Q Axiom

The Quadranym Model Of Word-Sensibility (Q):
The Q Categorical Axiom:
  1. State: actual ⊇ potential
  2. Mode: potential⊇ actual
Ontological Description:
A State is an actual being. An actual being has a becoming; it is always a potential becoming.
A Mode is potential action. A potential action has a difference; it is always an actual difference.

These dimensions exist in time and are only defined or active when they are encountered.


  • To come upon any state is to always come upon an actual being, an actual being has a becoming, it is always a potential becoming.
  • To come upon any mode is to always come upon a potential action, a potential action has a difference, it is always an actual difference.

Q axiom overview

According to the Q axiom, a mode is always a potential action or measure, such that, any action or measure is a potential response that automatically identifies its related actual difference. For instance, if the mode is up, it has an actual difference down. The active-potential mode is identified only after the passive-actual mode is determined. This suggests a frame of reference (e.g., is the train your on moving or the one next to you?). These are two points of measure that need not be complimentary terms. A state does not function in this way, a state’s becoming can be any number of possible conditions, for instance, up can become sky, good mood or awake. Occurrent interactions with the world will drive remembered responses toward predicting likely potential conditions.

Brief description of the Q Dimensions

The Q axiom can be broken down into four distinct dimensions that we will refer to as the Prime Q.

The Prime Q is basically made up of four adjectives describing four dimensions. Although this represents the basic description, dimensions can be described in a number of different ways depending on their use in the system or in textual analysis.

Potential Mode: The Expansive Dimension Class

Actual Mode: The Reductive Dimension Class

Potential State: The Objective Dimension Class

Actual State: The Subjective Dimension Class

The basic relationship between dimensions is as follows.

  •    (∀x) Topic(x) ⟹ [Expansive(subjective) ⊇ Reductive(objective)(x)]:Realm(R)

A Q-unit is generally represented and classified as shown above. Notice how the superset and subset are divided. The E(s) represent the superset or dynamical Context, and the R(o) represents the subset or Situational Context

As an ontology, the Q topic represents an analysis to orient a mapping between itself, its collection of word senses and a lexical unit. A lexical unit targeted in some text is always classified as a predicate of the ontology.

Consider the textual question, “What are we having to eat?”

Every word in the sentence is treated as a predicate in the ontology. In the text however, the textual question is predicated on eating. This requires a special sentential analysis different from the the ontological analysis.

Predicate: Eat(x)

There is a lot of information to unpack from the nested units below. Each Sense represents a Realm (R).

Eat is the Q Topic i.e., Senses for eat:

  1.    (∀x) eat(x) ⟹ [Sate(hungry) ⊇ Starve(food)(x)]:Metabolic R
  2.    (∀x) eat(x) ⟹ [Intact(chew) ⊇ Fragment(substance)(x)]:Physical R
  3.    (∀x) eat(x) ⟹ [Available(consume) ⊇ Deplete(resource)(x)]:Energy R
  4.    (∀x) eat(x) ⟹ [Stable(corrode) ⊇ Disintegrate(substance)(x)]:Physical R

Sense1 is a Dynamical Context that fits best as the word-topic of the predicate.

Reads like… for all eat – if eat is x – then x is the superset subject hungry of the predicate Sate to the subset subject food of the predicate Starve.

Each dimension is in a sense, like minded. For instance, the E dimension contains sate, intact, available, stable. The R dimension contains starve, fragment, deplete disintegrate. Notice how each dimension can be seen as having a particular kind of mood. The general roles of each dimension connects to the different realms in specific ways.

Topical interoperability is the ability to adopt or reject the topical orientations of other Q systems. In other words, Q systems should be able to share information even if Quadrant configurations our different. The process is called Subsuming.

Below describes the general process that each dimension follows.

For example, The expansive process IsTo include content.

Notice the same POS (asvo) and edge relation (IsTo) in all statements.

E: The expansive (= adjective) process (= subject noun) IsTo include (= verb) content (= object noun).

R: The reductive (= adjective) process (= subject noun) IsTo exclude (= verb) content (= object noun).

O: The objective (= adjective) process (= subject noun) IsTo provide (= verb) content (= object noun).

S: The subjective (= adjective) process (= subject noun) OsTo interrelate (= verb) content (= object noun).

  • E: Content is expansive by its action.
  • R: Content is reductive by its action.
  • O: Content is objective by its being.
  • S: Content is subjective by its being.
  1. State: S ⊇ O
  2. Mode: E ⊇ R
  • All O classes belong to the S class.
  • All R classes belong to the E class.

The Subsets take on descriptions based on Situational Contexts.

  • Superset E: Content is expansion because of its action.
  • Subset R: Content is reduction because it is a measure from action.
  • Subset O: Content is objective because it becomes from being.
  • Superset S: Content is subjective because of its being.

State Becoming or Mode Measure represent the class of variables coupled to the constant of its own superset class.

Theoretically, there is no real difference between subjective reality and objective reality except for how it pertains to context, otherwise there is only a single empirical reality made experientially discrete by contextual and categorical processes. The objective sense of a Q-unit pertains to the ability to make useful predictions about the world as it applies in context with the subjective sense.

States: The being of a topic is a constant, the becoming is a variable.

A situation drives the being class to remembered responses.

For instance…

Hungry is driven to food (what is food? Situation answers condition.).

Consume is driven to resource (what is resource? Situation answers condition.).

Hungry and consume are in the same S class different topics.

Food and resource are in the same O class different topics.

In the topic or predicate eat1, hungry is a constant while food is a variable.

Likewise, in the topic or predicate eat2, consume is a constant while resource is a variable.

The same goes for measure, measure is the variable of the constant action

This is one way to address the sense of plurality/unity within the dynamic of a topic.

Summary: The Q is concerned with the interactivity between nested contextual units. At its core, a word sensibility is that which prescribes internal/external distinctions to contextual units. Various metaphysical notions apply, such as, part/whole, plurality/unity, being/becoming, time/space.  All of it attempts to look at how dynamical contextual constructs make impressions on our sense making abilities.

The Q-Unit & Contextual Unitizations
Lets say, “Jan and Stan removed a carpet and found a trapdoor in their new house.”

Being door Becomes trapdoor

The goal is…

Being trapdoor Becomes situation.

First , there is the dynamic of door

(∀x) door(x) → [Open(passage)  ⊇ Close(barrier)](x)

As a category, a superset holds all the content above open,passage, close, barrier and more i.e., there is a cluster of information surrounding any Q-unit. To dynamically match an occurring situation categorically, the superset creates a subset to match the occurring situation.

Above, Door anticipates this dynamic as follows…
Being passage Becomes barrier.
The invariability of door is passage and the variability of door is barrier. Passage is the constant because of how the orientation of door aligns with space (and transitioning space).

(∀x) space(x) → [Infinite(void)  ⊇ Finite(between)](x)

Being Void(singular) = constant Becomes Between(multiple) = variable

Door is nested in Space.

Being Passage(singular) = constant Becomes Barrier(multiple) = variable
In a Q ontology, all Q-units must be able to nest in other Q-units.
The variable becomes something specific and therefor another constant is determined. The trap door variable may already exists in the superset cluster of door and will need to be teased out through the dynamic interaction with a situation.
It’s called a, Dynamic Procedural Process
So, what is the basic dynamic of a trapdoor in this case?
Define Trapdoor: a door flush with the surface of a floor, ceiling, or roof.
We are not looking for a complete Q-unit but a dynamic interaction with prior Q units.
Let’s do this in two different ways…
First way, let’s keep the modes the same in each frame.
The computer needs to process interactions between concepts based on the ontological history of the Q system in which it functions.
Door:[Open(passage)  ⊇ Close(barrier)]<find>[Open(barrier)  ⊇ Close(floor)]<find>[Open(floor)  ⊇ Close(access)]<find>[Open(access)] ⊇ Close(trapdoor)]<find>[Open(trapdoor)]<stop>
Second way, there is also a modal flux where the mode (or predicate) changes. This way requires more nested units to be established.
Door:[Open(passage)  ⊇ Close(barrier)]<find>[Accessible(barrier)  ⊇ Inaccessible(floor)]<find>[Accessible(floor) ⊇ Inaccessible(trapdoor)]<find>[Accessible(trapdoor)]<stop>
The Q-unit relates only to a dynamical context i.e., how specified terms fit a dynamic framework.
Notice how, in both ways, the subset subject becomes the superset subject of the next frame (frames are always in brackets). This is always the procedure and illustrates how nested units can become individuated systems i.e., trapdoor becomes its own cluster content and dynamical system based on prior systems

(∀x) trapdoor(x) → [Flush(passage)  ⊇ Surface(barrier: isa{ceiling, floor or roof})](x)

Is nested in…

  1. (∀x) Axiom(x) → [Potential(actual)  ⊇ Actual(potential)](x)
  2. (∀x) Topic(x) → [Expansive(subjective)  ⊇ Reductive(objective)](x)
  3. (∀x) space(x) → [Infinite(void)  ⊇ Finite(between)](x)
  4. (∀x) door(x) → [Open(passage)  ⊇ Close(barrier)](x)

Summary: Natural language is the best way to build a commonsense ontology. The benefit is that the public can easily participate. The challenge is reducing garbage in garbage out. I think the Q can do that. What is really cool with Q possibilities is this, by interacting with people and other systems it can learn to create its own commonsense conclusions by its dynamic interactions between its own concepts, and also the concepts of other systems. This illustrates a virtual system of inter-subjectivity for the normativity of concepts.


More information: Q Axiom Notes: