A Mnemonic Framework for Understanding Communication Challenges

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 22 Dec 2025

Anthony Judge | Laetus in Praesens - TRANSCEND Media Service

AI Speculation on Use of the XYZ Axes Familiar from Basic Geometry and Mathematics

Introduction

There is no lack of recognition of the many issues with regard to information and fruitful communication. Reference is widely made to bitter disputes dividing groups, nations and even families. Science bemoans the inability of the world to take account of the facts that it presents with regard to the environment — despite the inability of any one discipline to accord relevance to the insights of another. This follows the pattern experienced by religions — with individual religions fundamentally unable to accord significance and respect to any other religion. Politics echoes the pattern, as evidenced by the problematic relations between political parties — each perceiving their opponents to be dangerously delusional. As might be expected, the situation is no better between those esteemed to be especially wise and well informed.

In this context, considerable importance is now given to misinformation and disinformation — however they may be distinguished (Towards a Science of Misinformation and Deception, 2021). Those skilled in communication are variously coopted into the challenge of persuasion, whether for marketing or political purposes. The arts of deception, long cultivated for military and strategic purposes, are now especially developed in crafting narratives in support of political worldviews. Where these are less than successful, there is considerable development of censorship — matched by major pressures ensuring the self-censorship of potential critics.

Curiously these dynamics are accompanied by a new focus on “evidence” and “fact-checking” despite the ambiguities with which both are now associated (Samuel Arbesman, The Half-life Of Facts: why everything we know has an expiration, date, ‎ 2012). The assumption is cultivated that information is either “true” or “false” — a binary perspective called into question by the pattern of 16 logical connectives on which artificial intelligence necessarily operates. Constraining any such complex appreciation now takes the form of a major fearful effort to regulate AI — but with little concernn as to how its facilities might enhance the quality of communication (Just War Theory as an inspiration for “Just AI Theory”? 2024). Despite the considerable reliance on statistics, there is little recognition that “truth” may be a matter of probability and context, as argued by Vasily Nalimov (Towards the Dynamic Art of Partial Comprehension, 2012). avoided.

Especially intriguing is the response to the presentation of “facts” — even those indicative of imminent and fatal catastrophe, as in the case of climate change and biodiversity loss. The disciplines presenting such facts have no interest in the perspective of the diciplines with some understanding of why they are neither more widely credible nor lead to any strategic uptake. This highlights a negelected feature of the scientific method (Knowledge Processes Neglected by Science, 2012). Curiously the pattern is even evident in the discipline esteemed as having the most sophisticated understanding of relationships, namely mathematics. This was notably exemplified by the reception of Sriviasa Ramanujan by mathematicians at Cambridge University — prior to his admission as a Fellow of the Royal Society.

Faced with the challenges of a polycrisis, one common response is that its complexities are too great to be appropriately comprehended — when other priorities are deemed more pressing. To the extent that this is recognized, it is framed as “cognitive load”. A typical response is simplification — assiduously cultivated in the media by “dumbing down” policies — with little consideration as to whether this constitutes dangerous oversimplification. The need to detect “weak signals” is avoided — except for specific security purposes (Elina Hiltunen, Good Sources of Weak Signals: a global study of where futurists look for weak signals, Journal of Futures Studies, 12, 2008, 4). Vital information is variously ignored by constituencies for whom it may be of relevance. Ironically ignoring the strong signals of science of strategic relevance is matched by the considerable preoccupation of science with the detection of faint signals indicative of extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) — primarily involving the scanning for radio and optical signals, difficult to distinguish from Earth-based interference and cosmic noise.

A case was previously made for a focus on “information diseases” (Memetic and Information Diseases in a Knowledge Society, 2008). The concern here is to reframe the communication challenge by a relatively simple and widely-known device, inspired by mathematics, namely the Cartesian coordinate system of three mutually orthogonal axes — x-y-z. If the x-axis is held to represent “explanation”, then larger “x” would indicate a more extensive communication (pages, video commentary, etc). If the y-axis represents some sense of “why”, then larger “y” would be more extensive clarification of philosophical or strategic implications — or relevance. The z-axis could then be used for a “meta-perspective”, with larger “z” representing abstraction of ever higher degree. The approach taken is to elicit commentary from several AIs on the implications of the method and its implications.

The AIs engaged for this purpose were Claude-4.5, ChatGPT-5, Perplexity, and DeepSeek. The particular value of AI input is a consequence of their training on information from a wide range of sources — each associated with individual disciplinary silos. It is not fully recognized that AIs constitute a means of navigating between information silos — navigation typically inhibited by the focus and practice of those disciplines, possibly to be caricatured as information “black holes”. AIs may thus be understood as offering a means of inter-silo communication which is otherwise unavailable. Ironically this is also a facility of value to communication between the 64 branches of mathematics identified by the Mathematics Subject Classification (Towards a periodic organization of the Mathematics Subject Classification, 2009). Faced with communication collapse, and collective and individual death, mathematics may well be an unexplored source of new insight (Mathematics of death and dying as an engagement with limits? 2024; Unexplored Potential of Mathematics and Geometry in reframing psycho-social challenges, 2008).

Commentary is sought below from AIs on the implications of the proposed x-y-z methodology on a surprising account of the difficulties of communication between branches of mathematics (Emily Riehl, Mathematics is hard for mathematicians to understand too, Science, 27 November 2025).. Commentary is similarly sought on the contrasting editorial policies of online encyclopedia datasets, namely Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential — in the light of challenging communication about Gaza (Rima Najjar, Provisional Bondi Beach Truths: containment, power, and the struggle to name Palestine on Wikipedia, Global Research, 17 December 2025). Wikipedia is shown to be constrained in reflecting information held to be controversial. The Encylopedia is designed to be especially attentive to reporting “weak signals”,

The AIs were encouraged to expand on the relevance to communication of mathematical insights into symmetry, as exemplified by the focus on polyhedra of Buckminster Fuller (***) — but which did not extend to communication itself or the potentially relevant insights associated with the symmetry preserving operations of the Conway Polyhedron Notation (Dialogue coherence through formalization of local symmetry-preserving operations, 2021). Further commentary on the implications of symmetry is elicited below on the potential relevance of the Mandelbrot set and the so-called Monster Group (Potential Psychosocial Significance of Monstrous Moonshine, 2007; Psycho-social Significance of the Mandelbrot Set: a sustainable boundary between chaos and order, 2005).

Given how communication challenges are exemplified in public discourse, and notably in conferences, of particular interest is how AIs might be adapted — in the light of the proposed x-y-z framework — to the enhancement of the quality of discourse in such environments — for which comments were elicited following previous explorations (Rethinking Cognition with AI for Higher-Dimensional Future Comprehension, 2025; Use of ChatGPT to Clarify Possibility of Dialogue of Higher Quality, 2023; Envisaging the AI-enhanced Future of the Conferencing Process, 2020)

TO CONTINUE READING Go to Original – laetusinpraesens.org

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

There are no comments so far.