math question from the world of philosophy -- i shant a clue about much of calculus, and certainly not advanced math.

but visually, the geometry would make sense to a child if explained well. Anabelian 'stuff' is basically the production of unknown shape as a result of an enclosed shape in previous succession. sort of like -- you have a square; what comes next?

so my question reverts back to pre-calculus. functions with limits (holes?) could be determined in their entirety (filled in, plugged, whatever you want to call it) using this math that is understood by basically nobody. but logistically, does it make sense, or am i way off base?

I don't know whether this counts but in nature there are forms which appear to which the precursor displays no telling picture of the future form.

In the growth of a plant which proceeds from root to stem to leaf to flower to fruit and back to seed there is no precursor present within the previous organ of the plant, at each step.

By observing and studying the stem one could not glean the eruption of the leaf and likewise to flower, fruit and seed. Also, to use causality such that the stem is causal to the leaf which is causal to the flower, fruit..... is not compelling.

It appears that the process is "metamorphosis" , not causal but within the inner activity of the plant.

A picture of this is given by Goethe in his study of the plant kingdom with the idea of the "typus" or "archetypal behavior". On one occasion Goethe , in conversation with Schiller made clear that he, through thinking was able to enter into the realm of the plant kingdom and observe the "typus' in action. Schiller retorted "oh, that's just an idea" to which Goethe , "yes it is and as alive as you and I"(from memory and not exact).

The subtlety here is that the archetypal activity throughout the plant kingdom is the very activity or "idea" which manifests within each and every plant from the heavily laden swamp grass to the delicate alpine flower. Each plant is a fixed projection of this archetype producing here, and there, the individual plants.

This creative process is not the individual plant organs but is that which manifests the creative process within the plant kingdom ; responsible for the multifaceted varieties of the plant kingdom, but not able to be observed through modern microscopes, etc.., for its not there .

The plant will grow on the alpine slope or an everglades swamp , in fitting to its environment but the environment does not "form" or "create" the plant . To be clear when one dives into the lake the fact that one is wet does not conclude that the "wet" is causal or that the environment is causal; one is "wet", no more.

The only mathematics I'm familiar with that speaks to the plant kingdom is the Fibonacci number sequence which is more of a rhythmic appreciation of plant activity. As you said the mathematics(anebelian), at least now, is incongruous and I certainly am unable to grasp it but this( Goethe), is a picture of forms as in geometry, which can be considered mathematical, the mathematics of a dynamic in life.

i suspect there is a pattern relative to genetic sequencing that codes for standardized growth structure in sets of organisms. thanks for the cool reply btw, i have a book in my pile that discusses fibonacci.