PARADIGMS and PARADIGMOLOGY

The Dictionary defines the term Paradigm as..."a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated."

What follows here are some of my ideas and observations concerning paradigms. Since Science seeks to paradigm or model "reality,"...and since it claims to be able to generate a workable "Theory of Everything," which is, by any and all estimates always the current scientific paradigm,...it behooves us to perhaps take a closer look at what exactly constitutes a valid paradigm and a potential "paradigmology." In some sense,...Science has become itself (via a more or less natural ontogeny of developments) an obligate Paradigmology Contest.

Here we note that any conceivable paradigm or model is always an extensionalization of an intensional set or sets and as such is always open to variations of interpretation. There is (we have recently learned) great neuro-physiologic consistency among all human brains; ...however, each and every example has a unique mental-psychical ecology...a unique personal intensionalism. Even among identical twins this is true. Family and culture serves to contribute to intensional uniformity. The role of what we call the "Media" is now a tremendous factor in contributing to the flattening-out of the "bell-curve" of intensional variation and the primary difficulty this causes for humanity, namely what might best be termed...culture clash.

Paradigms are often alpha-numericisms or certain variations of these and are always representations of an intentional set. I consider Art as a special case of alpha-numeric expression. Other variations might be "mimicry" and variations of symbolistic expression (graffiti even). Thinkers devise these models or paradigms in an effort to convey to other mind-brains the essential meaning and associated ideations defined by their representations.

To a certain extent, it seems valid to say that all conceivable paradigms serve to help us to "think about thinking." We need this strategy in our lives because we are not all so telepathic! We need the conversation pieces in our ecosystems. And we like to feel comprehended and understood; we are thus made less fearful and more unified as a specie. Paradigms, we hope, clarify the ephemeral and the intensional...the purely psychical domain. We cannot analyse this without implicating the ancient "Mind-Body" scenarios of classical philosophy. Yet it can suffice to state emphatically that the extensionalized "set" (any old paradigm) is, in all cases, a potential energy-event,...an "object" in the environment, to be neurologically discerned and perceived-processed.

A stick drawing, an encyclopedic compendium, etc.,....these are, in a manner of speaking, "environmental resources" (in relation to certain contexts and deployment scenarios);...these are extensionalizations and categories of alpha-numeric set resolutions.
We recognize a range of complexity in these and also a role of neurologically relevant functioning we tend to call "intelligence." We like to convey information and be comprehended in an optimized way. So far, nothing we know of does a better job of this than does "The Language of Science" itself,...namely, Mathematics.

Paradigms always tend to have an associated co-set of elements which may be said to define the context of the extensionalized but originally intensionally (always neurologically generated) generated set. This is to say at some point in its ontogeny, the representation-paradigm existed entirely as an element of the thinker's neuro-sensory mechanisms. A mind-brain "places" the paradigm into the domain of human experience...the socio-cultural ecosystem. The paradigm is most often generated "with respect: to a given pre-existing or newly generated context which serves as a sort of "intellectual environment" for the evolving paradigm (as most paradigms are invariably subject to continued revisions). For some paradigms which are well-defined alpha-numeric sets, the primary "contexts" are simply the conjectures, theories and axioms with which they are associated. Scientists like it when the contexts are explicit and there is as little "guess-work" as possible as they attempt to "extensionalize" all the ideas they may have about phenomena (which is identically their devised extensionalism and alpha numericisms...paradigms and representations).

Consider the above human generated "representations" which we might say are variously "artful." Is there one we might say is more "artful" than any of the others? As stated, in all the examples, we can easily consider that the representations were entirely "more or less "mental" and hence "intensional" set elements before being fully generated into extensional existence. (We avoid saying such expression as "it was in or on the thinkers mind;"... this helps us to define all the ephemeralism!) Yet, no doubt, we might suppose that one or more of these "objects" did indeed require a little more fore-thought or effort that certain of the others. And with this (judgement process) we realize that, to some extent, the issue of how we "value" extensionalized facts (or anyone's creations) or even art itself becomes somewhat of an issue. We recognize and value something called talent.

The human mind is generally limited in its conveyance power;...it is limited to having to use the faculties of language and what has been defined here as "alpha-numeric set resolutions."

Alpha numeric sets are variously valuable, useful, valid, profitable, entertaining, symbolic, artful, explanatory, disturbing,...and the list goes on and on. Indeed, when we consider what is and what is not an element of the set of all alpha-numericisms in our lives,...all that seems to remain which is not an element of this magna-set is identified as none other than the "natural world itself." Thus we live in a "synthetic" co-ecology with the natural world. Go into the forest-jungle naked and all alone and you will soon appreciate the meaning of this dichotomy of experience....the alpha-numeric versus the "natural" which can present itself to the senses. It implicates our very humanity and multi-million year evolutionary history.

Scientists like a paradigm (a class of alpha-numericism) that is as enduringly precise and omni-valid as possible,...sub-summingly explanatory. Thus the enthusiasm for the paradigmological construct which is written "E = MC²" It elegantly sub-summed a millenium or more of mentations and paradigmational explorations. With respect to all the contexts of its genesis, the equation, founded on discoveries ever present, optimally described a multitude of resolutions. It solved a lot of problems. And this is what the human species likes to do.

We have little or no context to go along with the above figures-representations. We might say (i.e. provide the anchoring clue that is the context for the set of representations) that they are all each and everyone a paradigm of a thinking human being. And with this more refined definition, we find the paradigm has context and is open for all sorts of interpretational arguments. Which one of the four representations does a better job or is more efficient in modeling "the most general idea of what is a thinking man?" Which representation conveys more knowledge about what a thinking man is and does? Which one might well-model the thinking man who is a farmer versus an Eskimo? None of our representations seems to convey much information concerning of what all thinking men are made of as far as atoms or molecules is concerned; yet even so, we can, with some interpretational stretch of the imagination argue that one or more of these models could somehow "symbolize" this issue (of structure) perhaps. We tend to think this is ridiculous because we know there are many much preferred ways to paradigm and model certain facts about "human structure."

Often, it seems, to be just a matter of personal preference which paradigm an individual will choose under certain circumstances to accomplish a conveyance of information. This being so, we might suppose that this may cause problems as far as using N-paradigms to define an omni-valid scientific "Theory of Everything" may be concerned. Science has to rely on the paradigm that predicts with the greatest precision; scientists really do not have much choice in the matter. If it fails to predict in a certain way, it must be revised or up-graded or else become an extinction among all the invalid extensional resources.

For example, a scientist might use a mathematical model with four dimensions while another might choose or prefer (and argue the validity) of a paradigm which requires twenty six dimensions. If all the brains of humanity co-exist in a single Universe as a collective extensional ecosystem which is, in effect, a primary assumption of Physical Science....who is correct? Maybe, we do not really know what we mean by the word dimension itself to have such a spectrum of ideas about it. When a word or a term is listed in a dictionary, and we find it takes up half a page or more in the dictionary....this itself must tell us something about our level of precision and refinement.

To be continued.