Category Theory Centric Systems Science and

Software Systems Engineering

Pursuing Theoretical Insights into Systems Engineering

Beyond SysML/UML

Kent Palmer Ph.D.

kent@palmer.name
http://kdp.me
714-633-9508
Copyright 2018 KD Palmer1
All Rights Reserved. Not for Distribution.
oldest: CategoryTheoryCentricSE_01_20180418kdp03a
older: CategoryTheoryCentricSE_01_20180424kdp04a
old: CategoryTheoryCentricSE_01_CSER_20181022kdp05a
2018.04.13-18; Draft Version 05; unedited, diagrams added
Correction 2018.04.24; Briefing Charts taken out 2018.10.22
Corrected again 2018.10.29 Shorter version submitted to CSER 2019
new: CategoryTheoryCentricSE_01_20181029kdp06a
Briefing Charts added back in
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5298-4422
http://schematheory.net
Researcher ID O-4956-2015

Key Words: Systems, Architecture, Design, Special Systems, Systems Engineering, Software Engineering,
Software Ontology, Formal Systems, Schemas Theory, Dagger Theory, Category Theory

Abstract: Functional Agency Approach based on Category Theory, Gurevich Abstract State Machines, Homotopy
Type Theory, Dagger Theory including Schemas Theory as a Basis for Software Systems Engineering Architectural
Design. Includes briefings on Dagger Theory and Software Design Minimal Methods.

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

http://nondual.net
1
In this paper we will explore the problem of formulating
a new approach to Systems Science and Software Systems
Engineering Architecting as the basis for the Design of
Systems and Meta-systems (ecosystems and
environments of systems). The basic proposition of our
approach is to use Category Theory. This is an inherently
Functional approach. But we blend that with Agency to
get a fundamental view of the way we should approach
Software Systems Architectural Design. But we maintain
that Category Theory is not enough even though it is the
backbone of our approach. The problem is that there are
multi-levels of abstraction that need to be crossed in order
to apply the Category Theory and to get beyond the
limitations of SysML and UML. Software Engineering
unlike Systems Engineering has gone through several
different paradigms. Once Programming was realized to
be hard then several different abstraction mechanisms
have been proposed and we went through Data Flow
Diagrams, then Object oriented approaches and now we
are turning to Functional approaches that are more in line
with Category Theory and the use of languages like
Haskell. Now we are entering a new paradigm that says
describe it with Categories. This is to say that Objects,
Agents, Functions, Data flow and other approaches
should be subsumed to a type of Mathematical thinking
that has become very successful based on mapping at
different levels of abstraction. However, Category Theory
which underlies the Functional approach is at a very high
level of abstraction and therefore we need intermediate
methods to bring this type of thinking down to earth so
that it may be practically applied. Therefore, here we will
suggest the integration of several different approaches
that augment the Category Theory orientation that we are
suggesting should be the next stage beyond the current
state of the art described in terms of SysML and UML
modeling languages.
First, we invoke the framework developed by Ken Lloyd2
in his (unpublished) Foundations of Systems Science. In
that framework he identifies different Worlds (or better
realms of experience, regional ontologies) based on
Popper and Penrose which include the Conceptual,
Mathematical, Mental and Physical realms. To this we
would add the Intersubjective Social World as well for the
sake of completeness. In Ken Lloyd’s framework we
identify these different realms in which there are entities
2 http://wattsystems.com
2
that could be described, then we use category theoretic
languages to give the description of the relations between
the objects of these various realms. There are six such
categorical languages. When we add the Intersubjective
World, we get four new languages specific to each of the
other realms that are rooted in natural language which is
the basis of the Social realm. In other words, we recognize
that all formalisms including Category Theory are
departures from Natural Language. In Natural Language
we can describe Social, Mental, Conceptual, Physical and
Mathematical entities. We can then specify their relations
to each other as mappings in Category Theory restricted
languages. This is an approach at the Systems Science
level that says that Category Theory will be used to
describe the bridge mappings between types of entities
from within each of these worlds. These are factors in
which any pair of worlds is either domain or codomain.
Within each of these realms there could be categories that
are described in natural language or formally by some
restricted set of natural language. We posit that within
each of these realms we could describe categories of each
type with its morphisms. This means that there are
conceptual categories, mental categories, mathematical
categories, physical categories, or social categories.
These categories have their functions that map from
domain to co-domain within the world or realm. But those
languages that Ken Lloyd has specified are functors that
map between categories in pairs of worlds. Say we take a
mental category and have a functor that maps it to a
mathematical category. If we have another such pair say
between the mathematical and physical categories that
have a functor between them, then we can map between
these functors with a natural transformation. Beyond
natural transformations in N-category Theory of John
Baez there are modifications and perturbations (or
fluctuations) as even higher level of morphisms that we
might use to build complex syntheses of categories
through more and more abstract mappings. The basic idea
is that we will take a fundamentally functional approach
and thus we are moving beyond object-oriented
approaches endemic to UML and SysML. But we
recognize that there is needed an agency orthogonal vista
added to the functional approach for an accurate
description of Realtime Systems that are distributed
across different processing platforms. There is agency as
an orthogonal perspective in the physical world, in the on the other hand. This is an image of the Kantian Meta-
mental world, in the conceptual world, in the social world episteme. Here data would be considered the values
and in the mathematical worlds as well as functional within the variables that represent numbers from fields
mappings. Software Systems have four fundamental that inform algebraic structures. Events would be the
viewpoints on realtime design which are Agent, Function, operators that function on the value data in those variables
Data and Event. Minimal Methods such as those that to create results. Algebra takes two variables and
show up in UML and SysML come from the bridges produces a result in another variable. CoAlgebra starts
between these minimal viewpoints. So, all of these with one variable and splits it into two variables. Algebra
viewpoints and the relations between them need to be and CoAlgebra are duals of each other. CoAlgebras are
represented in any methodical framework that describes related to state machines in computation. Given an input
Architectural Design of Software Systems3. we can get a change in the state machine of the control
structure and the output of a given conditional Rule.
Notice that the Worlds of Ken Lloyd have bridges
Algebras and CoAlgebras as Descartes discovered can
between them of Category Theory languages relating
have equations that mimic the structure of geometries.
entities of these various types identified by Popper and
Thus, in general Algebras and CoAlgebras can model
Penrose. The social world of intersubjective entities has
time while Geometry models space. But something that
been forgotten as usual in so called objective present-at-
Kant did not realize is that Analysis relates to CoAlgebras
hand approaches. We propose to remember them because
not Algebras, so Analysis is not aligned with Algebra as
they are the source of objectivity. But there are also
Synthesis is aligned with Geometry, therefore something
bridges that are minimal methods that are specific to the
is missing. If Algebra is co-analysis rather than analysis,
modeling of architectural designs of real-time systems.
then geometry must have something that corresponds to
So, the two frameworks are similar in this respect that
co-synthesis. And it turns out that this missing mass-like
there are four domains and six bridges between those
mathematics we already discovered as topology. Thus,
domains. How are these two frameworks related to each
the dual of Geometry is Topology while the dual of
other. The viewpoints on Real-time Systems derive from
Algebra is CoAlgebra. In topology we look at the
what George Klir in Architecture of Systems Problem
structure of spaces rather than the articulation of those
Solving4 calls “Methodological Distinctions”. These are
spaces by geometrical objects we construct. Geometry is
background variables of different types that foreground
constructionist and produces its syntheses. Topology on
variables are read in relation to in order to generate
the other hand is CoSynthetic meaning is a result of a
information. But the methodological distinctions
deconstruction, that is a taking away of geometrical
represent different types of order. These types of order
properties in order to make visible the fundamental level
form a lattice that starts from no order then goes to partial
of continuity and discontinuity in the spaces themselves
order then splitting to have ‘linear order without distance’
which are the basis on which synthesis is produced.
and ‘partial order with distance’, and then joining to give
Algebras on the other hand are coanalytic which means
full order (linear order with distance) to which we add
that they are created by injection that respects closure.
combinatoric order. There are two levels to this lattice that
That means that if you take any two variables from the
Klir defines the basic level supports discrete orders and
same field and you operate on them you will get
the more advanced level supports continuous orders.
something from the same field. Algebras are infolded on
Partial Order is split into Agency and Function lattices.
themselves, and the basis of algebras are group theory.
Full Order is split into Data and Event. These give the
CoAlgebras are unfolded into time as a series of states are
fundamental views on any realtime system. Between Data
produced by a computational machine with a control
and Event we find the relation between Algebra and
structure that turns input into output and changes the
CoAlgebra5 on the one hand and Geometry and Topology
control states of the progressing algorithmically produced

3https://independent.academia.edu/KentPalmer/Foundations-of- 4 Klir, George J. Architecture of Systems Problem Solving. Place of

Systems-Architecture-Design publication not identified: Springer, 2012.
https://www.academia.edu/31797031/Software_Systems_Architect 5 Denecke, Klaus, and Shelly L. Wismath. Universal Algebra and

ural_Design_Foundations_01_Introduction Coalgebra. Hackensack, N.J: World Scientific, 2009.

3
result based on a given input. The fact that CoAlgebras
exist means that Computations are integral to
mathematics. And this is the fundamental basis of our
Software Engineering which produces designs for
algorithmic structures that make them perform given
computational constraints. At a high level, of abstraction
such algorithmic structures need to have an architectural
design, i.e. needs a basis organization so it can be
understood and manipulated in a reasonable fashion to
achieve its mission goals set for it by its designers and
builders. What we call Full Order (linear order plus
distance) whether discrete as in groups or continuous as
in real numbers is the field that is related to spacetime as
a medium for everything, i.e. a singular. That is what
exists between Event and Data viewpoints which then can
be mathematically and computationally ordered
according to the various types of mathematics of the
Kantian Meta-episteme (Algebra based on Groups,
CoAlgebra, Geometry and Topology). Beyond this there
is Combinatorial Order which should be the end of the
lattice of possible orders but Klir forgot this extension
which is an important ground to structuralism.
No order represents Requirements. Combinatoric Order
represents Tests. The split between linear order without
distance and partial order with distance gives us a Galois
connection6 which gives us the dualities between minimal
methods. Minimal Methods include between agent and
function Virtual Layered Machines and User Stories.
Between agent and event there are worldlines and
scenarios that represent relativity theory of relations
between agents within the multi-processing distributed
environment. Between agent and function are objects and
functional points of view. Between agent and data there
is the Agent mechanisms for exchange of information in
indeterminate environments like queues and semaphores
6 Denecke, Klaus, Marcel Erné, and Shelly L. Wismath. Galois
Connections and Applications. Dordrecht: Springer, 2011. Surma,
Stan J. "A Galois Connection." Logica Universalis. 1.1 (2007): 209-
219.
7 http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a235701.pdf AD-A235 701
SEI Report Software Design Methods for Real-Time Systems by H.
Gomaa. Also Gomaa, Hassan. Real-time Software Design for
Embedded Systems. New York Cambridge University Press,
2016. Gomaa, Hassan. Software Design Methods for Concurrent
and Real-Time Systems. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 2001.
Gomaa, Hassan. Designing Concurrent, Distributed, and Real-
4
of Design and Analysis of Realtime Systems Methodology
(DARTS) of Hassan Gomaa7. Between function and event
are State Machines and Petri Nets. Data is represented by
Entity, Relationship Attribute diagrams. Event is
represented by Temporal Logic. Agent and Function are
both decomposition hierarchies. But they represent in a
linearized hierarchy of agent and function partial order
networks. Thus, there are various ways to linearize partial
order networks and so there are multiple possible
decompositions of agent and function networks. This field
of minimal methods is the core of UML and SysML
which are an ad hoc combination of accepted software
methods. Rather than an ad hoc assemblage we have here
a theory of what is necessary to represent Real-time
systems based on the articulation of various kinds of order
in relation to each other based on methodological
distinctions of Klir. Architectural Design injects order
into systems. Methodological Distinctions show us the
order in which order should be injected, i.e. from simpler
to more complex. Thus, we are talking about a meta-order
reflexive system that describes the core of all Real-time
System methodologies for Software Systems
Architectural Design8. Note that this field is asymmetrical
and that it has specific content related to the structure of
Turing Machines. Basically, what is included is minimal
methods necessary for describing Universal and Parallel
or Nested Turing Machines. And the whole field can be
described mathematically as a 2-structure9 . Importantly
this field is asymmetrical. And it contains two splits at the
level of partial orders (agent and function) and full order
(data and event) which is how the singularity at the heart
of the realtime system manifests, i.e. in an unmotivated
discontinuity which is part of its material a priori. This
taking one order and splitting it is like we see in the
production of co-algebras. But the dual of this is the split
Time Applications with Uml. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Addison-
Wesley, 2014.
8
https://independent.academia.edu/KentPalmer/Foundations-of-
Systems-Architecture-Design
9 Ehrenfeucht, Andrzej, T Harju, and Grzegorz Rozenberg. The Theory
of 2-Structures: A Framework for Decomposition and Transformation
of Graphs. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific, 1999. Ehrenfeucht, A.
and R. McConnell "A k-structure generalization of the theory of 2-
structures" Theoretical Computer Science 132 (1994) 209-227
https://www.academia.edu/9945650/2-
STRUCTURES_AND_DESIGN_METHODS_The_Mathematical_Foundat
ions_of_the_Design_Field_with_respect_to_Viewpoints_and_Minim
al_Method_Structures
in the lattice with relation and co-relation of parital order
with distance and linear order without distance. These two
as relation and co-relation together produces a single
component hierarchy that lives in the split in the lattice as
the How and represents a synthesis of design which is like
the Algebraic structure that takes two to produce one
within the same field. Thus, agent and function unfold
from the order lattice at the partial order level as does data
and event at the full order level. But Relation and
CoRelation10 infold producing the synthesis of design in
the gap within the order lattice. At the two ends of the
lattice are no-order related to requirements and
combinatoric order related to tests. These do not seem to
either unfold or infold. Thus, there is a symmetry between
the stable ends of the lattice and then the unfolding of the
second node in on each side and the infolding in the
middle of the lattice. At the center of the lattice we have
the production of synthesis and that is based on Relations
and CoRelations interacting to form components of the
design. But synthesis is based on groupoids11. Thus, we
can comprehend the lattice from the point of view of the
structure of groupoids. No order is a single point with no
arrows and that relates to Requirements. “To be a ‘loose’
partial order which includes possible equality, a binary
relation (≤ or ≥) must be reflexive (each element is
comparable to itself), antisymmetric (no two different
elements precede each other), and transitive (the start of a
chain of precedence relations must precede the end of the
chain).” A strict 12 partial order is defined on < or >
relations and does not allow equality.
• Irreflexivity: for any element {a, b, c, …}.
(enumeration)
• Asymmetry: If a, then b. (sequence)
• Transitivity: If a and b, then c. (causal
connection)
So, there are two stages of partial order strict and loose.
From no order which would only give us enumeration but
with no idea how things are related to each other and
definitely no causality we mover into strict partial order
and then the idea of the possibility of equality dawns and
infects the partial order making it loose. But this is also
the dawn of the groupoid structure within the lattice. A
groupoid is both reflexive and anti-symmetric. The first is
10Co-relation means relation to self rather than Relation to other.
11Brown, R. Topology and groupoids. Deganwy, United Kingdom,
2006. www.groupoids.org.
5
an element that has an arrow that loops and points back to
the element itself. The second is two elements that are
related to each other each producing an arrow that has the
other as a target. What we see is that Agency is related to
the reflexivity and Function is related to antisymmetry.
Functions are transformations that take one thing into
another thing. And we can think of Functions as
fundamentally like intentions in the Husserlian sense of
the intentional morphe. Agency is on the other hand the
source of the intention, i.e. the subjective ego which
relates to itself producing a self-distance. Agency
separates, and Function unites in an equality relationship.
It is equality that is not constituted yet in partial orders
and slowly is constituted as we move from strict to loose
partial orders. So, the production of the split between
agency and function is really the differentiation of
reflexive and transitive properties. If you think about it
then the split in the lattice becomes understandable. A
reflexive relation can produce a sequence which is a linear
order if there are no other relations than those produce by
the iteration of the same thing, which is what gives us
numbers. On the other hand a antisymmetric relation is
the thing that generates a measure or distance between the
two things which is then collapsed by their equality with
each other. This distance that is produced gives us a
distance or metric or measure which we can add to the
partial order to measure the distance between nodes in the
partial order relations. And this is the origin of points in
geometry which are elements with self-distance which
then can translate into differentiation from other points in
a topological field as an open neighborhood of points that
can be considered a set of zero dimensional points out of
which spring the dimensionality of the topological space.
We call relations to other Relations. And we call relations
to Self CoRelations. The static relations to Self or Other
is maintained by firing the arrow morphisms continually
or on a regular basis as the actions that underlie the
maintenance of continuity of the relations with Others or
co-relations with Self. When you think about it anything
that we might call a component in a design has to maintain
relations with itself and with other things in some kind of
perdurance or in some sort of temporal stability. Those
relations might be within the component between
minimal method elements or externally to other
12 https://wcipeg.com/wiki/Partial_order
components in the design. Thus ‘How’ is produced as a book Architectures are the structural relationships
synthesis of relations and CoRelations between between variables that have values flowing through them
components and itself and with other components. How compared to background or support variables that have
is a precise set of synthesized relations and CoRelations global characteristics like space, time or population. It is
that has some efficacy, i.e. it works on a practical level, these global background or support variables that
and this How is part of the hypothetical imperative which determine the structure of the Methodological Views on
combines efficient with final cause in a way that is the realtime system, and it is their relation to order that
practically effective. determines the background out of which the minimal
methods arise based on the different types of possible
If we go further, we see that in Full Order which is both
order. What it tells us if we follow Peirce and his
linear and has distance there is the possibility of
Philosophical Principles is that No Order are Firsts. But
combining number and points. And of course, it is
Seconds which are relations are constituted in steps from
Descartes that works out how to do this in his invention
strict partial order to lose partial order to the production
of descriptions of geometrical situations with algebraic
of relations and CoRelations and that finally with Full
formulas. Full order has numerically countable points in
order we reach Thirds which are continuities. We can go
relation to each other whether these are over a continuous
on from there to consider combinatorics which causes us
field like the real numbers or discontinuous field like the
to separate out Fourths which are Synergies from Fifths
imaginary numbers. And, of course, this Full Order is
that are Integrities and Sixths that give us Poise. Synergy
really a description of SpaceTime in which computations
is reuse of the same elements over and over and thus a
must occur. But we see this in terms of the space of
kind of CoRelation. Integrity is the fitting together of
memory (RAM) for data or computational cycles of
different things to produce a emergent property between
processors for Events. But the key is that there is no global
them like in tensegrity. Thus, Integrity is like a Relation
clock in a real time system and thus we are operating
in as much it is between two different kinds of part within
within Relativity Theory which is what makes real-time
a whole. Poise is a higher order fitting between synergy
systems interesting compared to conventional systems
and integrity that produces a nondual sort of effect. A
where there is a global clock allowing the coordination of
good example of this is that when we go to the fourth
events without extra effort. Time appears as the element
dimension the synergy of all the platonic solids increases
in which the iterations that produce the numbers can occur
substantially over that which B. Fuller sees among the
as Kant indicated when he identified time with
third dimensional Platonic solids in his book
Arithmetic. But, of course, arithmetic is a subset of
Synergetics 13 . But if you look at the four-dimensional
algebra which represents actual values with variables so
platonic solids we see that the there is a special Platonic
that we can see the structure of the computation more
solid the 24 cell that does not appear in any other
clearly. On the other hand, space is associated with
dimension. The 8 cell and 16 cell form lattices that are all
distance measures, or metrics, that are produced by points
space filling. But also, the 24 cell forms another lattice
in relations to each other either discretely or as part of
that is all space filling. The 24 cell is unique. But also, its
continua. When distance metrices or measures and
space filling lattice in its relation to the 16 cell and 8 cell
discrete numbers are combined we get the basis for
is an example of Poise, i.e. it is a nondual sort of relation,
spacetime as a data/event field for computation as a kind
independent of both but poised between them. Poise is an
of virtual reality within the computational universe. Data
example of Nondual Barzak14-like supra-rational relations
focuses on the values in the variables. Event focuses on
that are emergent from synergy and integrity taken
the changes to the values in the variables. And the
together. Relations and CoRelations (Seconds) are
fundamental structure of this field is that which Klir talks
considered permanent structures between entities (Firsts)
about in Architecture of Systems Problem Solving. In that
but these are constituted based on groupoid relations that

13
Fuller, R B, and E J. Applewhite. Synergetics: Explorations in Geometry of Thinking. New York: Macmillan, 1983.Bottom of
the Geometry of Thinking. New York: Macmillan, 1982. Fuller, R Form
14 Arabic: Barzak means both barrier and interspace
B, and E J. Applewhite. Synergetics 2: Explorations in the
6
fire on a continuous basis as a dynamic that underlies the relation to our mental and cognitive landscape as a
stasis of relations. Relations need to be continually Symbolic System16. But that Symbolic System will be a
reaffirmed and reconstituted by the firing of functional representation of concepts that are ineffable to which it
morphisms in time. Thus, we add the Process Being points and part of that pointing will be its attempt to fulfill
(ready-to-hand) perspective to the normally Pure Being goals or teleological ends. So, the worlds of Ken Lloyd,
(present-at-hand) perspective of Mathematics. when augmented with the Social World gives us an
ontology of possible entities that need to be coordinated
When we place these viewpoints, which are related to the
for the system to have a meaning within our overall world.
epistemological questions who, what, when, where, why,
My own preference is for an ontology like that of Ingvar
(w)how, which-one, in the context of the Worlds of Ken
Johansson in Ontological Investigations 17 . But the one
Lloyd, derived from Popper and Penrose, we see that
proposed by Ken Lloyd based on Popper and Penrose will
whenever we are going to create a real-time system that it
do. These worlds of Ken Lloyd are what Husserl calls
needs to coordinate between the various realms he
regional ontologies. They specify as Bunge 18 said the
mentions plus the social realm. When we create an
‘furniture of the world’ that gives the context for the
Architectural Design and then implementing it we are
algorithmic functioning of every real-time computing
injecting order and order is described by Mathematics.
system processing data which is a special type of social
And mathematics is broken into categories that are
artifact that embodies Hyper Being19. In the Meta-levels
described by Category Theory. Every Computing
of Being hardware encompasses Pointing (Pure Being)
machine is a physical platform which the Real-time
and Grasping (Process Being) in the CPUs that it uses to
System will run on once implemented. The Physical
compute. Software embodies the level of Hyper Being
Environment is inhabited by other human beings whom
which Derrida called Differance (differing and deferring)
we must take into consideration as we build the system
which is why writing correct software is described as like
and communicate with among our teams in the process of
trying to nail jelly to a wall. The dual of Hyper Being is
building the system. The basis of social worlds is natural
Wild Being which is the nature of Artificial Life,
language. We use natural language for describing the
Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Artificial
various ontological realms that are associated with the
Sociality, Artificial Cognition, and Virtual or Mirror
Worlds of Penrose and Popper gathered together by Ken
Worlds20. There is a singularity at the heart of Software
Lloyd. It is interesting that these worlds are similar to the
called Ultra Being which fundamentally distorts the field
bracketings (epoches) that Husserl performs in Ideas I15.
in which it operates like the unconscious explored by
The System we build will have order that we want to
Zizek21 and Badiou22. This is a singularity at the level of
describe at high levels of abstraction in terms of
Existence in the Meta-levels of Being at the heart of Being
Architectural Design in order to communicate the
itself. But we notice it in Software because we never had
structure of what we are building with each other. The
an artifact that embodied Hyper Being before, and thus no
System will run on a physical computing platform using
way to gain access to Wild Being either. The Esoteric
resources of space (memory RAM or disk drives) and
kinds of Being that are Hyper and Wild Being described
time (CPU cycles) and will process data by functional
by Merleau-Ponty in The Visible and the Invisible are the
transformation in different centers of agency that executes
reactions to this singularity at the heart of Embodied
at particular discrete times. But the system will not just
Architectural Designs. It is like the Singularity that
function in relation to our social environment but also in

15 Husserl, Edmund. Ideas for a Pure Phenomenology and 19 See Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. Visible and the Invisible.
Phenomenological Philosophy: First Book. Indianapolis/Cambridge : Northwestern U. Press, 1969. Cf Derrida Differance (differing and
Hackett Publishing Company, 2014. deferring.
16 Cassirer, E., Krois, J. M., & Verene, D. P. The Philosophy of 20 Gelernter, David. Mirror Worlds. Cary: Oxford University Press,

Symbolic Forms. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1955. 1992. I

17 Johanssonian Investigations: Essays in Honour of Ingvar Johansson 21 Žižek, Slavoj. Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of

on His Seventieth Birthday. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. Johansson, Dialectical Materialism. London: Verso, 2013. Žižek, Slavoj. The
Ingvar. Ontological Investigations. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004. Parallax View. Cambridge, Mass: MIT, 2009.
18 Bunge, Mario. Ontology. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1977 22 Badiou, Alain, and Oliver Feltham. Being and Event. London [etc.:

Bloomsbury Academic, an imprint of Bloomsbury, 2015.

7
Kurzweil 23 talks about except this one is what would
make artificial intelligence of artificial consciousness
alien. One way to understand this Ultra Being singularity
is by seeing that Software is created in a set-like design
and then transformed into mass-like binaries. The
singularity is what demands the transformation from Set
to Mass embodiments that differentiates designs from
implementations. The singularity represents the fact that
in techne there are non-rational matters that cannot be
understood completely theoretically, i.e. in terms of
episteme. In Heidegger this corresponds to his saying that
the Essence of Technology is not Technological, but
rather what he calls the Enframing24. It is generally not
understood that Software has a different ontological basis
than hardware, even though this is obvious in practice, but
not normally considered theoretically. The Philosophy of
Software is nascent but I pointed it out in an article on the
“Ontology of Software”25 in the early 1990s.
It is not understood that the field of methodological
distinctions is asymmetrical. And it is not normally
understood normally that there is a difference between
software and the artificial-X that is created through
software, such as via artificial intelligent techniques that
cannot be completely understood but are practically
effective such as in Machine Learning with Neural Nets
that have been so successful lately in translation, for
instance, or deep learning such as we see in AlphaGo. The
singularity at the heart of software is not recognized.
Whenever we are building a system we are working
around this singularity. It is what makes it necessary to
have multiple viewpoints on the real-time system, and the
fact that we cannot see all these viewpoints at once within
some global objective gaze that we can make present-at-
hand. But this is what causes several discontinuities in
software that are material a prioris, which are not just
formal a proris like causality or quantity, like the
difference between agent and function, or the difference
between event and data that relate to spacetime, or the
difference between Set and Mass which characterizes the
difference between design and implementation or the
23 Kurzweil, Ray. The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend
Biology. London : Duckworth, 2016.
24 Heidegger, Martin. The Question Concerning Technology, and
Other Essays. New York : Harper Perennial, 2013.
25 https://www.academia.edu/6835869/Software_Ontology_old_
26 Gurevich, Yuri. Evolving Algebras: a Novel Specification and
Verification Methodology. United States: Michigan univ ann arbor
8
difference between System as ‘Application’ and Meta-
system as ‘Operating System’.
So now we can see in general that Ken Lloyd’s ‘Worlds’
attempts to supply an ontological context, but the
methodological distinctions attempt to provide an
epistemological framework within this ontological
context. Both of these frameworks are necessary in order
to describe Architectural Designs and their
Implementations in general terms. And we need these
general frameworks from ontology and epistemology in
order to orient ourselves. But if we do not want to delve
into the methodological distinctions, then once we have
the requirements related to non-order, then it is possible
to represent the systems functionality and agency through
Gurevich Abstract State Machines (GASM)26. There is a
peculiarity of the Conditional (IF…THEN) statements
that they can represent nodes of Agency, Function, Data
and Event together rather than separately as with the
minimal methods. Also Rules with their functions can be
the transformative device that produces the categorical
mappings. Gurevich has proven that his Abstract State
Machines are equivalent to Turing Machines and
Universal Turing Machines. Thus, these abstract rule-
based descriptions can animate our categories and also
give abstract simulations prior to the design of the
architecture of the system. Thus, we advocate after the
creation of the requirements to produce prototypes at the
level of the ConOps (perhaps as an appendix to it) that
embody the system and explore its computability using
Gurevich Abstract State Machines. Once the system
under construction is shown to be computable, then its
Architectural Design can be specified using minimal
methods introducing different types of order one layer at
a time according to the Methodological Distinctions of
Klir. Gurevich Abstract State Machines is a very simple
methodological principle which is to describe the
application with Rules. Rules integrate the four
viewpoints on the realtime system into nodes where they
are fused. Architectures separate the viewpoints and then
relate them. But rules are also the way to formalize the
dept of electrical engineering and computer Science, 1997.
https://web.eecs.umich.edu/gasm/gurarticle.html Egon
Börger and Robert Stärk, Abstract State Machines: A Method for
High-Level System Design and Analysis. Springer-Verlag, 2003.
transformations of categorical mappings such as
morphisms, functors, natural transformations etc. So, the
Gurevich Abstract State Machine serves as a single
methodical approach that supports both Category Theory
in the context and the methodological viewpoints on the
real time system as a precursor to the Architectural Design
in which viewpoints are fused.
Next, we mention the fact that even with the ontological
worlds and their categorical bridges and the viewpoints
on the design of a real-time system and minimal methods
we still do not have a complete approach to sketching
Architectural Designs. We must realize that spacetime is
not homogenous but rather phenomenologically it is made
up of layers that organize things in spacetime differently
at various scopes. We call these various templates of
intelligibility of orders in spacetime schemas and
approach them through schemas theory
(http://schematheory.net). Along with the Schemas we
also get Philosophical Principles (PP) of Peirce and
Fuller, Foundational Mathematical Categories (FMCs),
and Order/View or Epistemological Hierarchies (OVH).
These are the elements of Dagger Theory 27 . The
Order/View Hierarchies is the framework of the
Methodological Distinctions of Klir that answer the
epistemological distinctions. Worlds break up and relate
the Schemas to each other. What is new here are the
Philosophical Principles which are related to the
articulation of Pascal Triangle geometrically through
undefinables (point, line, surface, etc.). We see the
various levels of the Pascal Triangle as giving us points,
lines, surfaces, solids, hunks etc. Peirce has taken this
series and made it into organizing principles of Firsts
(isolate), Seconds (relata) and Thirds (continua). To this
Fuller adds Synergy (reuse) and Integrity (mutual
support). To this we add bookends of Null, then Neganary
(singularity) and Zeroth (empty/void) on one end and
Sixth which is Poise, and Seventh which is the Singular,
and perhaps as Eight the min/max optimality dynamic that
pervades the singular. These Philosophical Principles
give us the major components of any design, entities,
relations, continuities, synergies, integrities, poise in
standings etc. to be approximated in our designs. On the
other hand, the Fundamental Mathematical Categories
(FMCs) are the possible foundations of mathematics
27 https://www.academia.edu/9868340/Exploring_the_Dagger_or_
9
which are of different orders. Unlike Badiou in Being and
Event 28 we do not reduce all of Mathematics to Set
Theory. Rather we accept multiple possible foundations
and like to see how they work together. All these possible
radically different sources of Order that may be
foundations for mathematics give us the various orders we
need to characterize the organization of the schemas.
These are etched into the Bedrock of Existence. And for
that reason, they are the same across all possible worlds.
These sources give us the Fundamental differences we
find in the Kantian Meta-episteme of algebra, co-algebra,
geometry and co-geometry (topology). These also
embody co-analysis, analysis, synthesis and co-synthesis.
Note that co-algebra is the basis of analysis. Synthesis we
like to represent with groupoids which is also with
directed graphs the basis of Category Theory. But the
Foundational Mathematical Categories abstract from
these basic four kinds of mathematics other types of
mathematics that have been discovered over the last
century or so. They form a series that starts with null, then
singularity, then site/event loci that are topoi, then
multiple/groupoid, then set theory, then mass theory, then
wholes, then holons then holoid (holograms), then
singulars. These FMCs give us a wide pallet of possible
orders to use to describe our schematized organizations of
spacetime.
Dagger Theory gives depth to our methodological
approach. It says that the fundamental material and forms
of design are the schemas, i.e. templates that give
intelligibility to spacetime organizations. But these
schemas draw their order from the FMCs. And they are
given their possibility of embodiment though
Philosophical Principles of Peirce and Fuller and the
additional ones identified above. For real-time design of
systems and meta-systems which are the central schemas
we need Minimal Methods based on Methodological
Distinctions as to kinds of Order that are layered to give
the Architectural Design of our system. This occurs in the
surface framework of the View/Order Hierarchies. The
Worlds (as regional ontologies or realms of experience)
are implied in the organization of the schemas. Any given
ontological framework like that of Ken Lloyd can be
substituted. That of Ken Lloyd is convenient and it also
seems to have some relation to the Quadralectics and
28Badiou, Alain, and Oliver Feltham. Being and Event. London :
Bloomsbury Academic, an imprint of Bloomsbury, 2015.
Pentalectics developed as a methodological dynamic in
Emergent Design29 (UniSA, 2009) by this author. But we
could insert different types of ontology to specify the
furniture of the world. Our favorite as we mentioned
before is that of Ingvar Johannson in his Ontological
Investigations. But basic in this arena are the Categories
of Kant perhaps as adumbrated by Hegel. There is no
definitive set of Philosophical Categories and thus we
always see Husserl naming them with an incomplete list.
But the Philosophical Categories are different from those
of Mathematical Category Theory. Mathematical
Categories are formal definitions of systems of
mathematical entities normally infinite that all have the
same fundamental characteristics, like Set or Mass, or
Group, or Groupoid, etc.
We should also mention the fact that Type Theory should
be treated in terms of Homotopy Type Theory 30 .
Ultimately Russell’s Ramified Higher Logical Type
Theory is basic as described by I. Copi31. It was meant to
solve the problem of Russell’s paradox found in Frege’s
Logic32. But Godel33 showed that even this overkill of a
type system does not prevent paradox contamination.
Therefore, the Analytical Tradition returned to Simple
Type Theory 34 which is not ramified into levels by
Classes. It is an important innovation of Vladimir
Voevodsky 35 to realize that Types are equivalency
relations that can be described by groupoids and then
treated topologically. We use Category Theory to define
the relation between Types and CoTypes as well as Anti-
types and Non-types following Greimas 36 and his
structural Logical Square. In Russell’s type theory
Categories are CoTypes which at each level is
differentiated into Types to try to avoid paradox. Every
type has its differentiated Anti-types and we also include
NonTypes that fall outside of the ramified type system.
Gödel essentially finds a way to inject a nonType into a
specific category (numbers representing logical
statements) through coding tricks. It is through types that
29 https://www.academia.edu/34831961/EMERGENT_DESIGN
30 https://homotopytypetheory.org/book/
31 Copi, Irving M. The Theory of Logical Types. Abingondon, Oxon:
Routledge, 2011.
32 Van, Heijenoort J. From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in
Mathematical Logic, 1879-1931. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press, 2002.
33 Goldstein, Rebecca. Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of
Kurt Gödel. New York: W.W. Norton, 2006.
10
emulations of entities in the various worlds occurs.
Category Theory does not have the same problems as Set
Theory degenerating into paradox. Thus, we can have
Categories of Categories without problems. Category
Theory can describe Set Theory, and the Topoi of Logics
and almost any other mathematical object that is
associative. If an object is not associative then it is called
a Magma. The point is that categories are non-
commutative and thus they can describe many objects of
modern mathematics. Category Theory was discovered
by Carnap in his Logical Structure of the World37 even
though he does not get the credit he deserves for the
discovery.
In this paper, we are considering the integration of these
very different types of approaches that have been
discovered relatively recently that fit in with a Categorical
Orientation or a Category Theory approach to Systems
Science and Systems Engineering, as well as Software
Engineering, Architectural Design. The only difference
between Systems Engineering Architectural Design and
Software Architectural Design is that Hardware and
Logistics are both included in Systems Engineering
considerations rather than exclusively considering
software and assuming the whole software system is
running on generic hardware. Categorical Orientation
means that we tend to describe things within the Systems
that we build as categories and that means in terms of
mappings. That is rather than assuming that the first-class
entities are objects. We are going to tend to take a
Functional approach, but our actual program can be
written in an Imperative form, it could be written in an
Object Oriented language. It could be described in UML
or SysML as well. The actual implementation language is
not of concern. What is of concern is that we are going to
think not of entities but in the same way that
Mathematical Categories are defined. That is in terms of
a set of elements and the relations between them that
preserve invariants and can be described as mappings that
34 Hindley, J R, Rijsbergen C. J. Van, S Abramsky, P H. Aczel, and
Bakker J. W. De. Basic Simple Type Theory. Cambridge, GBR:
Cambridge University Press, 2009.
35 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Vladimir_Voevodsky
36 Schleifer, Ronald, and Algirdas-Julien Greimas. A.J. Greimas and
the Nature of Meaning: Linguistics, Semiotics and Discourse Theory.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1987.
37 Carnap, Rudolf. The Logical Structure of the World: And,
Pseudoproblems in Philosophy. Chicago and La Salle, Ill: Open Court,
2005.
can be produced by functions. Categories have elements,
but they are inessential as identity arrows can represent
those elements and the elements can normally ultimately
be forgotten with everything reduced to arrows, i.e.
morphisms of functions. There can be Categories whose
structural relationships are the same even though the
entities are the different. This is very handy because it
means we can compare the structures of different
Categories and disregard the fact that the objects are
different. This highlights differences in structural
relationships rather than the kinds of things that exist in
each category. This sometimes leads to unexpected
bridges being built between seemingly different
Categories that helps drive our abstractions. This is why
the terminology of Category Theory is somewhat strange
because there was a need for common terms for these
structural identities across different types of entities. This
is also why Category Theory is pejoratively called
Abstract Nonsense. It has strange terms for common
structural patterns found in very different sorts of
Mathematics. Sometimes these structural bridges are
quite unexpected.
Objects are entities with attributes and functions
(methods) associated with the entity. Objects are the way
we think about things normally we encounter in our world
according to our tradition stretching back to Plato and
Aristotle. It was thought that a hierarchy of objects was
the best way to describe systems. But UML outlawed
functional ways of looking at systems which SysML has
added back in. UML embodies a prejudice toward the
object view point. Data flow is the dual of the object
approach. In Object oriented ways of looking at
programming the data is encapsulated and only accessed
via methods. In Data Flow programming the data moves
around between the functions and there is no
encapsulation. This paradigm change came from a
reversal of viewpoint from functional priority over data
to data’s priority over function. The first paradigm shift
in Software came from merely reversing two related
viewpoints. The next paradigm shift has to do with
whether one writes to variables or whether one discards
constants. What goes with discarding constants rather
than writing variables is a functional viewpoint while
object-oriented approach assumes that attributes of
objects would be written as variables as object values
38 https://www.haskell.org/
11
change. A functional programming language like
Haskell38 has strong typing and can work out what the
data types are from the context of the program based on
what variables are accessed. Variables are never changed
directly but rather they are replaced with new copies and
a history of the copies is kept until discarded by garbage
collection. At any given point in the program execution
one is never changing what is in a variable unless one is
dealing with a monad (in the Haskell sense). Rather what
happens is that the new value is written to a new variable
which is treated as a constant but linked to the old variable
by a chain that preserves the history. This means the
program is always dealing with constants of fixed types.
You can see from the trace what the type of the variable
has been as well as its previous content values. In contrast
in Object-oriented imperative languages these changes
are made by the functions (methods) associated with the
object and no history is necessarily kept. If the object is
running on its own thread it becomes an actor. Thus,
objects as actors combine all the different viewpoints on
a real-time system just as the conditional rule does but in
a very different way. Rules could be represented as
objects. The difference is in an object the data is the center
of the object encapsulated. Functions only operate on data
objects. If it is an actor as well then queues are needed
with messages exchanged in order to allow objects to
operate concurrently in a distributed fashion. When we
change to Rules, then Function becomes the center of the
processing node. Data plays a triggering role and the state
machines are outside the rule rather than inside the object.
Agency appears when rules are executed on different
processors or virtually in different tasks. Events are when
rules fire rather than when methods are called based on
messages in queues. Many of these differences in
terminology are merely conventional to a given approach
or orientation of our programming paradigm. Rules
follow functional decomposition. Objects follow object
hierarchies. It is possible to have data centric methods,
event centric methods, function centric methods and agent
centric methods. When we use the minimal methods in
different orders we get very different architectures as an
outcome. The architectural viewpoints in the View/Order
hierarchy give us a model of all the different types of
emphasis we can have in our approach to building
systems. But it provides this in the context of Klir’s
Formal Structural System in Architecture of Systems
Problem Solving a mathematical General Systems Theory
as part of Systems Science. UML/SysML are a collection
of minimal methods that have been integrated and
augmented. But it lacks a theoretical basis that delimits
what is necessary from what is added for convenience or
arbitrarily. We are presenting here the fundamental theory
that generates the asymmetries of the methodological
field. This fundamental theory has been represented in
ISEM 39 (Integral Systems Engineering Methodology)
which is a series of Domain Specific Languages that allow
us to express any architecture. Within this there is an
architectural framework called the Grid which is four
dimensional composed of layers, strata, tiers, and levels
within which the various architectural components can be
designed and constructed. A component may have
multiple minimal system representations. But all those
representations are made up of nodes and arcs of various
kinds that form networks represented by graphs. Thus, an
Architecture is made up of components in a four or greater
dimensional grid described by minimal methods all of
which boil down to different kinds of arcs and nodes.
These minimal method representations of components are
expressed in domain specific languages within ISEM. But
starting with the minimal methods between real-time
system viewpoints it is possible to get rid of the
complexities of UML/SysML that are accretions and get
a picture of the minimal representation of a Real-time
System Architectural Design. We only need as much
language complexity as is absolutely necessary for the
application, and we can also represent domain specific
information in created application-specific domain
specific languages added to ISEM. This representation is
not in diagrams but is human readable and can be treated
the same as code. But we could turn it into diagrams if we
wished. It is hierarchical and so does not have to have the
flat complexity of UML/SysML that is necessary for
computer interpretation of the representation.
Our point has been that we should use Category Theory
as much as possible as the basis of our description of
Designs. This is because it aids the analysis of complex
mappings and thus helps us deal with the complexity. Due
39http://holonomic.net/uml01A02.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/3796285/Proposed_Integral_Systems_E
ngineering_Methodology_Architectural_Design_Language
http://archonic.net/Integral%20Systems%20Engineering%20Method
12
to the simplicity and homogeneity of Category Theory it
is easy to describe complex configurations of mappings in
a formal way that lends itself to consistency and
completeness checking. Upper level summaries of
mappings must represent accurately the actual lower level
mappings between the actual elements. There is a
checking process by which higher level morphisms are
checked against the actual lower level mappings to make
sure that the upper level description is correct. But entities
as different from the morphisms can actually drop out
because we can represent the mappings without the
entities as identity arrows and this is what gives us its
generality because the same mapping can occur between
very different types of entity. In Category Theory there
are really only arrows. And this uniformity allows
structural differences easily seen. Thus, ultimately entities
of different types drop out and we get generic mappings
that can be the same despite the difference between the
entities mapped. Categories are differentiated by their
different mappings rather than the different types of
entities they contain like Sets. Category Theory is a more
Mass-like representation with the instance being identity
looping arrows with the same source and target than Set-
like with particulars that are members of Sets. Sets of Sets
lead to paradox. The upper level Set is always called a
Universe, so there is no ultimate set that all sets are
contained by. Categories of Categories do not lead to
paradox and thus we can have representations that fully
nest without introducing inconsistencies or incoherence.
But although Categories are a powerful mathematical
language for representing series of mappings it is
necessary to recognize that this language is very general
and weak in terms of ontological specificity of the entities
that can be mapped. Ken Lloyd tries to remedy that by
giving us anchors in an ontology that has four worlds to
which we add a fifth (the social). These worlds are derived
from Popper and Penrose and contain Mental entities,
Physical Entities, Conceptual Entities and Mathematical
Entities. Once we are given these entities then we can
create Categorical Languages that connect them to each
other. Or we can see how the Social Sphere gives us
languages based on Natural Language to describe each of
ology%20PalmerKD%20CSER2011%20110411kdp05a.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265145662_Reworking_t
he_Integral_System_Engineering_Method_Domain_Specific_Langua
ges
these from an Objective viewpoint. Without the Social concentrate very well on what is essential. There was a
there is no objectivity. But this is still too general. It gives time when there were many different Software
us a way to describe the formal a priori. But not the Engineering Methods being created and used. But the
material a priori. The Material a priori has to do with the production of UML has squelched much of this
general constraints of any computational device based on innovation. It was made so you could produce other
Turing Machines or Universal Turing Machines that run profiles to include other minimal methods but almost no
on actual hardware of the Von Neuman type. These one uses this capability. UML/SysML is a Rube Goldberg
physical machines have pointers and accumulators and type of machine that has killed most of the research into
thus emulate pointing and grasping which are the two new methods which was created just to vendors could sell
kinds of Being that Heidegger identifies in Being and more Software Engineering tools and did not have to
Time 40 (present-at-hand and ready-to-hand). But these adapt to new methodologies.
general computing machines are modeled in Software
Here we concentrate on the material a priori of the design
which we can represent as a Pointer Machine that
minimal methods for Architectural Design. Material a
manipulates Data Structures. The Data Structures are
priori means that they are based on essential distinctions
what are grasped and manipulated by the algorithm. The
that are part and parcel of the Turing Machine
Pointers are manipulated to give access to specific
representation that is computationally universal. There
variables. Thus at the level of Software we are still
are a certain number of minimal elements that are
pointing and grasping, i.e. operating in terms of Pure
necessary to produce a Turing machine like a stack and a
(pointing) and Process (grasping) Being. Software has the
state machine. Whatever is absolutely necessary to do the
nature of Hyper Being that Derrida describes as
job is what is considered minimal. But we could also use
Differance. This is not generally recognized. Software is
a queue and a petri net. So there has to be a data structure
the first technological entity to have this esoteric kind of
and a way of manipulating it called a state controller. The
Being within our worldview and it is transforming our
Turing machine is an example of something that exists in
worldview as we speak as it supplants mechanical non-
an intersection of all of the Worlds of Ken Lloyd. The
programmable devices. The idea of programmable
computing device whether mechanical, or based on
devices came from the difference engine of Babbage that
electronic tubes or transistors, is what is physical. In the
combined the Jacquard Loom with the Calculating
Turing machine there are symbols that are represented by
Machine and attempted to produce the first mechanical
bit patterns and these are like ASCII code. This is the part
computer which was theoretically possible. But it was
of the machine that is adapted to our mental or cognitive
never completely built and we had to wait for electronic
powers that allows us to make a Symbolic System based
tubes and transistors for a Computer to finally be built.
on this computational structure. Besides these basic
Hyper Being has a dual esoteric kind of Being which is
Turing machine distinctions that are physically realized
Wild Being which characterizes opaque artificial
one way or another that allows computation to occur, the
intelligence techniques such as connectionist neural nets.
only other constraints are mathematical. But when we
Our time is a renaissance when we are exploring the
build an application based on a Turing machine we
possibilities of computational systems and those that
represent in those symbols concepts that allow it to
interface with the physical world are called real-time
function to some purpose or with some goal in mind that
software systems. They need to synchronize their
it fulfills. But because we are social creatures all this takes
activities with other processes actually occurring in real
place in a social context. Not merely a psychological
time in the physical universe. We concentrate on this
context. The psychological context is constrained by the
because it is the hardest case. Here we are concerned with
social context. The physical context constrains both the
the fundamental basis of their design. The state of the art
social and psychological. The psychological and social
in this regard is UML/SysML which is an artificial and ad
context is constrained by the mathematical context that is
hoc combination of elaborated design methods in a vast
etched in the bedrock of Existence as order that is
language that is unwieldy and does not allow us to

40Heidegger, Martin, John Macquarrie, and Edward Robinson. Being

and Time. Malden: Blackwell, 2013.
13
available in all possible worlds with space and time, that
is to say that has counting numbers and points that are the
twin elemental entities in mathematics. Hegel makes a
good case that mathematical thinking is not the same as
philosophical thinking, i.e. the thinking in concepts. And
Ken Lloyd recognizes this by including a conceptual
world. There is a kind of chicken and egg problem
between the conceptual world and both the social and
psychological worlds. It is unclear what constrains what.
There are Emergent Events that occur that produce large
scale reorganizations of the conceptual sphere in relation
to the social and psychological spheres, like paradigm,
episteme, and ontological changes. And these can affect
how we see the Physical Sphere. There are objective
events that go beyond what is merely mental into the
social sphere. Newly discovered mathematics can change
how we see the mathematical sphere and how we can
organize the other spheres. The conceptual world exists in
a realm of possibility and thus does not seem constrained
by the physical world. It in a sense is our first glimpse of
the virtual world of the Idea that Deleuze discusses.
Concepts seem to be untethered even from Logic. Note
that Logic and Reason is based on Language that is at the
center of the Social world. The mental world is what
becomes visible in Phenomenology which has its own
laws like those that produce gestalts. We characterize
these worlds as going from Thick (Physical) to Thin
(Conceptual) and we associate them with pairs of
Schemas.
• Conceptual World
❖ Facet
❖ Monad
• Mathematical World
❖ Pattern
❖ Form
• Mental World
❖ System
❖ Meta-system (OpenScape)
• Social World
❖ Domain
❖ World
• Physical World
❖ Kosmos
❖ Pluriverse
The interfaces between the various worlds are the Dagger
series.
14
• Conceptual World
❖ Philosophical Principles
• Mathematical World
❖ Foundational Mathematical Principles
• Mental World
❖ Schemas
• Social World
❖ Order/View Hierarchies
• Physical World
❖ Physics
A Turing Machine is a synthesis of the various different
worlds that Ken Lloyd has identified based on the work
of Popper and Penrose plus the social world we all live in
whose basis is natural language. There are both Turing
Machines and Universal Turing Machines. These are
basically the same formalism used recursively to describe
itself in relation to itself. Universal Turing Machines run
as agents individual Turing Machines and Turing
Machines can be run in parallel or nested. Thus, they can
emulate both agency and function, as well as producing
simulations of events and data elements. These Turing
Machines can be scaled up to any level of abstraction as
Gurevich Abstract State Machines. Each Turing Machine
nested in a Universal Turing machine is an integration of
the various worlds identified by Popper and Penrose plus
the social world. And it can execute any task that is
computable. But it cannot compute its own halting state.
Essentially a Universal Turing Machine is an ‘Operating
System’ that runs other Turing Machines as
‘Applications’. Applications are expected to halt or at
least be suspended on a particular processing platform
while a Universal Turing machine is expected to never
halt unless manually or externally shut down. When we
render an application or system in Gurevich Abstract
State Machine formalism then we are showing that it is
computable if the rules are coherent, consistent and
complete. As an Abstract Machine that encompasses a set
of rules it appears as a Formal System. Each rule in that
simulation touches all four of the viewpoints on real time
systems and embodies them in an executable node. We
can if we want simulate the entire Application in this way
and it would be functional. But performance might be a
problem. The reason we introduce design beyond these
simulations of computability is in order to improve
performance and other non-functional characteristics of
the system. To do that we pull apart the viewpoints on the
real time system and then we generate the minimal
methods, then we use those to create the design. The This duality mimics the duality between the minimal
design is a possible node in an design landscape of all methods themselves. It is composed of Relations and
possible designs. If we are wise we evaluate these for the CoRelations. Relations are arcs and CoRelations are
Praeto Optimal designs and then select one of those. What nodes within design graphs that represent the detailed
is done mostly which is unwise is create point solutions design within a minimal method. In this gap in the Order
that do not take into account the contours of the landscape Lattice is where the How hierarchy of the design
of possible Architectural Designs. components are located. The Design Hierarchy fills a void
in the lattice created by the interaction of Relations and
A design exists in a design landscape with all possible
CoRelations. This is the only split in the lattice of
designs that do the same thing. Our task is to find the
methodological distinctions. It introduces a free-space
Praeto optimal designs from this infinity of possible
within which the creativity of design can be enacted by
designs and then trade off between them or select one
the practitioner. Everything else in among the hierarchies
based on aesthetics if no performance difference indicates
is more constrained by the trace mappings that link the
which is best for our purposes. But a design itself is a
hierarchies. Requirements set the constrains for the
configuration in a design grid. A design grid is multi-
Design. The ConOps 44 gives a global view of how the
dimensional table and we follow Ossher 41 in our
system should achieve its mission and that is related to the
construction of this multi-dimension grid that has levels:
top level Gurevich Abstract State Machine that shows it
partitions, tiers, strata, and layers. This Grid allows us to
is computable. From that top level GASM the rules can
navigate our particular design within the design landscape
be refined to give greater and greater detail concerning the
and to compare designs within that landscape. The
functional operation of the system until the computability
individual components within the Grid is made up of a
questions are answered. From there other constraints can
network of nodes and arcs of various kinds from our
come in to produce alternative designs described by
minimal methods that describe some slice of the
minimal methods within the Ossher Grid. The next layer
component. All the minimal methods or just some can be
down in the lattice is full order and this splits between
used to describe a given component. This description
space as data (Where) and time as event (When). The
could be in Domain Specific Languages as human
Events are represented by Temporal Logics and the Data
readable text as proposed in ISEM 42 . But Components
is represented by the Entity, Relationship Attribute
within an architecture answer to the question of How. The
diagrams. Between these two spacetime terms there exists
no order of Requirements answers the question Why.
the Kantian Meta-system that includes Algebra,
Requirements are not ordered in any way but only
CoAlgebra, Geometry and Topology (CoGeometry)
differentiated between functional and other requirements.
which represent co-analysis, analysis, synthesis and co-
The next View/Order Hierarchy after that of requirements
synthesis as all the ways that data and event can be
is Partial Order. At the level of Partial Order Agent
related. Once we get to this point then we can see that the
hierarchy and Function hierarchy are split from each
four major viewpoints on the real-time system are Agent,
other. There is a Galois connection between the two-
Function as partial orders and Data and Event as full
partial order hierarchies. This makes it possible for
orderings. When we take these together we see that all
relations to exist between Agents (Who) and Functions43
four of these viewpoints appear in the conditional rule
(What). The next level down is a duality between linear
which is the basis of the Gurevich Abstract State
order without distance and partial order with distance.
Machine. These combine in a single structure which

41 Ossher, Harold L. "Grids: A new program structuring mechanism
based on layered graphs" POPL '84 Proceedings of the 11th ACM
SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming
languages Pages 11-22 Salt Lake City, Utah, USA — January 15 - 18,
1984.
42 Proposed "Integral Systems Engineering Methodology"
Architectural Design Language. Based on the Existing "Integral
Software Engineering Methodology" (ISEM) Architectural Design
Language From Wild Software Meta-Systems. Response to Request
15
For Information (SE DSIG RFI) from the Systems Engineering Domain
Special Interest Group(SE DSIG) of the OMG by author.
http://holonomic.net/uml01A02.pdf
43https://www.academia.edu/9945650/2-
STRUCTURES_AND_DESIGN_METHODS_The_Mathematical_Foundations_of_
the_Design_Field_with_respect_to_Viewpoints_and_Minimal_Method_Struc
tures
44 Conceptual Operations Document
defines the most general model of how as components in
a hierarchy suspended between Partial Order and Full
Order. Full order is what we use to measure space and
time. It is the environment in which the implementation
code in a Turing complete programming language is
executed on hardware as a binary. Beyond that is
combinatoric order of testing. Note that there is an
approach called Test First programming in which we
build the testing meta-system before the System. In this
approach the Test Harness is created first and then the
code that is tested. But this approach leaves the Design,
and the Requirements as implicit. This could be emulated
at the ConOps level by creating a Gurevich Abstract State
Machine which is the meta-system of the System to be
built and then create the rules within the System to be
built. This is a way to explore the environmental
constraints on the System before building the System
which is a good idea. But this is rarely done. Another good
idea is to create a model of the current way of doing things
before building the model that will change it. But this is
rarely done as well. Generally, people like to focus on
what they are building that is new. The Real-time system
executes in space and time and thus is totally ordered but
in a relativistic spacetime because there is not global
clock. Combinatoric order answers the question which-
one? Which one of the many possibilities is the one that
is produced? Combinatorics is the way to explore the
various possible inputs into the system and how it handles
them in order to ensure that it is without defects and is
robust.
Notice that there is a difference between the Categorical
Imperative which has the form and material aition or
causes from Aristotle and the Hypothetical Imperative
that contains the efficient and final causes also from
Aristotle. We can relate these to the four worlds of Ken
Lloyd:
• Formal – Mathematical
• Material – Physical
• Efficient – Conceptual (energy theory, causal
category, design structure)
• Final – Mental (goals, meaning)
This ignores social quasi-causes that are indirect in most
cases. However, those quasi-causes like language
45https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Len_R._Troncale
http://lentroncale.com/
16
determine what is objective, i.e. repeatable and
observable by different teams of researchers. It is natural
language which is the first order representation of
everything we conceptualize, design, and build. There are
formal, material, efficient and final languages that Ken
Lloyd seems to have forgotten. He only has languages that
connect different worlds. But we also need languages that
allow us to talk about a single world. The only way to talk
about the social world is with natural language.
Formalizations of the social world tend to lose too much
information in the process of abstraction. But that means
that Objectivity is based ultimately on natural language
which is anathema to most Scientists, but they use it.
What else can they do if they want to communicate with
other scientists and avoid private languages.
A Formal System combines Truth, Presence and Identity.
It has properties that combine these aspects of Being
which are consistency, completeness and clarity (well-
formedness). When we add the aspect of Reality we get
three additional properties which are verifiability,
validity, and coherence. The formal system has to deal
with what is outside of itself which is the reality to which
it is addressed. And this generates Meaning. Interestingly
these Aspects of Being are related to the Philosophical
Principles. Identity is a First (isolata). Truth is a Second
(relata). Presence is a Third (continua). Reality is a Fourth
(synergy). Meaning is a Fifth (integrity). All Design
Theory Models are Formal Systems. Klir gives us a
prototype as a General Systems Theory (GST) of the
Formal Structural System (FSS). To do this he breaks
down our system model into a structure of variables with
types of values in relation to background (support,
reference) variables related to global changing values
such as space, time or population (agent plus function)
that appear at different levels of abstraction in his
epistemological hierarchy. Structures explain
transformations of Forms within a System. It is a kind of
micro-formalism. This kind of structure makes it
amenable to computational simulation using algorithms.
And we can imagine as Len Troncale 45 has a kind of
Artificial Systems Theory that produces various
simulations based on different isomorphism and linkage
propositions. More interesting though is the idea of
discovering Systems Concepts as David Rousseau has
recently suggested. The point is that Formal Structural
(Patterned) Systems are the dual in Schemas Theory of
Domain Worldly Meta-systems. Notice that Ken Lloyd
speaks of Worlds which then he reduces to Domains of
validity. What he means by worlds are regional ontologies
or realms of experience of different kinds. But it is the
reduction to domains that allows categorical languages
that map between Domain and Codomain producing his
six languages. And these languages should be seen as
delimiting the environment (Meta-system) of the System
or the System itself. Systems and Meta-systems are
inverse duals of each other. Systems are wholes greater
than the sum of their parts. Meta-systems are wholes less
than the sum of their parts. Between them we see
Holonomics of Special Systems that are wholes exactly
equal to the sum of their parts (i.e. are supervenient) with
special properties. Within either the System or the Meta-
system we can build Formal Structural System models.
But these systems models when they are to be
implemented as computer software running on hardware
platforms need to be designed using minimal methods
within an architectural Grid framework using domain
specific languages if possible. When we invoke Design
which is based on Metis, the lowest limit of the Divided
Line, that embodies mixture then we have to be concerned
with material a proris of software not just formalisms, or
‘systemisms’, or structuralisms. Software is algorithms
that manipulate data and execute in time. But the
fundamental differentiation at the level of Partial Order is
between Agency and Function. Function is encapsulated
in rules and agency is exterior to rules as the environment
in which they are triggered, and perhaps in parallel on
different processors. From Agency we get Performance
and from Function we get the Intention of the system
fulfilled. The Design can be emulated by groups of rules,
perhaps even rewriting each other, that operate on a
Formal Structural System like that described by Klir. But
that occurs in a context of Worldly Domains and Systems
always fit into a specific Meta-systemic environment.
Ken Lloyd is starting from the Ontology at the top and
then giving us a way to use Category Theory to describe
the Domain Worldly Meta-system. The Design Formal
System based on viewpoints and minimal methods gives
us a way to build up from the bottom a general
46 Palmer,Kent D. The Essential Nature of Product Traceability and
its Relation to Agile Approaches, Procedia Computer Science,
Volume 28, 2014, Pages 44-53.
17
representation of a system that is intended to work in a
specific environment as a real-time system. We need to
make it complete, consistent, and clear in relation to the
aspects of Identity, Truth, and Presence. The Minimal
Methods allow us to produce a description a real-time
software system at an appropriate level of description. But
the giving it the properties of the Formal System is very
difficult. We need to explore the design landscape rather
than offering a point design. We also need to attempt to
picture the external essence of the design. This is done by
creating a circular trace structure between the different
hierarchies 46 . To begin this stretches only from
Requirements to Design but as we go through the process
of development the trace structure will encompass all the
hierarchies producing soundness when the circles of
traceability are closed. But as we go through the process
we also need to contact Reality at each stage of the
process. When we do that we produce the properties of
verifiability, validity and coherence in relation to the test
and operating environments.
But the key problem is that all formal systems including
design theories have the problems pointed out by Gödel
in his completeness theorems. We can state this problem
in ontological terms. If one of a pair of related properties
is in Pure Being then the other must be in Process Being.
Thus, if consistency is Absolute then completeness will
be Relative. And the same is true for verifiability and
validity, and for clarity and coherence. What this means
is that between these properties there is a gap between
Pure and Process Being, and that gap has the nature of
Hyper Being. You can choose to make absolute either
completeness or consistency, but the other is forced into
relativity. And because of that a gap is created with the
nature of Hyper Being between Pure and Process Being.
And so here is where Hyper Being enters our Formal
System and contaminates it. This contamination occurs
even if we use Ramified Higher Logical Type Theory, and
if we stick to Simple Type Theory then we do not notice
the contamination, but we still cannot avoid it. Once
Hyper Being has been unleashed its dual Wild Being
shows up. Wild Being is the nature of the surface of the
singularity of Ultra Being at the heart of any Real-time
system. The singularity is the source of several
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187705091400
0702
discontinuities that haunt Software like between its set-
based design and its mass-based implementation that is
seen as compiled binaries. Software spans the divide
between Set and Mass. Sets are emphasized in our culture
and Masses are taboo. But each has its own logic. The
logic of Sets is Syllogistic Logic and for Masses there is
Pervasion Logic. But in the West Pervasion Logic is all
but unknown. It appears in India and China as the standard
logic but does not appear in the West that only has
Aristotelian Logic. We need to use paraconsistent logics
(or para-complete) and accept dialetheism, i.e. that
contradictions in the world are real. But that admission is
hard and so we have a discontinuity between theory and
practice that shows up between design and code, as well
as set and mass when we consider the compilation of code
into binaries. Software bridges these divides and thus
takes on the nature of Hyper Being itself, and is perhaps
the first technological artifact to do that. This sets
Software apart as an Emergent Event that is transforming
the world beneath our hands and feet such that things have
gotten out-of-hand (Wild Being) as even our tools are
transforming in-hand (Hyper Being). Kurzweil talks
about a technological singularity when the machines are
smarter than us. What Kurzweil does not understand is
that the singularity is already there implicitly in the
ontology as Ultra Being. What we are experiencing is the
dialectic between Hyper Being and Wild Being that arise
out of the Hardware embodiment of Pure Being (pointing)
and Process Being (grasping). Machines standing still are
in Pure Being. Machines operating are in Process Being.
But both of these states are mechanical. Once we move
from physical mechanics of motion to information
mechanics and Pure and Process Being are embodied in
the Hardware CPU as part of the information processing
platform, then suddenly we are freed into a new realm that
is virtual with very few constraints as to what we build
out of information. Software is inherently flexible. Much
more flexible than the Hardware. Thus, we have the slip
sliding away of software that is thought of being like
nailing jelly to a tree. But software brings with it the
virtuality and that is expressed as Wild Being explored by
Deleuze that is the dual of Hyper Being seen by Derrida
as Differance. And between these two esoter ic kinds of
being there is Ultra Being as a crack that cannot be filled
and cannot be made to go away. It shows up for instance
as defects that cannot be found and are never completely
stamped out, so we have to live with them in our software.
It shows up in Programming Languages as undefined
18
states that are combinations of legal instructions in a given
language. It shows up in the discontinuity between theory
(design) and practice (coding) or in the discontinuity
between source code and binaries. These discontinuities
are part of the material a priori of Software. The
discontinuities in the order hierarchy produced by the
lattice of orders that Klir introduces as methodological
distinctions is also part of the singularities expression. As
well as the minimal differences between the parts
necessary for a Turing Machine. It shows up in the fact
that the Application Turing Machine does not know when
it will halt. And the Operating System Universal Turing
Machine never stops except with a hard power down of
the entire system which many times are uncontrolled. It
appears in the fact that sometimes the computing systems
have to be rebooted to set them right again because they
have entered unknown regions of the state-space of the
Software System. The singularity at the heart of Design
that eventually is at the heart of the implemented
embodied system that has been built off of the design
sends its tendrils though all aspects of Software
Engineering and Artificial Intelligence and Artificial
Cognition making it Alien to us because we cannot
understand the operation of the Artificial Techniques like
Neural Nets for instance. If we can understand the
technique it moves into Software Engineering as just
another tool to produce stable systems. Intelligent or
cognitive systems are unpredictable. But that means that
they can descend from Complexity into Chaos and they
are not merely complicated and never simple.
The goal here has been to combine several techniques,
methods, approaches, and viewpoints in order to produce
a way of looking at Software Systems Engineering that
goes beyond UML/SysML which is the state of the art.
We are attempting to describe what we call a Categorical
Orientation or Category Theory centric approach to
Systems Architectural Design both at the Software
Engineering and Systems Engineering levels. We realized
that Category Theory is not enough and that it would take
a patchwork of techniques, methods, approaches and
orientations to take us into Synergetic Engineering from
where we are now which is trying to design SysML #2
and making UML ever more complex like C++ has
become. There is a proliferation of programming
languages. That kind of creativity in the invention of
Design Methods have been effectively stifled by the
imposition by industry of UML in Software Engineering.
And in Systems Engineering they have followed suit by
making the SysML profiles and following in the footsteps
of the Object Management Group. With Object in their
name they will not be eager to adopt a Functional
approach instead. UML will probably maintain its object
biases that make it difficult to use for Real-time Design.
What we need is more than just a Paradigm Change, but
rather a deeper change to a Category Orientation, that is
Category Theory centric approach. But unfortunately, this
is not enough. So here we have tried to specify some
additional techniques, methods, approaches and
orientations that might help if practiced as well as the
Categorical Orientation that is inherently functional rather
than object oriented. In the categorial approach the
entities drop out and we are left only with directed graphs
of morphisms that compose into syntheses through
groupoid structures.
CODA
The rest of this working paper is comprised of two
presentations. One that I created for Dagger Theory but
never had a chance to give. The second is a presentation
about Software Design Methods for a class on Data-
structures based on Category Theory. These two
presentations together cover many of the elements that are
explicitly mentioned in this working paper. See also a
presentation on George Klir’s Architecture of Systems
Problem Solving under the title “Formal Structural
Systems in relation to General Schemas Theory” given to
the Systems Science working group of INCOSE.org.
These to briefings do not deal with Category Theory, but
with the Software Design Minimal Methods based on
Klir’s Methodological Distinctions and with Dagger
Theory which is the context for Architectural Design of
Software Systems.
https://www.academia.edu/10303275/Formal_Structural
_Systems_in_relation_to_General_Schemas_Theory
19
Other papers of possible interest on the same topic by the
author:
https://www.academia.edu/9945650/2-
STRUCTURES_AND_DESIGN_METHODS_The_Mathemat
ical_Foundations_of_the_Design_Field_with_respect_to_Vie
wpoints_and_Minimal_Method_Structures
See Also Kent D. Palmer (2007) Software Engineering
Design Methodologies and General SystemsTheory,
International Journal of General Systems, 24:1-2, 43-
94, DOI: 10.1080/03081079608945107
https://www.academia.edu/6861541/Software_Systems_
Meta-methodology_old_
https://www.academia.edu/34831961/EMERGENT_DESIGN
https://www.academia.edu/3796285/Proposed_Integral_Syste
ms_Engineering_Methodology_Architectural_Design_Langua
ge
https://www.academia.edu/3795976/A_Critique_of_SysML_fr
om_the_point_of_view_of_General_Schemas_Theory
https://www.academia.edu/3795420/Gurevich_Abstract_State
_Machines_in_Theory_and_Practice
https://www.academia.edu/3795338/Reworking_the_Integral_
System_Engineering_Method_Domain_Specific_Languages
https://www.academia.edu/3795327/Hacking_the_Essence_of
_Software
https://www.academia.edu/3796017/The_Ontology_of_Desig
n
https://www.academia.edu/3795286/The_Essential_Nature_of
_Product_Traceability_and_its_relation_to_Agile_Approaches
https://independent.academia.edu/KentPalmer/Foundations-of-
Systems-Architecture-Design
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62