Foundations of Systems Architecture Design

Using Gdels Incompleteness Theorem to ground

Systems Theory via Co-recursion based on Special Systems Theory

Kent Palmer Ph.D.

kent@palmer.name
http://kdp.me
714-633-9508
Copyright 2016 KD Palmer1
All Rights Reserved. Not for Distribution.
FoundationsSystemsArchitecturalDesign_01_2016926kdp04a
Started 2016.05.22; Draft Version 02; corrected 2016.09.26; unedited
(Systems Engineering Journal Manuscript ID SYS-16-087 rejected)

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5298-4422
http://schematheory.net
Researcher ID O-4956-2015

Key Words: Systems, Architecture, Design, Special Systems, Pascal Triangle, Systems
Engineering, Software Engineering, Software Ontology, Formal Systems, Schemas Theory,
Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Afoundationalism, Foundations, Meta-systems

Abstract: A foundation for Systems Engineering is laid out based on Gdels Incompleteness
theorem. This foundation gives the basis for Architectural Design of Systems including Software
Systems. Systems Engineering has its roots in Systems Science. Systems Science propounds
various General Systems Theories and all of them depend on Logic and Mathematics and their
Foundations which have been brought into question by Gdels theorem. We use the Theorem
of Gdel to provide the foundations for Systems Theory, and thus Systems Science via the
Special Systems and Schemas Theory, which in turn ground Systems Engineering and thus
Software Engineering Systems. These Systems are syntheses that are Designed using
Architectural Design, the Afoundation discovered herein gives a basis for Emergent Design in
general which leads to Architectural Design of Systems including Software Systems.

There has been an open question as to the nature the Foundations of Systems Engineering for some
time. After years of research into this question it turns out that the answer comes from an
unexpected direction. The first attempt was to suggest that Schemas Theory
(http://schematheory.net) is the basis for the foundation of Systems Engineering. Eventually the
mathematical basis for Schemas theory was found in the production of Pascals Triangle by Co-
recursion. However, this was not a very satisfying result, since it did not really suggest anything
in that might affect practice so that Systems Design would be done differently. But then recently

1 http://independent.academia.edu/KentPalmer See also http://kentpalmer.name

1
I was reviewing Gdels Incompleteness Theorem2 and realized that it includes Recursion3 as a
central part of the theorem along with encoding. So I wondered what would happen if instead we
substituted co-recursion for recursion. Then it occurred to me that co-recursion that produced
infinite streams of co-data via co-induction as part of a co-logic could be used to build Pascal
Triangles. Pascal Triangles are inherently a production of infinite syntheses based on groupoids
with respect to the simplicies4 in each dimension. And this is by definition a Dissipative Ordering
Special System5 ala Prigogine6 displaying negative entropy7. Once we can see that the reversal
from recursion to co-recursion gives the simplest special system then it is possible to understand
all of the Special Systems8 as being produced by the Gdels Proof9. The Autopoietic Symbiotic
Special System10 and the Reflexive Social Special System11 are produced by conjunctions of
Dissipative Ordering Special Systems. This means that we merely have to place two or four of
these Dissipative Ordering Special Systems in juxtaposition for them to spontaneously produce
syntheses. And we see these syntheses in the fact that at each dimensional level there are at least
three polytopes two of which are the Ortho and Cross polytopes that are made of the combination
of two simplicies at a given dimension. The ortho and cross polytopes are produced by assigning
geometrical intuitive values to the lattice that defines the polytopes starting from each end: point,
line, surface, solid, hunk . . . When we assign these to the simplicies because the lattice is like a
palindrome and symmetrical around the middle the simplicies are self-dual. But when we assign
these geometrical intuitions of dimensional emergence to the lattice of the ortho/cross we get two
complementary figures in each dimension. These figures are combinations of two simplicies in
two different manners as either fusion (intra-inclusion) or interpenetration. Interestingly we can
get two images of the Autopoietic Symbiotic Special System as either fused or interpenetrated
simplicies, and then of course the Reflexive Special System is the duality between these two
versions of Autopoiesis. Thus we get this surprising result that the simplicies produced by the
Pascal Triangle which are the basic and simplest possible regular relations between things all the
way to infinity are images of the Special Systems. And these images are in terms of the possible
simplicies in most dimensions. It turns out that there is a difference between the third and fourth
dimensions and all other dimensions in that the third dimension has five Platonic Solids and the
fourth dimension has six Platonic Hunks12. But all other dimensions have only three Platonic
Simplicies.

This structure that is produced as higher and higher syntheses going to n-dimensions that comes
from the interpretation of Pascals triangle by the projection of intuitive geometrical dimensional

2 Goldstein, Rebecca. Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Godel. New York: W.W. Norton, 2005.

3 Odifreddi, Piergiorgio. Classical Recursion Theory: The Theory of Functions and Sets of Natural Numbers. Amsterdam:
North-Holland, 1989.
4 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Simplex
5 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Dissipative_system
6 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Ilya_Prigogine
7 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Negentropy
8 https://www.academia.edu/3795281/Special_Systems_Theory https://works.bepress.com/kent_palmer/4/
9 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems
10 https://works.bepress.com/kent_palmer/3/
11 http://archonic.net/rst.htm
12 Sider, Theodore. Four-dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001

2
figures (point, line, surface, solid, hunk) to each part of the Pascal lattice is the most fundamental
way in which synthesis shows up in mathematics. In Systems Engineering Architectural Design
we are concerned with producing syntheses that are whole systems. And the measure of our
systems syntheses is how far we depart from the most regular and basic syntheses. All syntheses
are produced topologically by Groupoids but there is this core of basic regular syntheses that all
other syntheses are measured against in terms of their departure from regularity at any given
dimension. What is striking about this solution to the foundation problem is that it leverages the
very thing that calls into question the foundations of mathematics and logic which is Gdels
Incompleteness Theorem to provide the foundations for Systems Architecture and Design in other
schemas via the idea of the Special Systems and their generation through Pascals Triangle via Co-
recursion. This is an unexpected result and has far reaching implications for Systems Architectural
Design some of which we will touch on in this paper.

Discovering the Mathematical Foundations of a Discipline always has profound implications for
that Discipline. In the case of Systems Engineering and the Architectural Design of Systems there
has been a question as to these foundations for quite some time. I was invited to a discussion of
this problem in INCOSE quite some time ago13 and made a presentation which essentially
encapsulated Schemas Theory which I developed the first prototype for in my book The
Fragmentation of Being and the Path Beyond the Void14. In my first talk on Schemas Theory15 I
basically named the schemas that I would eventually settle upon as being correct in my further
development of Schemas Theory. The concept of Schemas Theory was that the most fundamental
thing was the way we organize things in spacetime, and that there were different a priori ways of
doing that. The idea was to define the next higher level of theory beyond systems theory and that
turned out to be schemas, of which there was a variety beyond systems, which give the context for
understanding systems. This included the dual of the system which I called the Meta-system
(OpenScape). In our tradition meta-systems are not seen easily, and in fact there is a blind spot
toward this schema unlike the other schemas. When you realize that there is a duality to the system
that appears in the meta-system, then it is possible to see the special systems as thresholds of
organization that are between system and meta-system which are holonomic, i.e. composed of
holons as described by Koestler16 as part and whole at the same time. My research has focused on
the nature of the Special Systems over the years since I discovered them in my reading of Platos
imaginary cities and then looking for mathematical analogs to those cities. It turns out that
Herodotus has a very similar set of structures when he talks about Babylon in his histories so Plato
was not the only one to pick up this idea from the Egyptians. In our tradition we have lost sight of
the Meta-system structure and become blind to Special Systems, but they are key to our
understanding the nature of Systems themselves because these schemas all mutually implicate each
other in their emergent structure. It is not possible to understand Systems and their possibilities for
architectural design based on some grounding of Systems alone as if nothing else exists. This is
the flaw in thinking that I tried to overcome by developing Schemas Theory. However, this
understanding of the context within which the Systems Schema exists is not enough but we must
also connect it back to the foundations of mathematics and logic. And those foundations

13 In 1997.
14 https://works.bepress.com/kent_palmer/2/
15 http://schematheory.net
16 Koestler, Arthur. Janus: A Summing Up. London: Hutchinson, 1978.

3
themselves are put into question by Gdels Incompleteness Theorems which is the source of so
much anti-foundationalism17 that exists in modern philosophy. But what is so interesting is that
the very thing that causes doubts about foundations in mathematics and logic which are the
incompleteness theorems as well as Cohens proof of the independence of the Continuum
Hypothesis18, is precisely what causes us to realize the grounds of Systems Engineering and
particularly the Architectural Design of Systems. They are grounded precisely in those lack of
grounds that Logic and Mathematics suffers from based on these extraordinary results of Gdel
and Cohen19. This result is particularly surprising because you would not expect to find the
foundation of your discipline in the ruins of the foundations of another more basic discipline. And
what is even more surprising is that it is the Special Systems that allows for this discovery of the
foundations for systems and meta-systems theory and thus the basis for Systems Engineering
Architectural Design as the theory of the synthesis of systems in general with implications for
Software Architectural Design as a more specific but important case.

In order to explain this connection between the foundations of Systems Engineering and therefore
all Engineering but especially focusing on Software Engineering in Gdels Incompleteness
Theorems and Cohens Independence Theorems we need to step back and attempt to understand
the situation from a high level of abstraction. There was something called the program of Hilbert
which was meant to formalize all of mathematics. Gdels incompleteness theorem put a fly in
that ointment by showing that formalization has fundamental limitations. Gdels proof for him
was an attempt to prove that Platonism was the real basis for all mathematics. His first
incompleteness result basically said that there were statements like I cannot be proved that
existed in a formalism that were true but could not be proved. Likewise, Cohen showed that the
Continuum Hypothesis which he thought was false was independent from ZF set theory20, and thus
was in his mind unprovably false. Thus we have two extremes of something that is true but cannot
be proved true and something that is held false but cannot be proved false because it is independent
of the Axioms which define the formal system. In these two cases the formal system in question
is different, i.e. arithmetic or ZF set theory, but in both cases what is said is that there are statements
in these formal systems that are either true or false but cannot be proved by formalism to be such.
Thus there is a possible surplus or deficiency that the formalism itself cannot reach without
introducing new axioms. Thus the formal system, or any informal conceptual model, must remain
essentially open to new axioms and cannot be closed. Hilbert wanted complete closure of all the
axiomatic systems of mathematics and Gdels proof and eventually Cohens proof denies that as
a possibility in principle. And thus this led to anti-foundationalism as a movement within the
Western tradition associated with Heideggers philosophy of Being and Time21 and then more
recently with Derridas deconstructionism as seen in Speech and Phenomena22 and of
Grammatology23. Godels work has stood for quite a long time now and has been added to by the

17 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Anti-foundationalism
18 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Continuum_hypothesis
19 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Paul_Cohen
20 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory
21 Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. New York: Harper, 1962.
22 Derrida, Jacques. Speech and Phenomena: And Other Essays on Husserl's Theory of Signs. Evanston: Northwestern
University Press, 1973.
23 Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976.

4
work of Cohen so that there seems little chance that it will be overthrown at this point. And thus
anti-foundationalism as the answer to the foundational quest must be taken very seriously. But
there is another option which we call afoundationalism which has not been explored. Buildings in
Mexico City which are built on an old lakebed float rather than taking something outside of
themselves as their foundation. They are built like ships with hulls that go down into the lakebed
as far as they go up into the sky. They are supplying their own foundation by essentially being
built like ships. This option is what I call Afoudationalism, where A- could stand for Auto-
foundationalism, or Self-foundationalism, or merely the lack of a search for foundations outside
of oneself because we know that there is no foundation to be offered from the outside, and thus we
build our structures differently to account for the fact that they must float over the mire that does
not offer any possible foundations for us. And this is the fundamental idea behind the use of Special
Systems Theory as a self-produced basis for our Systems and Meta-systems theories. Gdels
Incompleteness and Cohens Independence axioms are the proof that we will not get any help from
the outside to found our disciplines. If there are no foundations for Math and Logic as such then
that situation ripples down to other disciplines like Systems Science and on into Systems
Engineering and on to even specialized forms of Engineering like Software Engineering that builds
Software Systems. But then the question comes up whether it is possible to see Gdels
Incompleteness and Cohens Independence Theorems themselves as a basis for System Science
and then Systems Engineering and finally Software Engineering especially with respect to
Architectural Design, i.e. the Synthesis of Systems. And the answer to that question appears
unexpectedly to be yes. In other words, the theorems that unground formalism in Mathematics and
Logic themselves by a small categorical transformation from recursion to co-recursion open up the
door for the generation of Pascals Triangle which is the archetype of all possible synthesis by
specifying the structure of regular syntheses. All syntheses that are possible must be measured
against these most basic syntheses in each dimension. And beyond this there is an interesting
relationship between the Pascal Triangle24 and the Pascal Tetrahedron which together form what
Plato calls the WorldSoul25 which has the form (8-4-2-1-3-9-27). In other words, where pascals
triangle gives us the possibility of binomial expansion Pascals Tetrahedron gives us the possibility
of trinomial expansion, and thus describes all mediated relationships beyond all dualities. The
Pascal Triangle describes the simplest syntheses of each dimension called the simplexes (triangle,
tetrahedron, pentachora, ). Once we have those spaces defined we can explore them and find the
other polytopes that are regular within a given dimension. What we find is that the third dimension
has five, the fourth dimension has six, and all other dimensions to infinity have three. Thus
dimensions have different characteristics when we begin to explore them especially the fourth
dimension. B. Fuller produced synergetics by exploring the relations between the Platonic Solids.
We can extend synergetics to the Fourth dimension and explore the relations between the six
Platonic Solids in that dimension. But there is basically a synergetics of each dimension to infinity
which takes advantage of the particular characteristics of each dimension. Schemas Theory makes
use of this by positing that each schema is related to two dimensions with the rule that there are
two schemas per dimension and two dimensions per schema. Based on this rule then we generate
the series of schemas: facet, monad, pattern, form, system, meta-system, domain, world, kosmos
and pluriverse. As you see the system is only one member of this set of schemas and the other
schemas provide the context for understanding what a system is. We can then use these schemas

24 Edwards, A W. F. Pascal's Arithmetical Triangle. London: C. Griffin, 1987

25 Plato and Benjamin Jowett. Timaeus. Champaign, Ill: Project Gutenberg, 1990.

5
together and that is what is done when we construct formal systems. Logic and Mathematics
wanted to define closed formal systems based on axioms which had closed convex spaces defined
by formal proofs. But Godels Incompleteness and Cohens Independence theorems shows that
this is impossible. There are statements that are true but cannot be proven by rules of implication
such as I cannot be proved and there are statements that are just independent like the Continuum
Hypothesis that may be false but cannot be proved false without introducing other axioms. Notice
that these systems that cannot be closed are formal. In other words, they are a combination of two
schemas form and system. We use the different schemas together in order to get greater clarity and
distinctness in our models. The most powerful of these is the Formal Structural System such as
Klir produces in his Architecture of Systems Problem Solving26 which is not just a Formal System
expressed in logic and mathematics but is also structural in as much as it is built up in terms of all
possible ways that the variables in equations can be connected to each other, rather than merely
considering one way, i.e. a point design. But the problem that is shown to exist when we attempt
to combine system and form merely gets greater as we add other schemas in the attempt to gain
even more leverage in describing systems or meta-systems. In this case the meta-system is part of
the context, the environment of the system that has it own dual organization to that of the system,
and we can define larger and larger environments from domains to worlds. These six schemas
related to Formal Structural Systems in relation to Domain World Meta-systems as a context are
the experiential schemas. Facet and Monad on the one hand and Kosmos and Pluriverse on the
others are only ideal conceptual scaffolding and do not play any role in experiential
schematization.

Afoundationalism says that we must provide our own foundations for our schematizations which
combine different schemas to attempt to produce models of existing or possible and proposed
formal structural systems we might design as architectural syntheses. But where are we to get the
ingredients for providing our own foundations from. The answer seems to be from the ruins of the
of the broken foundations of Mathematics and Logic. We in fact start from Gdels Incompleteness
theorem itself and make a simple categorical substitution of co-recursion for recursion. Recursion
starts at a base case and goes down to zero and thus remains in finitude guaranteed. Gdel needs
this to iterate across his encoded axioms in order to manipulate them as part of his proof. Gdel
essentially combines encoding and recursion to attempt to get around the barriers set up by
Russells and Whiteheads Higher Logical Type Theory27 that is part of Principia Mathematica28.
There was an attempt to reduce Math to Logic that was started by Frege in his Foundations of
Arithmetic29. Russell found a paradox in Freges Logic relating to Set Theory which became
known as Russells Paradox30. It seems Zermelo31 discovered this paradox in the Set of All Sets
previously but did not publish it because he did not realize that it was foundational but he had

26 Klir, George J. Architecture of Systems Problem Solving. New York: Plenum Press, 1985.
27 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/type-theory/ https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Type_theory
28 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principia-mathematica/
2929 Frege, Gottlob. The Foundations of Arithmetic: A Logico-Mathematical Enquiry into the Concept of Number. Evanston,
Ill: Northwestern University Press, 1968.
30 Link, Godehard. One Hundred Years of Russell's Paradox: Mathematics, Logic, Philosophy. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
2004.
31 Ebbinghaus, Heinz-Dieter, and Volker Peckhaus. Ernst Zermelo: An Approach to His Life and Work. Berlin: Springer,
2007

6
apprized Cantor, Hilbert and Husserl of it32. Russell came up with Higher Logical Type Theory
which has been admirably summarized by I. Copi in a small book33 as a way to prevent strong
paradoxes of the type I am a liar and he and Whitehead built it into Principia Mathematica. The
type system was supposed to purify the realm of mathematical logic of all paradoxes. But then
Godels proof showed that the contamination of the exclude paradox can be smuggled into that
clean room of mathematical logic to exist in the proofs of arithmetic as true but unprovable
statements like I am unprovable a version of the Liar Paradox34 but designed to undermine
provability on which the whole system is dependent for its existence. This was a case of
Deconstruction35 because the entire structure of Higher Logical Type Theory set up to protect
Mathematical Logic from paradox collapsed on its own through the realization that the paradox
could not be kept out and that provability was not strong enough to capture all truths within a
formal system. Likewise, we know that the opposite is true to thanks to Cohen which is that there
may be things in our formal system that are false (as he suspects the continuum hypothesis is) but
which are independent of the axiom system and thus cannot be proved false. So both excess or
deficiency of truth cannot be proved true or false. But proof is something that happens in time and
the beginnings of computational theory are seen in the use of recursion and encoding in Godels
Theorems. Turing later used these results to define Turing Machines36 and to consider the Halting
Problem37 as unsolvable and thus leading to the distinction between Universal and Normal Turing
Machines38 which allows both systems and meta-systems to be defined formally with the same
formal structure from computing. Once something is proved, as in Euclids Geometry then it is
supposed to stay proved forever. We can always come back to it and reprove it, but the repetition
of the proof only reassures us and does not make it any truer. A proof is a synthesis of axiomatic
statements, lemmas and theorems that give us some information about the formal system that
would not necessarily been suspected. For instance, no one suspected that Formal Systems were
intrinsically open as Gdels proof showed. Everyone was expecting them to be able to achieve
closure through proofs by applying rules so that the proof space was convex and closed. But it
turns out that Gdel proved that there are limits to what is provable which is an extraordinary result
even today after all this time. But what Gdel was trying to show was that Platonism was correct.
And this is because Platonism is the idea that whatever we can prove about a formal system was
already there in a certain form before we made out proof, so that in spite of proof having to happen
in time and having to be repeatable, time does not really have to come into the picture and we can
have intrinsically provable statements in Pure Paramenidian Being without recourse to Process
Heraclitian Becoming within which actual proofs have to occur. Between these two extremes of
timelessness and temporality there is a Third Kind of Being39 according to Plato in the Timaeus

32 The original proof of Zermelo was found in Husserls papers. B Rang, W Thomas, "Zermelo's discovery of the Russell
Paradox hilosophisches seminar I U. Mathematisches institut der universitt, D-7800 Freiburg, F. R. G.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0315086081900021
33 Copi, Irving M. The Theory of Logical Types. London: Routledge and K. Paul, 1971.
34 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Liar_paradox
35 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Deconstruction
36 Herken, Rolf. The Universal Turing Machine: A Half-Century Survey. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
37 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Halting_problem
38 Agar, Jon. Turing and the Universal Machine: The Making of the Modern Computer. U.S: Totem, 2001. Davis, Martin. The
Universal Computer: The Road from Leibniz to Turing. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2012
39 Miller, Dana R. The Third Kind in Plato's Timaeus. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003.

7
associated with the Chora40 or Receptacle of the engendered things of the world that we call Hyper
Being41 and is equivalent to Derridas Differance (differing and deferring)42. The problem with
having proofs actualized in time is no so much the fact that they have to become contingent and
relativized and fall prey to Zenos paradoxes43, as it is that they must cross the threshold between
Pure Being (present-at-hand) and Process Being (ready-to-hand) which is made up of Hyper
Being44, which is radically contingent and the impossibility of making distinctions that do not slip
slide away as they are being made, like writing in the sand on the beach that the waves erase as
they are being written. Gdels Proof makes it necessary for formal systems to cross this threshold
and to have one foot in each kind of Being, i.e. Process and Pure, and thus pass through Hyper
Being or Differance. Thus opening up the Platonic Realm by saying that there are true things in
our system we cannot prove, or false things in our system that are unprovable to be false because
they are independent means at the same time we are opening up all formal systems to being
contingent and of necessity having to make way for amendment, i.e. the addition of new axioms
to cover undecidable situations. But for us it means that we must consider the various meta-levels
of Being and their relations to the systems we attempt to formally describe in our Design Synthesis
process.

One way to think about this is through Para-consistent Logic45 of Graham Priest46. Priest interprets
the Gdel Proof as giving us a choice between Consistency and Completeness. Gdel is assuming
we are going to choose consistency and thus allow the formal system to be incomplete. This is
because of the Explosion problem47 which is that once we allow one inconsistency then we can
prove anything. Thus formal deductions in axiomatic systems are very fragile. And what we must
consider is whether this fragility is reasonable to attempt to sustain. Better according to Graham
Priest48 to accept local inconsistency and work around it rather than outlawing it. Thus we could
perhaps choose completeness and para-consistency instead of consistency and incompleteness.
But Gdels proof says we must choose one of these alternatives. Thus there are two possibilities
which are absolute property in Pure Being or relative para-anti-property in Process Being where
the properties are consistency and completeness that are substituted for property and anti-property
or vice versa. We are forced to stand with one foot in Static Pure Being and the other in Dynamic
Process Being and that means that we have to cross the line that separates them which is composed
of Hyper Being and this is what causes Anti-foundationalism because Hyper Being as Differance
calls into question any distinction we make as we make it. All distinctions are unfounded and fade
or change and transform under the pressure of time.

40 Sallis, John. Chorology: On Beginning in Plato's Timaeus. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999
41 Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, Alphonso Lingis, and Claude Lefort. The Visible and the Invisible: Followed by Working Notes. ,
1968.
42 Derrida, Jacques. Writing and Difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.
43 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Zeno's_paradoxes
44 Which Heidegger calls Being crossed out. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Sous_rature
45 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Paraconsistent_logic
46 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Graham_Priest http://grahampriest.net/
47 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Principle_of_explosion
48 Priest, Graham. In Contradiction: A Study of the Transconsistent. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006.

8
But this little chink that Gdel opens up in the armor of the Formal System with respect to
provability has even further consequences for our understanding of formal systems or models. This
is because Being can be seen having the content of its Aspects which are Truth, Reality, Presence
and Identity. Try saying something significant about a system that does not refer to any of these
aspectual concepts or their opposites. It is almost impossible. We depend on the four aspects of
Being to give meaning to our statements about the formalizations of our systems and their relation
to the things in the world. The basic properties of every formal system come out of the interaction
of three of these aspects which are Identity, Presence and Truth which give us the properties of
clarity (well-formedness), consistency and completeness. The difference between the system and
the meta-system is that the system is unified, i.e. is consistent with itself, and totalized, i.e.
complete in itself. But meta-systems are by definition disunified and detotalized because they are
the dual of the system. They have a completely different organization to that of the system which
is like the organization of the operating system in relation to applications running on the operating
system, i.e. like the Universal Turing machine in relation to the Turing machine. This is a way of
thinking about the difference between what Bataille49 calls the relation of the General Economy
(Meta-system) to the Restricted Economy (System) in the Accursed Share. This is explained quite
well by Arkady Plotnitsky in his book Complementarity50. However, when we add Reality to the
formal system to indicate what lies beyond it which it may be describing in the world then we get
three other properties which are verifiability, validity, and coherence. One thing that must be
remembered is that there is a relation between the various schemas and language. So for instance
we can prove formal statements, but with respect to systems we describe things, and in relation to
patterns we explain things, and with respect to meta-systems we can only indicate things which
are shown rather than said. Thus we are dealing here with the strongest and most central schema
in our tradition which is the Form Schema because that is related to proof, but the same sorts of
things apply to other schemas that are not so strong in their relation to proof but can merely explain
or describe, or indicate. Monads are related to analogies and Facets are related to tropes and thus
at that level of language we are delving into its metaphoric basis. The key point is that these other
dichotomies between clarity/coherence and verifiability/validity also partake in the undecidability
signified by the relation of absolute property verses relative anti-property and the same choice is
given with respect to each of these pairs of properties. In fact, all of the possible pairs of the six
properties of which there are thirty have this formation that if you choose one to be absolute then
its opposite in the pair must be relative. There are 720 possible combinations of these basic six
properties that apply to all formal systems in relation to their meta-systemic environment in all.
But consistency/completeness, clarity/coherence, and verifiability/validity are the most
fundamental pairs one pair relating to the Formal System internally, the other related to the Meta-
system externally, and the other relating to both. We take note that there is a relation between
consistency/completeness and the Dissipative Ordering Special System, clarity/coherence and the
Autopoietic Symbiotic Special System, as well as verifiability/validity and the Reflexive Social
Special System. That is to say when we go from the System across the interspace toward the Meta-
system we encounter first the Dissipative Ordering Special System, then its doubling into the
Autopoietic Symbiotic Special System and then its doubling into the Reflexive Social Special
System before coming to the Meta-system itself on the other side of the interspace between the
System and the Meta-system. When we create a design of a system it is a representation which is

49 Bataille, Georges, and Robert Hurley. Accursed Share. Zone Bks., U.S, 1992
50 Plotnitsky, Arkady. Niels Bohr and Complementarity: An Introduction. New York, NY: Springer, 2012. Plotnitsky,
Arkady. Complementarity: Anti-epistemology After Bohr and Derrida. Durham : Duke University Press, 1994.

9
a formal system, or informally a model, of some type ultimately based on mathematics and logic.
We expect that representation to have the properties of consistency and completeness and support
our reasoning about the system as an ideal synthesis before it is built. After we have built the
system as an actualized synthesis then we get involved in testing which is related to the verification
and validation system in relation to its environment of the as built and compared back to the design.
What we want the System to approximate both in its design and in its implementation is clarity
and coherence. But as we should know by now we cannot get this to all occur in Pure Being alone
which is perfectly determinate and ideal. Rather we must compromise and get it to occur in Process
Being which is the realm of Becoming and is probabilistic and actualized. But the problem is that
the difference between Pure Being and Process Being that we have to have one foot in on each
side straddling both as the basis of our work means that we have to cross the discontinuity between
these which has the nature of Hyper Being or differance or the fact that all distinctions ultimately
self-destruct (archi-writing of traces below all signs and symbols).

We are given this teeter totter between Pure and Process Being that makes us cross the cleft
between them and encounter the esoteric and difficult to deal with ungrounding of Hyper Being
(Differance) as a necessity due to Gdels proof, which at the same time opens up the possibility
that there are truths that cannot be proven, and thus a glimpse of the pure forms in the Platonic
Realm where the things we prove are always already proven in a timeless realm. So what one hand
gives, the possibility of a Platonic realm, the other hand takes away, we must settle for the teeter
totter of Differance between Pure and Process Being. It turns out that Software by its very nature
is rooted in Hyper Being51. But then what happens once we accept this undecidability and forced
choice between which property is absolute and which is relative is that we find that the very Proof
which forces this choice on us concocted by Gdel also has a Category Theory52 decision to use
Recursion rather than co-Recursion. When we substitute co-recursion for recursion we realize that
we can use the number not just for coding but for building Pascals Triangle which is an infinite
series of dimensions that describe the synthetic geometrical simplicies of each dimension. Now
Pascals Triangle has another interpretation which is the information infrastructure for computing
as a binary progression where each level is another binary system 2n. Thus one thing that we get
when we substitute co-recursion or recursion is the definition of the binary information
infrastructure that underlies the representation of the formal system and gives us access to the
structural level as represented by the Pattern Schema. But on the other hand we get a model of the
synthesis of ever more complex forms as well, and in each dimension since there are multiple
polytopes those form a system at each dimensional level which is synergetic in the sense taught
by B. Fuller53. When we accept that there are these two interpretations of the Pascal Triangle both
synthetic and structural we see that the formal structural system is grounded in each dimension
with respect to the form, pattern and system schemas. But there is more. Implicated in the Co-
recursion that produces co-data via co-induction54 as a co-logic55 there is the Groupoids and
Category Theory that supports these synthetic productions. Another way of looking at the

51 https://www.academia.edu/6835869/Software_Ontology_old_
52 Awodey, Steve. Category Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
53 Fuller, R.B, and E.J Applewhite. Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking. New York: Macmillan, 1975.
54 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Coinduction
55 http://www.utdallas.edu/~gupta/lukethesis.pdf

10
Groupoids and Categories is as directed graphs56. These three formalisms underlie the production
of the syntheses though co-recursion. But what is interesting is that with respect to Category
Theory there is no equivalent to Russells Paradox. Category theory is the dual of Set Theory but
this dual does not have the equivalent of the paradoxicality that Set Theory in its connection to
Logic has to deal with57. And also topologically groupoids58 are the basis for creating syntheses59,
and is one of the few things within mathematics that creates active syntheses. Thus what is really
happening here when we reverse recursion for co-recursion is that we are entering the realm of
category theory and groupoids which give us a foundation without paradox and that produces
syntheses which is exactly what we want to provide the foundations for Architectural Design of
Formal Structural Systems. It turns out that Schemas are grounded in this Co-recursive production
of the lattices of Pascals Triangle as holons that bridge dimensions. They are like the intuitive
projection of figures (point, line, surface, solid, hulk60) onto the lattices that give them their
geometrical interpretation. But instated the schemas are a prior projections of organizations of
spacetime at different dimensional levels and they are tied together by operations of representation
and repetition between levels. Schemas Theory is nondual between the interpretation of the Pascal
Lattices as information infrastructure on the one hand and as synthetic geometrical objects on the
other hand. Thus Schemas find their foundation between these two normal interpretations of the
Pascal lattices. Schemas theory gives us the organizations of Pattern, Form, System that we need
to understand the things we find in the external world, i.e. in spacetime. Spacetime is not
homogeneous rather it has projected on it as an a priori different types of schemas that are all
connected to each other across dimensions. Schemas tie the dimensions together and allow us to
transition between dimensions with ease and to think about higher dimensional things by using
their various organizations as a guide. Although we can produce infinite Pascal Triangles and
Pascal Tetrahedrons together by our co-recursive process which gives us successively more
complex models of the special systems as geometrical polytopes, in truth we only need to go up to
the ninth dimension where the schematization stops, because in that dimension the ability to
distinguish between inside and outside fails. It is an interesting fact that hyperspheres get larger up
to the fifth through seventh dimensions and then the precipitously get smaller from there on, until
in the ninth dimension the ability to distinguish between inside and outside fails. Thus out thinking
in Architectural Design of Systems and Meta-systems can go up to that dimension and make use
of the different organizations we project into these higher dimensions. It is said that short term
memory only allows us to hold 7+/- 2 things at a time, but that is independent things, and thus our
short term memory can deal with up to somewhere between the ninth and fifth dimensions. Those
who can deal with higher dimensional syntheses are able to make greater designs. It is interesting
that string theory starts in the tenth dimension and that Whitten unified the five string theories in
that dimension into one super-string theory called M theory61 in the eleventh dimension. When the

56 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Directed_graph
57 Category Theory and Set Theory as Theories about Complementary Types of Universals David Ellerman
https://www.academia.edu/27712691/CATEGORY_THEORY_AND_SET_THEORY_AS_THEORIES_ABOUT_COMPLEMENTARY_TYP
ES_OF_UNIVERSALS On Concrete Universals: A Modern Treatment Using Category Theory David Ellerman
https://www.academia.edu/17690477/On_Concrete_Universals_A_Modern_Treatment_Using_Category_Theory
58 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Groupoid
59 Brown, Ronald. Topology and Groupoids. North Charleston: CreateSpace, 2006.
60 Four dimensional solid
61 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/M-theory

11
physicists thought about pushing this to the twelfth dimension in F theory62 they discovered there
an orthogonal timeline to the normal time line specified in the metaphysical era and since the
physicists did not know how to handle even one timeline they definitely did not know what to
make of a second orthogonal time line. But the key point is that string theory that starts at the tenth
dimension and goes up is unschematized and that is what makes it so hard to think about. It is pure
mathematics and we have no organizational intuitions based on our inherent a priori projections of
schemas at that dimension.

Now we might ask what this means and what difference does it make? What it means is that we
cannot avoid dealing with the various meta-levels of Being, at least Pure, Process, and Hyper Being
of the face that exist which also include Wild and Ultra Being63. The kinds of Being are merely
the interpretation of the levels of Higher Logical Types64 in Russells theory which attempts to
ward off paradox. But in spite of this attempt to produce a clean area by Russells rule that classes
cannot be members of themselves Gdel sneaks in a form of inconsistency anyway, and thus the
whole superstructure collapses65 and thus there is a move like with Wittgenstein Tractatus66 to
ignore all meta-levels and meta-languages67. However, both Gdels proof, and Tarskis work68
that shows that Truth and Falsehood have to be formulated in a meta-level, underline the
importance of meta-levels one by violating them and the other by saying that they are necessary.
Thus we get ultimately that there is an undesirability about the necessary of meta-levels, such as
those that exist in UML (and SysML) for instance and an equivocation whether we should stick to
natural languages without meta-levels or whether we should construct meta-levels of language in
spite of the problems that they bring. There are problems in both directions. Being opened up to
meta-levels especially those esoteric ones like Hyper Being, Wild Being and Ultra Being is
definitely unsettling. But it also expands the openeness of our world and our systems beyond what
we might readily imagine. It means we are forced to deal with the complexity that openness brings.
But on the other hand what we get in return is a kind of backhanded grounding of our theories of
Systems Architectural Design, because we can reverse recursion into co-recursion and use it
constructively to create Pascal Triangular Lattices and this takes us into Category Theory as an
alternative to Set Theory with its paradoxes, and it introduces us to the groupoid that allows for
the creation of syntheses, and it produces the geometry of simplicies and other polytopes in each
dimension which are the simplest possible regular synthetic geometrical forms. On the level of
pattern this gives us the information infrastructure. On the level of form it gives us the Platonic
solids in each dimension, which then form a synergistic system at each dimensional level. We can
also produce the Pascal Tetrahedron and get the basic structures of mediation as well that are the
other part of the WorldSoul that was described by Plato as the moving image of eternity in time.
Thus it is a structure that can capture Pure Being within Process Being but that just naturally results

62 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/F-theory
63 https://www.academia.edu/13194091/Meta-levels_of_Being
64 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Type_theory
65 What is left is simple type theory. The seven virtues of simple type theory William M. Farmer
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S157086830700081X
66 Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: The German Text Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung. New York:
Humanities Press, 1961
67 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Metalanguage
68 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Alfred_Tarski

12
in having to deal with Platos Third kind of being69 which is related to the Chora and Receptacle
of spacetime itself. Spacetime itself has an inherent a priori structure what we project which is
called the Mathematical or Geometrical Schemas70. And the Schemas give us something to count,
so that if we consider numbers as something counted then numbers would come after the schemas.
And we can see the unfolding of the dimensions and the figures in the dimensions as articulating
the results of counting as it appears in geometry. We can also think about these results in relation
to algebra which is normally related to time instead of space. Kant related arithmetic to time and
geometry to space. But Frege and others wanted to see Arithmetic as something timeless and
attempted to prove that it occurred prior to any intuition of time. But in order to do that he had to
define the ancestral relation as a second order relation in order to supplant succession with
something static. So there is a continual question whether numbers are given prior to intuition of
synthetic a prioris or not. This is important because the natural numbers are our most important
distinct objects upon which we can operate with our logics. And the fact that Gdel showed his
incompleteness theorem with respect to numbers was a blow to Logicists71 who wanted to reduce
mathematics to logic. What Gdels Incompleteness Theorems show is that we cannot disentangle
ourselves from relative para-consistency or para-completeness and we must choose which one we
want to be absolute and perfectly determinate and related to Pure Being and then allow the other
to opposite property to remain relative and probabilistic and related to Process Being. And this
means that we have to deal with the difference that makes a difference between Pure and Process
Being which Heidegger claims to be Equiprimoridal. Just like Plato, Heidegger eventually realizes
that the difference between these to kinds of Being must itself be equipriomoridal and it is called
Being crossed out by Heidegger and the Third Kind of Being by Plato. It is the self-erasing trace
(archi-writing72) that exists beneath the signs that make up the symbols that we use to describe our
formal system. This trace of groundlessness at the heart of our formal structural systems will not
go away. But we can extract a different kind of afoundational groundless ground as Heidegger
calls it in Being and Time73 from this primordial situation of undermined external foundations. We
can instead provide our own foundation, and start building up via co-recursion as we create
Pascals Triangle, and there we find the Special Systems, and the schemas and the information
infrastructure, and eventually we realize that the Gdels Proof itself can be seen as an image of
the Emergent Meta-system i.e. the cycle that includes the normal system and all the special systems
that produce an emergent structure as a meta-system rather than a system. There are emergent and
de-emergent systems and meta-systems. Normally we think about the system as emergent and the
meta-system as de-emergent. We tend to think of the system as closed like elliptical geometry, and
of the meta-system as entropic like the hyperbolic geometry. But when we design systems we tend
to place them on a homogenous background and do not consider their nesting into meta-systems,
and thus we use the Euclidian plane as the false ground on which the closed system appears, and
then we have to deal with the fact that entropy is everywhere in the environment and so we use the
Riemann geometry of relativity to mode what is locally flat but globally curved geometries of
spacetime. However, there is another way of thinking about the environment which is as an
emergent meta-system that is producing the system out of the meta-system via the mediation of

69 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-timaeus/ https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Kh%C3%B4ra
70 Eco, Umberto. Kant and the Platypus: Essays on Language and Cognition. New York: Harcourt Brace, 2000.
71 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Logicism
72 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Archi-writing
73 Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. New York: Harper, 1962.

13
the Special Systems. But when we do that we find that there must be a chink in the armor of the
System and that it cannot be considered completely closed from a formal point of view. And once
we allow these chinks in the surface of the meta-system then we can use these chinks to model the
Special Systems starting from replacing recursion in Gdels proof with Co-recursion74. This
allows us to use the natural numbers and arithmetic to build Pascal Triangles and Tetrahedrons
and thus produce syntheses, which then gives us synthetic modes of the Special Systems as
geometrical forms in higher dimensions produced in our co-recursion as we move toward infinity.
But then this allows us also to find the Information Infrastructure and the structure of mediation
such as we get in Hegelian Dialectics75 and Peirces Signs76 as a way of undergirding our formal
systems structurally. And between these two extremes of interpretation of the Pascal Lattices we
also find the Schemas as a kind of holonomics77 that allows us to picture the a priori organizations
of spacetime out of which we produce our designs.

It means that there is a foundation for our ideas of Systems in Systems Science which then are
adopted by Systems Engineering and other forms of Engineering including Software Engineering.
But we have to expand our vision to include all the Schemas as the context for our Systems Theory
and Practical Design of Systems. It means we have to open up beyond Set Theory with its inherent
paradoxes to mass theory with its pervasion logic that is the opposite of syllogistic logic. Normally
we project on the meta-system the degradation of being a mass, and we deny there is a logic of
masses and we assume that everything is entropically hyperbolic that exists outside of the system,
because we want the system itself to be closed conceptually as an elliptical geometry and we want
to see it on a flat plenum as a background that is situated, clear and distinct and fully described by
our formal systems (like UML/SysML). But then Gdels proof comes along which has the form
in time of the Emergent Meta-system and that allows us to see that the proof has a dual that uses
co-recursion to build Pascals Triangle and that opens us up to having a formal model of the
Dissipative Ordering Special System, and from that we can derive the other Special Systems via
conjunction and it turns out that those syntheses imply the structure of the other special systems
beyond the simplicies of each dimension. The obverse of this geometrical interpretation is the
projection of the Information Infrastructure, and between these two interpretations are the
holonomic Special Systems as the projection of different models of possible organization. From
these resources we can take the tools necessary to build synthetic models of formal structural
systems and we can use the Methodological Distinctions of G. Klir to define the various methods
which we use to design systems.

The difference is that we can claim foundations for Systems Engineering, and Software
Engineering Architectural Design, which we call Emergent Design78, that otherwise would not be
available. They are foundations built out of the rubble of the lack of foundations of Logic and

74 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Corecursion
75 Rescher, Nicholas. Dialectics: A Classical Approach to Inquiry. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag, 2007. Which are extended to
Trialectics by Hegel in relation to work, and to Quadralectics and Pentalectics by the author in Emergent Design
http://emergentdesign.net
76 Deledalle, Gerard. Charles S. Peirce's Philosophy of Signs: Essays in Comparative Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana

University Press, 2000. Merrell, Floyd. Peirce, Signs, and Meaning. Toronto, Ont: University of Toronto Press, 1997. Short,
T L. Peirce's Theory of Signs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
77 The Special Systems are called Holons so this is the laws of the chemistry, or alchemy, of holons.
78 See http://emergentdesign.net

14
Math that open it up to anti-foundationalism. But our approach is afoundational. It is built to
recognition of the nondual status of Special Systems which are themselves models of
Interpenetration and Intrainclusion. They are anomalies that exist in mathematics and logic. For
instance, there are non-well founded sets of Aczel79. They can be used to define sets that do not
completely exclude a set being a member of themselves. Special Systems as we judge from the
structure of the imaginaries of Quaternions that underlie the Autopoietic Special System that these
are members of themselves as mediated by some other. In other words they are not immediately
members of themselves but mediately they are members of themselves through some Other. And
when you have everything defined that way then you have a model of interpenetration. Between
the option of the purity of Wellfoundeness where no class can be a member of itself that Godel
Collapses demonstratively with his Incompleteness Proof and the land of pure paradox where
something is directly a member of itself, there is the mediate member ship in itself though the
Other, and if everything is defined in those terms as mediately a member of itself through some
other then we have interpenetration, and interpenetration is another different solution that is
modeled by the Special Systems based on isomorphy with Hyper Complex Algebras80.
Interpenetration and Intrainclusion is another different ground that is neither completely closed
and pure but also not completely open to paradoxcality of self-inclusion either. This other ground
is the possibility of building ones on ground oneself out of ones own materials not some other
material in relation to the groundessness that is opened up by Gdels Proof81 for all formal
systems. The material that is used here is the natural numbers give us by Peanos Arithmetic82, and
we build it starting from one and then producing the configuration of each lattice associated to
each dimension co-recursively. Pascals Triangle is the only object known that has the properties
of all three Special Systems combined into one entity. It produces itself co-recursively. It is a
dissipative ordering because it produces a new synthesis at each level in relation to each dimension
and these all nest into each other. And because the simplicies are like a palindrome they exhibit
reflexiveness of self-reflection. Thus Pascals triangle itself has the properties of the Special
Systems fused, but at each level it is producing geometrically syntheses that give body to the
relations of the special systems to each other. Each simplex is a new organization and a new
ordering that is geometrically unique to each dimension while at the same time being just a circle
of points with all possible lines that connect these in the plane. But due to the relations between
simplexes and ortho/cross polytopes83 in each dimension we then have syntheses whose relations
exemplify the relations between the special systems in each dimension. And this is the most basic
and fundamental synthetic structures on the basis of which all other syntheses of whatever
dimension are measured in terms of their complexity. The simplices map out the primordial space
in each dimension of space, and from them then we can derive the shapes of the other polytopes
in that dimension which we can represent either algebraically or geometrically in their various
synergies associated with each dimension.

Ultimately it means there is a foundation for our Architectural Design work on Systems and Meta-
systems both in Systems Science and Systems Engineering, as well as all special Engineering

79 Aczel, Peter. Non-well-founded Sets. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, 1988.
80 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Hypercomplex_number
81 Nagel, Ernest, and James R. Newman. Godel's Proof. New York: New York University Press, 1958.

82 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Peano_axioms
83 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Cross-polytope

15
disciplines including Software Engineering. That foundation arises like a phoenix out of the ruins
created by the ungrounding of Mathematics and Logic produced by Gdel with the intention of
opening up the Platonic realm. Opening the Platonic realm is a double edged sword because it ties
us to Process Being as it gives us a glimpse of Pure Being of the realm of Platonic objects that are
true but cannot be proved true or false objects such as Cohen finds that are probably false but
independent so that they cannot be proved false. And because we are tied to both Pure Being what
Heidegger in Being and Time calls the present-at-hand and Process Being what he called ready-
to-hand then we are drawn across the line of discontinuity between these whose nature is Hyper
Being or what Derrida calls Differance. And thus we cannot get rid of the fact that foundations
tend to destroy themselves in deconstructive collapse if pushed too far as Gdel did to Russells
Higher Logical Type Theory. But even though we cannot avoid distinctions that erase themselves
such as that between Pure and Process Being that exemplifies Hyper Being we can use the rubble
from the collapse of the Higher Logical Types by which the Meta-levels of Being are defined to
produce a new grounding based on co-recursion that uses the natural numbers to produce projected
syntheses infinitely. And that actually gives us everything we need to ground our practice of
Systems Engineering or even Software Engineering, Architectural Design.

Software has a special relation to Hyper Being because it is the only thing in the world that actually
directly embodies Hyper Being directly. And that is why we have emphasized Software in our
exposition because when we include Software in our Systems then we are including Hyper Being
directly and making use of it in an embodied form84. Software that runs on Hardware is an example
of Hyper Being. We can see that if we think about the fact that all computing hardware is made up
of accumulators and pointers registers, and that these embody the Pointing of Pure Being and the
Grasping of Process Being. Software weaves together the use of pointers and accumulators that
execute Boolean Logic to produce programs that are defined as algorithms plus data. But this is
merely another way of looking at Turing machines which is merely another way of looking at
recursion and encoding used by Gdel in his proof. Software itself has to be on another level higher
than both Pure and Process Being and the next level up is Hyper Being. So softwares peculiar
properties are those that exemplify what Derrida calls Differance a kind of automated archi-writing
that writes itself as it executes (and vanishes in that action) and which can change itself and has
pulled free from physical constraints in many ways so that it can create artificial intelligence,
artificial cognition, artificial life, artificial sociality and these are underwritten as a possibility by
the anomaly of the Special Systems. The systems we are building more and more have software
as an integral part of them, and thus we are getting deeper and deeper into embodying within our
environment systems based on Hyper Being and not just on Pure and Process Being like
mechanical machines.

To explain how we get to from Hyper Being to Wild and Ultra Being it is only necessary to
understand that each aspect of Being has its opposite (difference, absence, illusion, fiction) and
each property of the formal system has its opposite (inconsistency, incompleteness, and unclarity
or vagueness) as well as each property associated with the reality beyond the formal system
(unverifiable, invalid, incoherent). And thus we can see that we can go away from the formal
system, or our informal models, in many ways into not just the realm of Process and Hyper Being
but also Wild Being where we emphasize the confluences of the anti-aspects and anti-properties

84
https://www.academia.edu/13195805/Software_Metaphysics_01_A_Framework_for_Understanding_Software_Philosophically

16
in the meta-system that produces various levels of contradiction (Process), paradox (Hyper),
absurdity (Wild) and impossibility (Ultra) in relation to the Being of the Formal System that we
want to express as Purely Identical, True, Real, and Present. So we get six different confluences
of pairs of anti-aspects together with their anti-properties in Wild Being, on the way to the
singularity of Ultra Being which is immersed in the fourth dimension and is non-representable.
There are six images of the non-representability of this singularity which are the impossibilities
that combine the pairs of anti-aspects and anti-properties. There is a positive opposite of this
noumena which is Meaning. Meaning in the system is the combination of the positive aspects
rather than the negative aspects that produce the singularity of Ultra Being. We can see how
meaning haunts our work in the writings of Terrence Deacon who wrote Incomplete Nature85 that
attempts to show how meaning is always ententional principles86 embodied by abstential
eventities. In other words, to be clear it is absence, illusion, fiction, and difference that is the basis
of what appears as present, real, true, and identical formalisms based by which we design the
systems that we attempt to build. This is not just in Systems Science and Systems Engineering or
Software Engineering but in all Sciences, whatever is physical that we are dealing with whether as
the system under study or representations of it there is always meaning that haunts it that cannot
be pinned down and concretized. Frege calls87 these concepts that are the undefined basis of
thought, and he wants to take the sentence as a whole, but notes that we cannot extract meaning
except by naming again and again the conceptual content with names, and thus the conceptual
content is always escaping us in a kind of slip sliding away that exemplifies Hyper Being or what
Derrida calls Differance. Differance is merely the fact that when we push formal structural systems
to their limit they unravel of themselves without our help as Gdel showed that Principia
Mathematica88 does just as Freges Foundations of Logic did before that due to Russells Paradox.
This auto-deconstruction is endemic, and is the opposite of the afoundational self-grounding that
comes when we transform Gdels proof by trading co-recursion for recursion and then using the
natural numbers of Peanos axioms of Arithmetic to build constructively rather than attempt to
create a ground of the type that Carnap tries to build in Logical Structure of the World89 based on
his synthesis of Russell, Husserl and Cassirers philosophies. Afoundationalism is self-grounding
through construction that we see in Homotopy Type Theory of Vladimir Voevodsky90 which is
based on constructive techniques using Groupoids starting from the One91, like Pascals triangle
does in a Neo-Platonic92 type of emanation93 of the type that Plotinus94 advocates. However, what
Platonism misses is that the One just like the Formal System has little chinks in it and the

85 Deacon, Terrence W. Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2012.
86 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Entention
87 In his late Logical Investigations
88 Whitehead, Alfred N, and Bertrand Russell. Principia Mathematica. Cambridge [England: The University Press, 1925.
89 Carnap, Rudolf, and Rudolf Carnap. The Logical Structure of the World: Pseudoproblems in Philosophy. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1967.
90 Voevodsky, Vladimir. "Univalent Foundations of Mathematics." (2011). https://homotopytypetheory.org/book/
91 Given as the Ultra one out of the Multiple as an Event. Badiou, Alain, and Oliver Feltham. Being and Event. London:
Continuum, 2007.
92 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Neoplatonism
93 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Emanationism
94 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Plotinus

17
WorldSoul95 as Pascals Triangle and Tetrahedron96 unfold from it through the little chinks that
are true but unprovable, i.e. go beyond representations and are the fruit of the dialectic. To the
dialectic and trialectic of Hegel we can add the Quadralectic and Pentalectic that I derive in my
dissertation called Emergent Design97.

95 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Anima_mundi
96 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Pascal's_pyramid
97 http://emergentdesign.net

18