Monday, April 1, 2013

Iteration, fractals, math

I've been pondering the process of iteration, and how it is formulated in the likes of set theory and the MHC versus the likes of Badiou and Derrida. And also how fractals are viewed in complexity theory between Mandlebrot and Prigogine. Both see something novel emerging from an interaction of the parts. I.e., something is retained yet something novel emerges in the iterative process. But it appears the mathematical formula for that process is itself the same for each level, itself just iterating or repeating the same algebraic pattern.

What I'm suggesting is that that very mathematical formula must itself undergo the kind of iteration that retains something and something novel emerges. The math itself must go postformal, which is what I've been getting at from the beginning of this thread, where Deleuze uses a calculus of uncertainty. Or Badiou infuses the empty set into the formula and changes the entire dynamic of set theory. Or Priest's paraconsistent mathematical logic. And that the math changes at each stage, both for itself and for the objects if represents, for it is not a unchanging Platonic form but itself a contingent construct that must undergo iteration. Hence the actual math for postformal stages is different.

1 comment:

  1. I've tried a post-"formal" inspired approach with "quantum set theory", see here: and the other related posts.

    It's worth noting that Deleuze couldn't for the life of him understand why Badiou chose set theory instead of, you know, differential geometry. I think the use of topos theory (Laruelle) helps to neutralize B.'s account of mastery and may allow us to "spin together" B and D *despite their differences* on thinking difference, being qua being, etc.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.