The Accelerated Expansion of the Universe in the Light of the Maximum Ordinality Principle

The main aim of the paper is to present (and at the same time offer) a differ-ent perspective for the analysis of the accelerated expansion of the Universe. A perspective that can surely be considered as being “in parallel” to the tradition-al ones, such as those based, for example, on the hypotheses of “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy”, or better as a “com-possible” perspective, because it is not understood as being “exclusive”. In fact, it is an approach that, when con-firmed by experimental results, always keeps its validity from an “operative” point of view. This is because, in analogy to the traditional perspectives, on the basis of Popper’s Falsification Principle the corresponding “Generative” Logic on which it is based has not the property of the perfect induction. The basic difference then only consists in the fact that the Evolution of the Universe is now modeled by considering the Universe as a Self-Organizing System, which is thus analyzed in the light of the Maximum Ordinality Principle.

The Absence of “Perfect Induction”in the Science

The present paper is finalized to show that the Science, even if considered in its two different Phenomenological Approaches at present known, is unable to assert that: “Thinks are like that”. This is because both the two Scientific Approaches previously mentioned have not the property of “the perfect induction”. Consequently, although they can even reach an experimental confirmation of the theoretical results, and thus a “valid description” of the various phenomena of the surrounding world, such a description has not an “absolute value”. In fact, it always and only has an “operative validity”, that is, it exclusively and solely refers to an “experimental point of view”. This means that such an “operative validity” cannot represent the basis for a logical process characterized by a “perfect induction”. In addition, the Traditional Scientific Approach is also characterized by “Insoluble” Problems, “Intractable Problems”, Problems with “drifts”, which could generally be termed as “side effects”. On the other hand, the same com-possible Scientific Approach based on the Emerging Quality of Self-Organizing Systems, also presents its “Emerging Exits”. Consequently, none of the two mentioned scientific Approaches has the “gift” of “the perfect induction”. However, there are significant differences between the two. Differences that may “suggest” the most appropriate choice among them for an “operative point of view”. This conclusion will be com-proved by considering, with particular reference, both the “side effects”, which are related to the Traditional Approach and, on the other hand, the “Emerging Exits”, which specifically pertain to the new Scientific Approach based on the Emerging Quality of Self-Organizing Systems.

Generativity of Self-Organizing Processes and Their Correlative Description in Terms of a Formal Language of Meta-Ordinal Generative Nature, in the Light of the Maximum Ordinality Principle and the Explicit Solution to the “Three-Body Problem”

The main objective of this paper is to demonstrate that the internal processes of Self-Organizing Systems represent a unique and singular process, characterized by their specific generativity. This process can be modeled using the Maximum Ordinality Principle and its associated formal language, known as the “Incipient” Differential Calculus (IDC).

Three-Drug Therapies in Psychiatry in the Light of the Maximum Ordinality Principle and the Explicit Solution to the “Three-Body Problem”—D.D. 23 Luglio 2023, Tempo Ordinario (3.00 e 10.20)

The present paper aims at showing the possible adoption in Psychiatry of a general methodology finalized to prescribe the most appropriate Therapy based on the knowledge of its correlative effects in advance, instead of recognizing them ex post. The specific case here considered is the “bipolar disorder”, in which the adoption of three different drugs is the most common practice, although with a possible differentiation between the prescription in the morning and in the evening, respectively. Thus, the proposed methodology will consider the Ordinal Interactions between the various drugs by evaluating their combined effects, which will result as being not a simple additive “sum”, because they are evaluated on the basis of the Maximum Ordinality Principle (MOP) and, in addition, in Adherence to the Explicit Solution to the “Three-Body Problem”. In this way the Methodology here proposed is able to suggest how to account for the synergistic effects of the various drugs, especially when the latter are characterized by different concentrations and, at the same time, by generally different half-lives respectively.

Solution to the “Three-Body Problem” in the Light of the Maximum Ordinality Principle, as a “Suggestion” for a Ri-Orientation of the Present Scientific Perspective in “Favor” of the “Irreducible Quality”

This paper presents the Solution to the “Three-body Problem” in the Light of the Maximum Ordinality Principle. In the first part, however, it starts with the Solution to the Solar System, made up of “11 Bodies”. This is because, in such a context, the “Three-body Problem” can be analyzed in its all descriptive possibilities. Nonetheless, the paper also presents the Solution to the “Three-body Problem” with reference to Systems totally independent from the Solar System, such as, for example, the “Triple Stars” and the “Triple Galaxies”. In this way, the paper offers a sufficiently complete framework concerning the Solution to the “Three-body Problem”, always in the Light of the Maximum Ordinality Principle, described in detail in Appendix A.

Increasing of Resistance and Resilience of an Urban System against Calamities in the Light of the Maximum Ordinality Principle

The present paper aims at showing how it is possible to requalify the structures of an urban system, in order to increase its resistance and its correlative resilience, against natural calamities (earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.), by adopting as reference criterion the Maximum Ordinality Principle (MOP). In this sense, the paper opens a radically new perspective in this field. In fact, the village assumed as a case study was modelled as a Self-Organizing System. This is because, although the village is usually considered as being solely made of buildings, streets, places and so on, in reality it has been conceived, planned and realized by human beings during several centuries. In addition, the people who actually leave in such an urban center, systematically deal with its maintenance, in order to possibly increase its functionality. This justifies the assumption of the village as being a Self-Organizing System and, consequently, it has been analyzed in the light of the MOP, which represents a valid reference principle for analyzing both “non-living”, “living” and “conscious” self-organizing systems.

The Maximum Ordinality Principle (MOP) and Its Formal Language, Namely the “Incipient” Differential Calculus (IDC), Open, and at the Same Time Offer, A Radically New Perspective to Modern Science

The aim of the paper, as explicitly indicated by its title, is to show that The Maximum Ordinality Principle (MOP) and its Formal Language, namely The “Incipient” Differential Calculus (IDC), open, and at the same time offer, a Radically New Perspective to Modern Science. The methodology adopted, in this respect, is articulated in two parts: 1) firstly, by recalling the general characteristics of the Self-Organizing Systems, whose behavior is described by the Maximum Ordinality Principle and, at the same time, the reasons for the introduction of a different Formal Language termed as IDC (“Incipient” Differential Calculus);2) afterwards, by comparing the specific properties of the MOP and IDC, and the Fundamental Differences they introduce in describing the surrounding world, with respect to any Scientific Discipline based on TDC. Self-Organizing Systems, in fact, always show an unexpected “excess” with respect to their phenomenological premises. An “excess” can be termed as Quality (with a capital Q) because it is not a simple “property” of a given phenomenon. In fact, it is never reducible to the usual categories of the Traditional Science: efficient causality, logical necessity, functional relationships. Consequently, the description of such an “Emerging Quality” requires new mental categories (Generative Causality, Adherent Logic, Ordinal Relationships) and, correspondingly, a new Formal Language, termed IDC. The result of such a comparison is that the New Scientific Perspective, in spite of the different ways of describing Physical, Biological and Human System, always remains, by itself, a “com-possible” option with respect to the Traditional one. The two Perspectives, in fact, are not in contrast between them. They simply “co-exist”, because of the absence of Perfect Induction in their corresponding Logics. However, in spite of the fact that the two Perspectives are “com-possible” in principle, their differences become significantly “marked” at the operative level, as shown by the several study cases, analyzed in the second part of the Paper, in the light of a General Methodology for Strategic Decisions based on both MOP and IDC. The conclusions thus would (apparently) be that TDC and IDC can be operatively adopted only separately (or, at the most, both “in parallel”) in order to research for the optimal solutions, according to their respective operative validity. Without forgetting, however, that in all cases: 1) TDC “reflects” the presuppositions of the Traditional Scientific Approach, so that, by itself, it is “self-referential”;2) IDC, vice versa, “reflects” the presuppositions of the New Scientific Approach, so that, by itself, it is “hetero-referential”. In reality, the paper also shows that there exists an ulterior possibility, which represents an Over-Conclusion. In fact, in adherence to the General Methodology for Strategic Decisions presented in the paper, TDC and IDC can be “seen” as generating a Unique Feed-Back Logical Process. Like “Two Brothers”, that cooperate between them. Consequently, and surprisingly, TDC and IDC “reveal” that, in the context of the abovementioned Logical Structure, they are “nothing but” a unique “casket” of “precious pearls”.