mathacademytutoring Home

A Tutorial in Data Science: Lecture 2 – The Hermeneutic Nature of Scientific Data

by | Jan 12, 2021 | Math Lecture


The question of science itself has never been its particular object of inquiry but the existential nature, in its possibility and thereby the nature of its actuality. Science is power, and thus abstracts itself as the desired meta-good, although it is always itself about particularities as an ever-finer branching process. Although a philosophic question, the “question of science” is inherently a political one, as it is the highest good desired by society, its population, and its government. To make sense of science mathematically-numerically, as statistics claims, it is the scientific process itself that must be understood through probability theory as The Logic of Science, a book on the subject by E.T. Jaynes in the context of a scientific investigation into the equivalency between statistics and quantum physics.1

Linguistic Analysis of the Invariants of Science: The Laws of Nature

The theory of science, as the proof of its validity in universality, must consider the practice of science, as the negating particularity. The symbolic language of science, within which its practice and results are embedded, necessarily negates its own particularity as well, as thus to represent a structure universally. Science, in the strict sense of having achieved already the goal of universality, is de-linguistified. While mathematics, in its extra-linguistic nature, often has the illusion of universal de-linguistification, such is only a semblance and often an illusion. The numbers of mathematics always can refer to things, and in the particular basis of their conceptual context always do. The non-numeric symbols of mathematics too represented words before short-hand gave them a distilled symbolic life. The de-linguistified nature of the extra-linguistic property of mathematics is that to count as mathematics, the symbols must themselves represent universal things. Thus, all true mathematical statements may represent scientific phenomena, but the context and work of this referencing is not trivial and sometimes the entirety of the scientific labor. The tense of science, as the time-space of the activity of its being, is the tensor, which is the extra-linguistic meta-grammar of null-time, and thus any and all times.

The Event Horizon of Discovery: The Dynamics between an Observer & a Black Hole

The consciousness who writes or reads science, and thereby reports or performs the described tensor as an action of experimentation or validation, is the transcendental consciousness. Although science is real, it is only a horizon. The question is thus of its nature and existence at this horizon. What is knowable of science is thereby known as “the event horizon,” as that which has appeared already, beyond which is merely a black hole as what has not yet revealed itself – always there is a not-yet to temporality and so such a black hole can always be at least found as all that of science that has not and cannot be revealed since within the very notion of science is a negation of withdrawal (non-appearance) as the condition of its own universality (negating its particularity). Beginning here with the null-space of black-holes, the physical universe – at least the negative gravitational entities – have a natural extra-language – at least for the negative linguistic operation of signification whereby what is not known is the object of reference. In this cosmological interpretation of subjectivity within the objectivity of physical space-time, we thus come to the result of General Relativity that the existence of a black-hole is not independent of the observer, and in fact is only an element in the Null-Set, or negation, of the observer. To ‘observer’ a black-hole is to point to and outline something of which one does not know. If one ‘knew’ what it was positively then it would be not ‘black’ in the sense of not-emitting light within the reference frame (space-time curvature) of the observer. That one cannot see something, as to receive photons reflecting space-time measurements, is not a property of the object but rather of the observer in his or her subjective activity of observation since to be at all must mean there is some perspective from which it can be seen. As the Negation of the objectivity of an observer, subjectivity is the negatively-curved gravitational anti-matter of black holes. Subjectivity, as what is not known by consciousness, observes the boundaries of an aspect (a negative element) of itself in the physical measurement of an ‘event horizon.’

These invariants of nature, as the conditions of its space-time, are the laws of dynamics in natural science. At the limit of observation we find the basis of the conditionality of the observation and thus its existence as an observer. From the perspective of absolute science, within the horizon of universality (i.e. the itself as not-itself of the black-hole or Pure Subjectivity), the space-time of the activity of observation (i.e. the labor of science) is a time-space as the hyperbolic negative geometry of conditioning (the itself of an unconditionality). What is a positive element of the bio-physical contextual condition of life, from which science takes place, for the observer is a negative aspect from the perspective of transcendental consciousness (i.e. science) as the limitation of the observation. Within Husserlian Phenomenology and Hilbertian Geometry of the early 20th century in Germany, from which Einstein’s theory arose, a Black-Hole is therefore a Transcendental Ego as the absolute measurement point. Our Solar System is conditioned in its space-time geometry by the MilkyWay galaxy it is within, which is conditioned by the black hole Sagittarius A* (SgrA). Therefore, the unconditionality of our solar space-time (hence the bio-kinetic features) is an unknown of space-time possibilities, enveloped in the event horizon of SgrA. What is the inverse to our place (i.e. space-time) of observation will naturally only exist as a negativity, what cannot be seen.

Classical Origins of The Random Variable as The Unknown: Levels of Analysis

In order thus to situate modern science within at least one continuous tradition, we turn hermeneutically towards one of the most ancient traditions of science, China. Here is helpful to consider Xi Fu’s Space and Place to see how Western Science has neglected Place in its analysis of Space.
Strictly speaking, within Chinese Cosmological Algebra of 4-variables (\mu, X,Y,Z), this first variable of primary Unknowing, is represented by X, or Tiān (天), for ‘sky’ as that which conditions the arc of the sky, i.e. “the heavens” or the space of our temporal dwelling ‘in the earth.’ X=SgrA is the closest supermassive blackhole and the most relevant primary unknown for our contextualized solar system since it structures the Milky Way Galaxy and thus the space-time within which our solar system is embedded. In the galactic ecosystem, blackholes interact with distant neighbors and signals as cosmic rays can come from other galaxies to the Earth. It can be said thus that all unknowns (x) of our galaxy are within the (great) unknown (X) of SgrA, as thus x \in X or x \mathcal{A} X for the negative aspectual (\mathcal{A}) relationship “x is an aspect of X.” These are relevant, and most general (i.e. near-universal) invariants to our existence of observation. They are the relative absolutes of, from, and for science. Within more practical scientific judgments from a cosmological perspective, the relevant aspects of variable unknowns are the planets within our solar system as conditioning the solar life of Earth. The Earthly unknowns are the second variable Y, or Di (地) for “earth.” They are the unknowns that condition the Earth, or life, as determining the changes in climate through their cyclical dynamics. Finally, the last unknown of conditionals, Z, refers to people, Ren (人) for ‘men,’ as what conditions their actions. X is the macro unknown (conditionality) of the gravity of ‘the heavens,’ Y the meso unknown of biological life in and on Earth, and Z the micro unknown of psychology as quantum phenomena. These unknowns are the subjective conditions of observation. Finally, the 4th variable is the “object”, or Wu (物), \mu of measurement. This last quality is the only real value in the sense of an objective measurement of reality, while the others are imaginary in the sense that their real values aren’t known, and can’t be within the reference of observation since they are its own conditions of measurement within the heavens, the earth, and the person.

In the quaternion tradition of Hamilton, (\mu, X,Y,Z) are the quaternions, (\mu, i,j,k). Since the real-values of X,Y,Z in the scientific sense can’t be known truly and thus must always be themselves unknowns, they are treated as imaginary numbers (i=\sqrt{-1}) with their ‘values’ merely coefficients to the quaternions i,j,k. These quaternions are derived as quotients of vectors, as thus the unit orientations of measurement’s subjectivity, themselves representing the space-time. We often approximate this with the Cartesian X,Y,Z of 3 independent directions as vectors, yet such is to assume Euclidean Geometry as independence.



[1] E.T. Jaynes, “Probability In Quantum Theory,” Complexity, Entropy and the Physics of Information; Ed. by W. H. Zurek, Wesley Publishing Co., 1990.

[2] Andrea Bréard, Nine Chapters on Mathematical Modernity: Essays on the Global Historical Entanglements of the Science of Numbers in China, Springer, 2019.

Share This