Some observations on the scientific value of my poetry

Some observations on the scientific value of my poetry - and academic work

John Bjarne Grover

I launched the 'equation' on the web since at least 2007 and more recently I have made this fresh and brief summary in the file 'The fundamental theorem of logic briefly stated'. It is an equation which tells 'where it is' - this problem of the semiotics of mathematics. It is well possible that a deeper understanding of it can come to revolutionize mathematics - since it seems to solve the problems that arose in not only mathematics but also politics after 1844 and can lead to a new understanding of the semantics to the mathematical symbols that will come to enter into supercomputer mathematical modelling of the world. If so, why isnt there anybody who is willing to admit that and credit me for this? I have fancied that this could be because Adolf Hitler would not like it. If the innermost secret in the story - and the reason why Hitler could have been in Norway with asylum after the war, if that were the story - is that Hitler could have been a briton, then the conclusion to the story could come to be that Israel will be forced to credit Hitler for the country they got - which according to jewish dogma then will have to mean that Adolf Hitler is God, the very Lord himself. And if 'God' does not like that I be credited for the work I do, then one understands why it can be difficult.

There is much mention of AI = Artificial Intelligence these days. It is possible that this is because of the derivation behind the equation in my summary 'The fundamental theorem of logic briefly stated' - since ∑_j p(b_j|a_i)/p(B|a_i) = 1.0 for all a_i, this can be inserted into the expression for H(A) - which tells that the formula is not easy humbug - on the idea that if the sum of probabilities can be different from unity, then it would not be legal math to multiply with this factor - but in fact a valid derivation which poses an apparent paradox - hence "for all A_i" = 'for all AI'. But since this derivation - by its validity - in fact seems to take away the self-evident semantic basis for all symbol manipulation on paper which modern mathematics is about, it means that it is very explosive matter in that field of reasoning and hence difficult to understand.

Which of the two is the more difficult? Is there a swap of intentions?

How difficult? I discovered the simple 'formula' when in 1991 I tried to find how grammatical structure could arise from distribution of occurrences - and then historic change of linguistic status of an occurrence could lead to one occurrence slipping out of its category by historic change - and then for a transitory period - before the reinterpretation would count anew - the category it belonged to would sum up to less than unity and then ordinary reasoning does not function and in this transitory or platonic 'interval' period the subject (here by Kristeva's 'khora'?) has to rely on moral integrity as the measure of truth. (See e.g. this ancient illustration from this article - the categorial container is just about to change its contents). The essence of the exposition is that humans shift the principle of equiprobability from occurrences to meaning of occurrences - they construct something called 'semantics' for the idea that the probability that an occurrence always means the same is the same as the equiprobability of occurrences - for establishing an inner theoretic space wherein the pieces can be moved around like scrabble on a board - for matching the inner against the outer and for establishing advanced postulates which can be used for testing the relevance of own understanding against the real world. This strategy is essential for scientific method. It consists in shifting equiprobability from occurrences to meaning - the probability that something means the same every time it occurs. Modern mathematicians can perhaps come to despair somewhat by my reasoning since it could remove or weaken the basis for symbol manipulation from their field of study - and they could be quick up with the counterargument - telling that, yes, okay, it is possible that mathematical symbol manipulation can be a form of humbug - but it functions empirically against the 'real world' - and isnt that proof enough of it validity? You can compute the theoretic trajectory of the cannonball and then compute how much gunpowder must be used for firing it - and it turns out that the cannonball landed precisely where you had computed it in advance. That is proof enough, they say.

Could be - but that is what is called calculus, differential mathematics. This was shooting forth around the time of the work of Cauchy to whom Grassmann sent his Ausdehnungslehre - it may have been a turning point in history that Cauchy did not understand Grassmann but allegedly plagiarized his theory instead. This piece of potential swindle could be seen as the origin of marxism and communism which arose as a political protest against this calculus humbug of capitalism. It seems that Grassmann is about precisely this equation which I have described. In his Einleitung A Ableitung des Begriffs der reinen Mathematik he outlines the basis for the pure mathematics in just this difference which I describe as being contained in "since ∑_j p(b_j|a_i)/p(B|a_i) = 1.0 for all a_i" - that is, for each occurrence a_i which he calls 'das Besondere' - while this is not necessarily the case for all A - for the category which contains more than one occurrence. It is the output of the historic change in language which means that his point 3 obtains: "Die reine Mathematik ist daher die Wissenschaft des besonderen Seins als eines durch das Denken gewordenen". He continues in point 4 "Jedes durch das Denken gewordene kann auf zwiefache Weise geworden sein, entweder durch einen einfachen Akt des Erzeugens, oder durch einen zwiefachen Akt des Setzens und Verknüpfens" - which tells of the difference between the occurrence and its category.

Hence the equation I have outlined seems to be the origin of the split of east and west, between capitalism and communism, since about 1844 - could be when Cauchy refused to understand Grassmann in the right way. My theory is that this historic split finds its explanation in what I call two different forms of semantic arbitrarity in human language and thinking - one from the fundamental theorem of linguistics and one from the fundamental theorem of logic - and it forgets that one of them is what is approaching zero - towards the infinitesimally small difference - as the hallmark of just calculus which can compute the trajectory of the cannonball in advance. Therefore it is so difficult to understand this 'semantic problem' - since so much calculus is based on this presupposition of reducing the two arbitrarities to one. My theory postulates that both arbitrarities can have any value - which means that calculus will not neessarily function properly and the cannonball can suddenly start levitating upwards instead of falling down on the expected place if the gravity which arises from the collapse of two metaphysical realities in the fundamental theorem of linguistics is not held in place by the semantics of the fundamental theorem of logic.

Grassmann point 5: "Das aus dem Gleichen gewordene können wir die algebraische Form, das aus dem Verschiedenen gewordene die kombinatorische Form nennen". Furthermore in point 6: "Zahl ist die algebraisch diskrete Form, das heisst sie ist die Zusammenfassung des als gleich gesetzten". This tells why mathematics dealing with numbers could panic when they have to realize the basis for this historic shift around 1844. My concept of 'poetic numerality' - exemplified in this article - is probably akin to Grassmann's theory of 'Ausdehnung' or 'extension' (his point 7).

If an upper limit of complexity exists for electronic computation, beyond which the computer will not be any better, and if the components of electronic computation eventually becomes so small that they go down on molecular or atomic and subatomic level, then it is possible that the most advanced computer that can theoretically be constructed will come to be of the size and shape of a human brain - and then it is possible that this supercomputer - which can keep the whole universe under surveillance like the cosmic harmony of a jewish shabbat - will come to function in accordance with the logic in this equation.

It is by the same logic that I suggested a method for constructing a medication against virus. It is not a vaccine but a pill which conjecturally can stop the outbreak like antibiotics against bacillae and hence also stop the spread of an epidemic. It seemed to meet initial resistance from medical authorities who could take it to be 'semantically based' - like an upside-down loodoor heart could help against 'cat-shack old' - while it is essentially the opposite - my epidemiological theory and suggestion for a medication against it takes the outbreak of virus infection to be caused by 'galloping semantics' - which even could be caused by historic-cultural problems related to abuse a la 'capitalist exploitation' of spiritual values - closely akin to the essential characteristic of nazism which attacks whatever has value for the human life and spirituality for turning it into power - my suggested principle for constructing the medication tries to stop that outbreak by way of a 'materialist' blocking - a substance which functions like a rod in the crocodile gap. I have fancied that this method of mine - which qua medical discovery would be comparable with penicillin - now is under 'galloping development' in the field of (capitalist?) farmacy - but that nobody credits me as the inventor - because Adolf Hitler would not like that: He had possibly planned to dump the blame for his war crimes on me and that could come to be difficult if I came to be credited for my work.

An alternative is to downgrade Hitler from the status of God to the status of war criminal. NATO must be careful not to mistake things there. It should not count as an act of blasphemy to tell the truth of the history.

But it is not so easy to find the optimal solution to the virus medication - simply because there are very many parametres and these combine to thousands or millions of possible solutions and it is not possible to guess which of these is optimal except by either 1) testing each and every, and that takes years or centuries, or 2) intuit the solution by a human shabbat-brain and that takes moral integrity (cp. the above-mentioned problem) - which is not always in harmony with the needs of the marketing department in a farmaceutic firm. It is a wellknown phenomenon that morality is a component which is necessary for the human supercomputer brain to function efficiently.

The combination of these phenomena is the very dangerous phenomenon of spreading nazism - could be also via NATO - since those who have occupied my authority by my more than 40 years in Norway and nearly 20 years in Austria do not want to withdraw from the occupied 'khora' territories but want to cash in the profit from my work instead - and to win many friends and sympathizers thereby.

It must be understood that after these years of mine in Norway, if the abuse of my life and work by the norwegian state (assuming agency involvement of the state) is as bad as I have suspected, they could have occupied a sizable portion of my authority or 'khora' - could be precisely that platonic 'interval' part of the psyche which is active in keeping rationality up while the logic can be in heavy weather due to slippery semantics in periods of historic change and reconceptualization - tilting from capitalism to communism and back again - and do not want to give it back. It is this 'plastic' authority of dubious identity they could have been using for convincing people around the world about their legitimacy - and the work with trying to expose me as a 'beast of terror' (see the brief comments for today 3 january 2024), and could be they even believe in it themselves, and it is precisely this which could have turned NATO into a tool for growing mythology-driven nazism. NATO is about as old as modern Israel. Would this abuse of my life and work have been the same as support for Adolf Hitler? Would NATO have been involved in the attack on Israel on 7 october - also in order to prevent progress for my scientific and poetic person which could have been felt as threatening for this role of the 'egyptian' Norway?

Did Norway (and NATO, that would mean) grant asylum to Hitler and his government after the war? If so, it is easy to see why they could be reluctant to come out with the story.

It is seen that the scientific and cultural value of my work can be sufficiently important to make it an urgent matter to prevent that it be abused for terrorist and nazi purposes. It is very naive to believe that moral integrity can be hijacked and abused for 'good purposes' - such as finding the optimal substance for preventing outbreak of virus epidemics. If the marketing department involves in organized terror for selling more, the 'inventors' in the scientific department will make correspondingly less progress and will soon grab for 'semantic solutions'. It is likely that much of this problem type is only rooted in the unwillingness to come out with the truth of the history.

Ahja, most of my time seems to be spent on writing things like the present article.