardinality of distinct members. For
example, let us research N (the non-finite set of natural numbers) and E (the non-finite
set of even numbers):

Fig. 4

Indeed E is a proper subset of N, but if Distinction is an essential property of any (d)

set, then there is a generalization beyond the particular case of clear distinction, and any
non-finite (d) set has infinitely many superpositions that cannot be defined by any
collection of strict distinctions (as clearly shown in the diagram above) exactly because
no collection of local objects can be a non-local object ( card(d) < card(b) ).

[0,∞] is globally symmetric (there is the smallest cardinality and the biggest cardinality).

[0,x) is globally asymmetric (there is the smallest cardinality but not the biggest
cardinality).

It is easy to get [0,x) out of [0,∞] because [0,x) is already in [0,∞] (for example:
[0≤x)≤∞]). It is hard (if not impossible) to get [0,∞] out of [0,x).

9
 Let A be X and let B be X negation. At this fundamental level Element is used to hold
the identity of the researched where Relation is used to research Element's identities. In
that case no research holds unless Relation Element Interaction (REI) holds. According to
OM, REI is the result self-reference of a singular state, which appears as mutually
independent states named Relation and Element (see Appendix, pages 15-17).
Mutually Independent means that any REI's result is researchable because it is not
totally connected (totally ideal) AND not totally isolated (totally real)[10] of the entire
REI's results (for further details please see page 20). Distinction has to be generalized in
order to deal with REI's results that are not based on clear distinction. Strict cardinals or
strict ordinals are some particular case of Distinction and cannot be used as a universal
principle of the researchable framework. Organic Numbers are used as an appropriate
tool that enables to formally use Distinction as an essential property, for example:

Relation is represented as _

Element is represented as •

Interaction (Bridging) between Relation and Element is represented as |

Organic Number 2 is:

B B
A A A B
• • • •
|__|_ |__|
|________|

and it can be used as a fundamental form in order to research any universe that is based
on 2 Elements, whether they are distinct or not. A_B is not less than a partial example of
ON 2 (as represented above). It means that AB superposition or A,B strict identities are
researchable under the same framework.

Let R be Relation and let E be Element.

In that case REI itself is researched by using ON's as follows:

R R
E E E R
• • • •
|__|_ |__|
|________|

One asks "are we using here a circular reasoning?". The answer is No, because •
(elements that hold the identity of the researched) and _ (the relations between •) are
different results of Singularity's self-reference. Singularity on its own is simpler than
any non-singular result that is derived from its self-reference. In that case Relation or
Element are not derived from each other, exactly because they are not simple as
Singularity itself (see Appendix, pages 15-17).

10
4. Some results of card(d) < card(b)
A sequence is a collection of elements ordered by some rule. A continuum is a property
of a non-local ur-element. If we define the real line as a non-local ur-element, then no
sequence is a continuum. By studying locality and non locality along the real line, we
discovered a new type of numbers, the non-local numbers. For example:

Local number
Non-local number

Fig. 6

Fig. 6 illustrates a proof that 0.111… is not a representation of the number 1 in base 2,
but the non-local number 0.111… < 1. Are there any numbers between 0.111… and 1?
Yes, for any given base n>1 and any 0.kkk…[base n] (where k=n-1) there is
0.nnn…[base n+1] such that 0.kkk…[base n] < 0.nnn…[base n+1] < 1, for example:

Fig. 7
Fig. 7 demonstrates that between any given pair of R members, which are local
numbers, there exists a non-local number, whose exact location on the real line does not
exist. A local number is not a limit of any non-local number, because local and non-
local numbers are mutually independent. Non-local numbers are an extension of R local
members exactly because no (c) is (b) ( see page 2).

11
 Ford Circle [9] demonstrates the Bridging between (c) and (b) where no base x
sequence (which is (d), see page 2) has the magnitude of base ∞:

Fig. 8

Ford Circle is the particular case of Q set, but since card(d) < card(b), any non-finite
(d) is incomplete, whether it is N, Z, Q, R or C. In that case any value that is not an N
member can be used as a base, which does not change the fact that any (d) is incomplete
under (c)(b) Bridging (see page 2). Furthermore, Distinction is an essential property of
(c)(b) linkage, whether it is finite or not.
A finite set has a strict cardinality because it does not diverge or converge; however, a
non-finite set does not have a strict cardinality because it diverges or converges but can't
reach card(b). From this new notion of the non finite, Cantor's second diagonal argument
is a proof of the incompleteness of a non-finite set. For example, assume a non-finite set
composed of non-finite multisets, where each non-finite multiset has a unique order
(order is important) of empty and non-empty sets:
{
{{ },{ },{ },{ },{ },...}
{{#},{ },{ },{#},{ },...}
{{ },{#},{#},{ },{ },...}
{{#},{#},{ },{#},{#},...}
{{ },{ },{#},{ },{ },...}
...
}
We can then define another unique, non-finite multiset, which is the non-finite,
diagonal complementary multiset {{#},{#},{ },{ },{#},...} that is added to
our non-finite set of non finite multisets, etc., etc. … ad infinitum. From this point of
view, the identity map of a non-finite set, composed of unique non-finite multisets, is
incomplete; furthermore, its cardinality is unsatisfied.

12
 We know that the Cantorean transfinite universe is considered as an actual infinity,
where the limiting "process" is a is considered as potential infinity. However, by the new
notion of the non-finite since card(d) < card(b), then only Fullness is considered as an
actual infinity (card(b) has no successor). Here any non-finite set is no more than a
potential infinity because card(d) < card(b) is invariant. The model of Tachyon (a
hypothetic particle that its minimal speed is not less than the speed of light) is used here
in order to show that operations like Subtraction, Division, Square root etc. do not reduce
a non-finite collection into a finite collection. On the contrary, arithmetical operations
like Addition, Multiplication, Exponent etc. increase the magnitude of a non-finite
collection, which is incomplete because no collection has the magnitude of Fullness. Let
@ be a cardinalilty of a non-finite set such that:

Sqrt(@) = @
@-x=@
@/x=@
If |A|=@ and |B|=@ + or * or ^ x , then |B| > |A| by + or * or ^ x

Some comparisons:

By Cantor ‫א‬0 = ‫א‬0+1 , by the new notion @+1 > @.

By Cantor ‫א‬0 < 2^‫א‬0 , by the new notion @ < 2^@.
By Cantor 3^‫א‬0 = 2^‫א‬0 > ‫א‬0 .
By the new notion 3^@ > 2^@ > @ .

This new approach to the non-finite is not counter intuitive as the Cantorean transfinite
universe, because it clearly distinguishes between the continuum (which is not less than a
non-local ur-element) and the discrete (which is no more than a set of finitely/infinitely
many elements).
From a Cantorean point of view, cardinality is commutative (1+‫א‬0 = ‫א‬0+1) and ordinals
are not (1+ω ≠ ω+1). By using the new notion of the non-finite, both cardinality and
ordinals are commutative because of the inherent incompleteness of any non-finite set. In
other words, @ is used for both ordered and unordered non-finite sets; moreover, the
equality x+@ = @+x holds in both cases.

5. Summary
In 1905, 5 year after ICM1900 Hilbert's lecture [1], Einstein creates a paradigm shift in
Newton's Mechanics by developing STR [2]. In 1933 Kolmogorov formally defines the
foundations of Probability Theory [7] but Distinction is not its first-order property. By
Non-locality\Locality Bridging Distinction is an essential property of the language of
Mathematics. As a result Uncertainty and Redundancy are essintial properties of
Probability Theory that now has to deal with superposition of identities as inseparable
part of it (similarly to the extension to the Partition function Pr(n) as demonstrated in
pages 6, 7). A line and a point are the geometrical aspects of Locality and Non-locality,
but Locality and Non-locality can be also shown in Logic where the logical connective is
the non-local aspect of Logic, and a proposition is the local aspect of Logic. Locality and
Non-locality are also shown in Arithmetic where the arithmetical operation is its non-
local aspect, and a number is its local aspect (also we observed Non-locality\Locality
Bridging as the basis of the concept of Number). Further development of Organic
Mathematics unifies Mathematics, as appears in D.Hilbert's [1] and L.Lovasaz's [7]
visions, by simply using Non-locality\Locality Bridging as the common base ground of
this science.

13
Acknowledgements
Ofir Ben-Tov, thank you for your important suggestion to add Distinction as the third
property of the Organic Numbers, in addition to Cardinality and Ordinality.

Shlomo Mendelovitz, thank you for long discussions which brought the concept of
Organic thinking to this paper.

Sponsored by

References
[1] Hilbert David: Mathematical Problems, Bulletin of The American
Mathematical Society, Volume 37. Number 4, Pages 407-436, S 0273-
0979(00)00881-8

[2] Einstein Albert: On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, Annalen der Physik,
17:891, June 30, 1905 (English translation by W. Perrett and G.B. Jeffery).

[3] Kolmogorov: Foundations of the Theory of Probability (1933)

http://www.mathematik.com/Kolmogorov/ .

[4] Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen: Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of

Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777 - 780 (1935).

[5] J. S. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox, Physics 1, 195 (1964).

[6] Aspect Alain: Experimental Tests of Realistic Local Theories via Bell's Theorem,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 460 (1981).

[7] L. Lovasz: One Mathematics http://www.cs.elte.hu/~lovasz/berlin.pdf .

[8] Moshe Klein, Doron Shadmi: Organic Mathematics, International Journal of Pure and
Applied Mathematics, volume 49 No. 3 2008, 329-340
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/IJPAM-OM.pdf .

[9] Lester R. Ford: Fractions, American Mathematical Monthly, volume 45, number 9,
pages 586-601, 1938 http://www.jstor.org/pss/2302799 .

[10] Anne Newstead & James Franklin, On the Reality of the Continuum Philosophy 83
(2008), 117-27 http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/newsteadcontinuum.pdf .

[11] Michael D. Potter Set theory and its philosophy (Oxford University Press, 2004)

14
Appendix

Non-locality and Locality Mutual Independency

One asks: "How Non-locality and Locality are two mutually independent properties?"

In order to answer to this question one defines a mathematical universe that has these
properties, such that no property is derived from the other:

Non-locality

Locality

Fig. 9

The self reference shown in Fig. 9 enables the two properties to interact with each
other without derived from each other under the same mathematical universe. By
following this notion one defines Cardinality as the measurement unit of the existence of
these properties, such that card(Locality)=1 < card(Non-Locality)=∞.
1 and ∞ are the weakest and strongest (respectively) magnitudes of exiting things of
this mathematical universe:

card(Locality) = 1

card(Non-locality) = ∞

Fig. 10

15
 By defining the intermediate magnitude of exiting things between 1 and ∞, one defines
the concept of Collection, where Non-locality is considered as the Relation aspect of
Collection, and Locality is considered as the Element aspect of Collection:

Fig. 11

Fig. 11 represents the result of the intermediate magnitude of existence between

Locality and Non-locality, and enables one to understand that no collection of non-finite
Elements along the Relation has the magnitude of the Relation. As a result no non-finite
collection is complete and its exact cardinality is not satisfied. No finite collection
diverge of converges, which is a property that enables one to define the strict cardinality
of a finite collection. The universal quantifier "for all" has a meaning only in the case of a
finite collections.
By carefully research = or ≠ relations, one can conclude that no thing is researchable
unless some Relation is interacted with some Element. For example, = relation cannot be
but non-local with respect to the researched Element, as can be seen by Edge\Node
interaction in Graph Theory:

Fig. 12

The blue edge in Fig. 12 (which is non-local w.r.t the node) is equivalent to =, where
the black or red edges are equivalent to ≠. Actually no node is researchable unless it is
researched by an edge. In the case of Graph Theory, Relation is called Edge, where
Element is called Node. In general, elements are researchable only by Relation Element
Interaction (REI) (for example only A (where A is an element) is not researchable, where
A=A is researchable).

16
 By using this notion one can understand that A set is actually a short way to write A=A.
An empty set's self-identity is its emptiness and since clear Distinction is a first-order
property of Set, there is exactly one empty set (called the empty set) as follows:

A is the defined set.

X is any set.

A=A≠{X} and it is defined by using simultaneously = relation for element's self-identity

and ≠ relation for element's non self-identity.

A=A≠{X} can be seen, for example, by ZF Axiom of the empty set, which states:

There is set A (A=A REI's self-identity) such that no set X (including A) is a member of it
(≠{X} REI's non self-identity).

A non-empty set of distinct elements is based on REI as follows:

{a=a} = {a}
{a=b} = {a} = {b}
{a≠b} = {a,b} = {b,a} etc…

By understanding REI one develops a mathematical theory of Strong Emergence,

where the Whole is not the sum of the Parts. Some analogy: a necklace is a Whole\Parts
universe, where the Whole aspect of this universe is a string, and the Part aspect of this
universe is a bead. No amount of beads can be a string. Furthermore, the string exists
independently of the existence of the beads. In other words, the magnitude of existence of
the Whole is greater than the magnitude of existence of any sum of Parts.
By using a mathematical theory of Strong Emergence, any cardinal of some collection
of Parts is smaller than the cardinal of the Whole (by OM, Cardinal or Magnitude is the
measurement unit of the existence of a thing). According to Strong Emergence the
Whole is the total existence. If we add parts to the total existence we actually define a
thing that is less than total existence. This addition of Parts to the Whole is equivalent to
adding cold water to hot water, for example: if the temperature of the water is 100 and
we add water with temperature of 10, we do not get a water with temperature 110.
Actually after the addition we get a temperature that is less than 100. The Whole is
greater than the result of Whole+Parts exactly as the temperature of 100 is greater that the
result of adding water with temperature of 10 to water with temperature of 100.
By OM (which is based on non-standard Strong Emergence Reasoning, where the
Whole is greater than the sum of the (not 'its' but 'the') Parts) the necklace is the
intermediate result of distinguished extreme qualities, known as string (Non-locality) and
bead (Locality). By using the intermediate result (string+bead) one researches the
quantitative aspects of the interaction between the different qualities. Furthermore, by
distinguish between quantity and quality, one enables to understand that each quality is a
different existence of maximum entropy, which prevents any research at the level of each
quality (Non-locality or Locality on themselves). The intermediate result (string+bead) is
an anti-entropic framework, because it is the result of the openness of each quality (string
or bead) to the opposite quality (string or bead). Quantity exists only at the anti-entropic
intermediate level of existence, and it cannot be used in order to capture the quality of the
extreme building-blocks, which enable the intermediate anti-entropic level of existence.
By OM, our universe (abstract or not) is exactly the anti-entropic result of the
interaction between extreme qualities that are opened to each other. The extremes are the
minimal manifest of Singularity, which is beyond any attempt to define it (also in terms
of entropy) including "Singularity" (it is beyond any definition).

17
 Organic Numbers and Cognition
Let us examine this situation:

On a table there is a finite unknown quantity of identical beads > 1.

We have:

A) To find their sum.

B) To be able to identify each bead.

Limitation: we are not allowed to use our memory after we count a bead.

By trying to find the amount of the beads (representing Locality) without using our
memory (representing Non-locality) we find ourselves stuck in 1, so we need an
interaction between Non-locality and Locality if we wish to be able to find the bead's
sum. By canceling the limitation mentioned above, condition (A) is satisfied and the
bead's amount is known, for example, value 3. Let us try to identify each bead, but they
are identical, so we will identify each of them by its location on the table.
But this is an unstable solution, because if someone takes the beads, put them between
his hands, shakes them and put them back on the table, we have lost track of the beads
identity. Each identical bead can be the bead that was identified by us before it was
mixed with the other beads.

We shall represent this situation by:

((a , b , c),(a , b , c),(a , b , c))

By notating a bead as –let's say– 'c' we get:

((a , b),(a , b),c)

and by notating a bead as 'b' we get

(a,b,c)

We satisfy condition (B) but through this investigation we define a universe, which is
the result of Non-locality\Locality Interaction. This result can be used for further
mathematical development. Through this simple test we have found that ZF or Peano
axioms "leap" straight to the "end of the story" where cardinal and ordinal values are
well-known. As a result many forms that have many clarity degrees are not researched.
Organic Mathematics uses Distinction as a first-order property, and as a result
superposition of identities is one of its fundamentals.
Through this simple test we get the insight that any mathematical concept is first of all
the result of memory\object (abstract or non-abstract) interactions (it is not totally ideal
and not totally real [10], for further details please see page 20). Let us examine what kind
of ONs we get if each information form is based on memory\object interactions.
Since each ON is at least an association between our memory and some object(s), its
form is based on interactions between at least two opposite properties: Non-locality
(memory) \ Locality (objects).

18
 By using memory\object interactions as the basis of Organic Numbers the researcher
is basically educated to be aware of himself during research. This fundamental attitude
enables to define and develop the bridging between Ethics and Formal Logic. An
example of such development can be shown by the idea of Cybernetic Kernels:

Cybernetic Kernels (CK)

Partial Example

CK1

CK6 CK5 CK4 CK3 CK2

Fig. 13

There are 6 different CKs in Fig. 13, which are ordered by the number of their self-
interference. If we give an "elastic" property to CKs, then CK1 is changed to CK6, and
the level of ON5 Cybernetic Efficiency is increased at each step. When the Cybernetic
Efficiency is increased, ONs' redundancy and uncertainty levels are reduced, which
enables complexity and self-awareness to be developed. We think that both Ethics and
Formal Logics have a common principle, which is: to develop the bridging between the
simple and the complex under a one comprehensive framework that is aware of its results
(it is naturally responsible).

19
 The Ideal and the Real
OM's development is possible because we determine the limits of the researchable by
using the weak limit (Emptiness) and the strong limit (Fullness). Cantor distinguished
three levels of existences:

1) In the mind of God (the Intellectus Divinum)

2) In the mind of man (in abstracto)

3) In the physical universe (in concreto)

By using Fullness as "that has no successor" we show that Cantor's in abstracto

Transfinite system is not an actual infinity. We also show how Distinction is a first-order
property of any collection. These developments are based on a cognitive approach of the
mathematical science. In "On the Reality of the Continuum" [10] (page 124) we find this
sentence:

"From the realist standpoint, numbers and other real things do not need admitting or
legitimating by humans to come into existence."

From the idealist standpoint, numbers and other real things do need admitting or
legitimating by humans to come into existence. In both cases the term "real thing" has to
be understood. According to the realist if "real things" are "real" iff they are totally
independent of each other, then no collection is a "real thing" (total independency does
not able things to be gathered).
According to the idealist if "real things" are "real" iff they are totally dependent of each
other, then no collection is a "real thing" (total dependency does not able things to be
identified). No collection exists in terms of total dependency (total connectivity) or total
independency (total isolation). Since totalities are not researchable on their own, then any
research cannot avoid the existence of collections, where collections are the only
researchable "real things". Actually we find that a researchable realm is both ideal (has
relations) and real (has elements).
We have to notice that there is no symmetry in using concepts like "Realist standpoint"
in order to understand "real things" because if the requested result is "real things" then we
actually give a privilege to the Realist standpoint over the Idealist standpoint about the
requested "real thing". This asymmetry can be avoided by changing the requested results
to "researchable things" instead of "real things". In that case the concept of Collection is
researchable exactly because it is not totally real and not totally ideal.

Here is the last part of the quote from [10]:

"Furthermore, real objects are always legitimate objects of study in the sciences, even if
they are not fully understood or known."

We agree with this quote because "real objects" are valuable for science iff they are
researchable, or in other words, they are both real and ideal.

20
The Building-blocks of Distinction

The particular building-

block of crisp distinction
is used here as both
local AND non-local
form of the represented
diagram of Organic
Numbers 1 to 5

Fig. 14

21
 Relative research of elements
x or y are elements.

Definition A: If only a one relation is needed in order to define the relations from x to y,
then x is called Local.

Example: a point is a local element.

Definition B: If more than one relation is needed in order to define the relations from x
to y, then x is called Non-local.

Example: a line segment can be non-local element with respect to another element.

Detailed examples (y is observed through x):

x=.
y=.

x is local w.r.t y if:

x < y (example: . . )
x = y (example: . )
x > y (example: . . )

x=.
y = __

x is local w.r.t y if:

x < y (example: . __ )
x = y (example: ( _. , _._ , ._ )
x > y (example: __ . )

x = __
y=.

x is local w.r.t y if:

x < y (example: __ . )
x > y (example: . __ )
x is non-local w.r.t y if:
x < and = y (example: _. )
x < and > y (example: _._ )
x = and > y (example: ._ )

22
x = __
y = __

x is local w.r.t y if:

x < y (example: __ __ )

x = y (example: __ )

x > y (example: __ __ )

x is non-local w.r.t y if:

x < and = y (example: ____ )

x = and > y (example: ____ )

x = __
y = ____

x is local w.r.t y if:

x = y (example: ____ )

x is non-local w.r.t y if:

x < and = y (example: ______ )

x = and > y (example: ______ )

x = ____
y = __

x is non-local w.r.t y if:

x < and = y (example: ______ )

x < and > y (example: ____ )

x = and > y (example: ______ )

The relations between x,y are non-commutative because y is observed through x. As can
be seen, only non-locality can be simultaneously in more than a one relation. A line is
local ( __ . , . __) or non-local ( _. , _._ , ._ ) w.r.t a point (or a line), where a point is local
only w.r.t a point or a line. If a single element has more than a one location on it, then
each one of those locations is called a side with respect to this single element.
Furthermore, no amount of these sides is exactly this single element (the Whole is
greater than the sum of the Parts). A line segment is the minimal example of a single
element that has sides. A point is en example of a single element that has no sides.

23
 Absolute research of elements

One claims that internal research from x to y is subjective and does not provide the
correct knowledge about x or y.

In that case let us use an external (objective) research of x and y.

x = point

y = line

z = plane

w = volume

If x is observed through w w.r.t z, then x cannot be but on z XOR not on z.

By observation w, x is local w.r.t z.

If y is researched through w w.r.t z, then y can be on z AND not on z.

By observation w, y can be non-local w.r.t z and also y≠x = x≠y (the properties of the
researched elements have no influence on the results, even if we change the observation's
order). These results cannot be observed if only a step-by-step (serial and analytic) point
of view is used, for example let us examine this argument: "x=y and x>y cannot be
simultaneously true by the definition of “>” and inverse element. x-x=0, if x=y then x>y
implies x>x which implies x≠x. By reduction to absurd, this statement is always false".
By using a serial-only observation of x,y relations one actually misses the following:

1) x=y and x>y is true if y is not x.

2) y is not x because x is > and = w.r.t y, where y is not > and = w.r.t x for example:

x = __
y=.

x = and > y (example: ._ )

3) By using a serial-only observation the claim that "x-x=0, if x=y then x>y implies x>x
which implies x≠x." is false. "if x=y then x>y" does not imply x>x because x can be
simultaneously > and = w.r.t y ,where y is not simultaneously > and = w.r.t x. In that case
x=y is false and the rest of the argument is wrong.

By using only a step-by-step observation one misses the ability get x as a result of a
simultaneous relation w.r.t to not-x (notated as y). In other words, elements that are
defined by more than a one relation w.r.t other elements, are not understood by using
only a step-by-step observation. Serial observation is the common observation of the
western philosophy for the past 3000 years, and it is still used as the main reasoning for
both abstract and applied sciences like Mathematics and Physics. We claim that some
paradigm-shift is needed here, which will expand observation beyond serial thinking into
at least Relation\Element Interaction, where the researcher's possible influences on the
results are not totally ignored.

24
 The Ontology of Fusions and Collections

By using an ontological viewpoint of the foundations of the mathematical science we

distinguish between fusions and collections. Let us quote from Michael D. Potter's book
"Set theory and its philosophy" [11] page 21:

"But the standard cases have a tendency to obscure the distinction between two
quite different ways in which it has been taken that things can be aggregated –
collection and fusion. Both are formed by bundling objects together, but a fusion is
no more than the sum of its parts, whereas a collection is something more."

This "something more" is exactly the ability of a collection to be available (to exist)
as a measurement tool that is independent of the researched (whether it is a collection –
empty or not– or a fusion –empty or not–), which is an ability of existence that a fusion
does not have. An empty collection is an available measurement tool that measures
nothing, For example |{}|=0. This is not the case with a fusion because an empty fusion is
nothing (the measurement tool and the measured are the same, and the measurement is
impossible since we have lost our measurement tool). Here is another quote from
Michael D. Potter's book "Set theory and its philosophy" [11] page 22:

"And what if we try to make something out of nothing? A container with nothing in it
is still a container, and the empty collection is correspondingly a collection with no
members. But a fusion of nothing is an impossibility: if we try to form a fusion when
there is nothing to fuse, we obtain not a trivial object but no object at all."

By using a collection as a measurement tool "a fusion of nothing" is researchable (as

shown in the case of the empty set). There are 3 levels of existence that are researchable
under the collection's framework, which are: Emptiness, Intermediate, Fullness. Since a
collection is a level 2 (Intermediate) thing, then:

1) It is above the level of Emptiness ( for example: {} )

2) It is at the level of collection ( for example: {a,b,c,...} )

3) It is below the level of Fullness ( for example: {_}_ )

Some claims "there is nothing below collection". He is right because "there is

nothing" is Emptiness. By following the same ontological notion, we get the opposite of
Emptiness, called Fullness. Some claims "there is nothing above collection". This claim
is ontologically wrong because "nothing" is below collection. Some claims "there is
everything above collection". This is ontologically wrong because "everything" is at the
level of collection. Some claims "there is Fullness above collection". In this case he is
ontologically right. It must be noticed that the exiting measurement tool is excluded from
the measurement's results, for example: |{}|=0 and not 1, |{a,b,c}|=3 and not 4, etc.

25
 The Ontological basis of Logic

One claims: "A coin's one side defined as ‘heads’ and the other as ‘tails’. A proper coin
by that definition must have a ‘heads’ side AND a ‘tails’ side, that is not a contradiction
but a complementation of that definition of the sides on a proper coin. For any one flip of
the coin the result ‘heads’ AND ‘tails’ is a contradiction while ‘heads’ OR ‘tails’ is a
tautology. "
Let us follow this viewpoint (where Ontology is avoided). In this case, we have an
existing thing, called coin that has two properties. The properties (called ‘heads’ AND
‘tails’) are observed by flips. Each flip returns one and only one result out of two possible
results. OM calls the ability to return one and only one result out of n possible results,
Locality. Local result A AND not-A is indeed a contradiction, because Locals cannot be
simultaneously in more than a one state (as one says: "For any one flip of the coin the
result ‘heads’ AND ‘tails’ is a contradiction").
But this is not the one and only one way to get A AND not-A. Alternative 1: A AND
not-A is the superposition of the possible results of each flip, and by superposition A AND
not-A is not a contradiction. Since OM uses Distinction as its first-order property,
alternative 1 holds at OM. Alternative 2: The researched thing is non-local. In this case
the coin's flip example has to be replaced by another one, for example Line's location.
If we draw a line segment on a particular location that is determined by a point, the line
segment is on AND not-on the point, and there is no contradiction because on AND not-
on is the very nature of Non-locality (represented by a line segment, in this case) exactly
as the coin's flip represents Locality. Since OM defines Non-locality as one of its
building-blocks, in addition to Locality, then again, A AND not-A is not necessarily a
contradiction at OM.
Let us carefully research A by using an ontological viewpoint. A's existence is the
result of an interaction of two opposites. For example, OM's researchable universe is the
result of the complementation between Emptiness AND Fullness, where Emptiness is the
opposite of Fullness and vice-versa. The result, called A, is not totally empty AND not
totally full, which enables the research.
At this non-total state (A) one defines the concept of collection, which its existence is
stronger than Emptiness AND weaker than Fullness. By using a collection as a research
tool, one defines Emptiness as "that has no predecessor" (value 0) and Fullness as "that
has no successor" (value ∞). These values are the magnitudes of existence of the
researched and they are taken indirectly by the intermediate level of existence of
collection (the non-total state A). These values cannot be defined directly because
Emptiness on its own is too weak and Fullness on its own is too strong.
At A one defines the researchable states of Locality AND Non-Locality, where Locality
AND Non-locality are mutually independent of each other, and together they are used in
order to define A's researchable universe. At A's researchable universe, P AND not-P is
necessarily a contradiction iff P is Local.
One's claim at the top of this page is based on "nothing more, nothing less" reasoning,
where P is "nothing more AND nothing less" (nothing beyond P is researched and we get
a logical reasoning that is too weak in order to deal with Non-locality or Distinction as its
first-order properties).

26
Let A be different than not-A.

No logical consequence is determined unless A is comparable with not-A. Let not-A be

represented as B. There can be 16 different logical connectives that are the result of A B
comparison.

Flag 0 = the compared does not hold

Flag 1 = the compared holds

F = the binary result of the comparison does not hold

T = the binary result of the comparison holds

R = the binary result

Each logical connective is determined by 4 A B comparisons, as follows:

A B R A B R A B R A B R A B R A B R A B R A B R
0 0 F 0 0 T 0 0 F 0 0 T 0 0 F 0 0 T 0 0 F 0 0 T
0 1 F 0 1 F 0 1 T 0 1 T 0 1 F 0 1 F 0 1 T 0 1 T
1 0 F 1 0 F 1 0 F 1 0 F 1 0 T 1 0 T 1 0 T 1 0 T
1 1 F 1 1 F 1 1 F 1 1 F 1 1 F 1 1 F 1 1 F 1 1 F

A B R A B R A B R A B R A B R A B R A B R A B R
0 0 F 0 0 T 0 0 F 0 0 T 0 0 F 0 0 T 0 0 F 0 0 T
0 1 F 0 1 F 0 1 T 0 1 T 0 1 F 0 1 F 0 1 T 0 1 T
1 0 F 1 0 F 1 0 F 1 0 F 1 0 T 1 0 T 1 0 T 1 0 T
1 1 T 1 1 T 1 1 T 1 1 T 1 1 T 1 1 T 1 1 T 1 1 T

Each binary T result of the 16 logical connectives is ontologically based on identical flags
(0 0 , 1 1) or different flags (0 1 , 1 0). "0A,0B" and "1A,1B" are ontologically reduced
to "flagA is as flagB", where " 0A,1B" and " 1A,0B" are ontologically reduced to "flagA is
not as flagB".

By ontological reduction the two building-blocks of Logic are:

flagA is as flagB

flagA is not as flagB

"flagA is as flagB" is the non-local aspect of any binary comparison, where "flagA is not
as flagB" is the local aspect of any binary comparison. The next pages present the 16
logical connectives, and their ontological reduction.

27
The 16 logical connectives:

A 0011
Values
B 0101
0 FFFF Contradiction
A AND B FFFT Conjunction
A not→ B FFTF A not implies B
A FFTT Proposition A
A ←not B FTFF B not implies A
B FTFT Proposition B
Connectives
A XOR B FTTF Exclusive disjunction
A OR B FTTT Disjunction
A NOR B TFFF Joint denial
A NXOR B TFFT Biconditional
NOT B TFTF not B
A←B TFTT B implies A
NOT A TTFF not A
A→B TTFT A implies B
A NAND B TTTF Alternative denial
1 TTTT Tautology

The reduction of the 16 logical connectives to Non-local\Local building-blocks:

A 0011
Values
B 0101
0 FFFF No measurement
A AND B FFFT Full non-local
A not→ B FFTF Local A
A FFTT Full non-local , Local A
A ←not B FTFF Local B
B FTFT Full non-local , Local B
Connectives
A XOR B FTTF Local
A OR B FTTT Full non-local , Local
A NOR B TFFF Empty non-local
A NXOR B TFFT Non-local
NOT B TFTF Local A , Empty non-local
A←B TFTT Non-local , Local A
NOT A TTFF Local B , Empty non-local
A→B TTFT Non-local , Local B
A NAND B TTTF Local , Empty non-local
1 TTTT Non-local , Local

This table distinguishes between Emptiness and Fullness. Another reduction (shown in
the next pages) reduces OM framework to its Non-local and Local building-blocks.

28
 Understanding NXOR\XOR Logic

Let us demonstrate the failure to get the ontological basis of Logic by using the law of
contradiction A AND not-A. A represents Emptiness. By the standard reasoning not-A is
not-Emptiness where only Emptiness (only A) is considered. In that case Emptiness AND
not-Emptiness is a contradiction because Emptiness cannot be empty AND non-empty.
By using an ontological view, not-Emptiness has another level of existence, which is
not Emptiness. If Emptiness is less, then not-Emptiness is more, so exactly as less AND
more define the intermediate level of existence which is more than less AND less than
more, so Emptiness AND not-Emptiness define the intermediate level of existence that is
more than Emptiness and less than not-Emptiness.
Some claims " "more or less" are not crisp things so less AND more maybe define an
intermediate existence which is more than less AND less than more, but it is impossible
with a crisp state of existence like Emptiness, we cannot define an intermediate state of
existence between Emptiness AND not-Emptiness ".
This argument is wrong because we are using the crisp complement of Emptiness,
which is Fullness. So the result of Emptiness AND Fullness is an intermediate level of
existence, which is not totally empty AND not totally full. Furthermore, by using the
intermediate level of existence as a researchable level, one defines Non-locality and
Locality as the signatures of the extreme limits as they appear under the intermediate
state of existence. For example: Emptiness is too weak for direct research, where Fullness
is too strong for direct research. The intermediate result between Emptiness and Fullness
is used to research them indirectly (to find their signature), as follows:

[ ] is a domain that exists at the intermediate level, where [ ] is used to distinguish

between in_the_domain, out_the_domain binary states.

empty in [ ] NOR empty out [ ] is a non-local signature of Emptiness w.r.t the domain.

full in [_]_ AND full out [_]_ is a non-local signature of Fullness w.r.t the domain.

empty in [ ]_ XOR full out [ ]_ is a local signature of Emptiness w.r.t the domain.

full in [_] XOR empty out [_] is a local signature of Fullness w.r.t the domain.

By ignoring the difference between Emptiness and Fullness [ ],[_]_ (NOR with AND is
NXOR) are reduced to Non-locality, and [ ]_,[_] (XOR with XOR is XOR) are reduced to
Locality (we get NXOR\XOR Logic). OM's NXOR\XOR Logic cannot be understood by
the standard view of Logic.

29
 Organic Mathematics Framework

Non-Researchable Researchable Non-Researchable

Locality Non-locality
XOR NXOR
Emptiness XOR Interaction Emptiness NOR
Fullness XOR • Fullness AND
Element Relation

Non-researchable

Singularity

Fig. 15

Reducing Emptiness\Fullness to Non-local (NXOR) \ Local (XOR) building-blocks:

Fig. 16

30