Solution to the Munchhausen Trilemma

[Eodnhoj7]

Solution to the Munchhausen Trilemma:

1) The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other
2) The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
3) The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts


A is the cause. B is the effect. B is the cause of C and the effect of A.

B is an everpresent cause through A, hence B is A circling back upon itself effectually leading to the repeat of A through B.

A maintains itself through B and C while expanding ad-infinitum through further variables.

A is maintain through B as circular, hence maintains an axiomatic nature as infinitely circular.

A progresses through itself as B to C ad-infinitum; hence maintains an axiomatic nature as infinitely linear.

The self evident nature of the argument is founded upon its dual circular and linear form which is both absolutely constant (expanding circle is always circle) and relativistically changing (expanding circle changes relative to other circles).

The axiom is directive by nature.

[Necromancer]

One may want to consider Closure Principle as standard part of JTB by Plato as one defence of knowledge against the Trilemma.

Wikipedia, Closure Principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_closure

Version by Stanford Phil. Enc.: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/closure-epistemic/

Another approach is to say that the Trilemma is directly blown by Reductio ad absurdum because one has to deny any truthful relation in the World such as parenthood, geography, whole bodies of science, both by description and proofs, etc.

See also Protocol Sentence by Rudolph Carnap and Logical Positivism: https://www.britannica.com/topic/protocol-sentence

Further, The Tripartite Definition for Knowledge by Plato is a classical defence, giving "entities" in a coherent network firm grounding, with additional elaboration:
1 fact p
2 person a has 100% hunch of fact p
3 person a believes fact p
4 person a has 100% data-material to what he is looking for
5 person a has 100% investigation-data integrity or "fit" to what he is looking for
6 person a is justified, objectively, that fact p
(7) Conclusion: person a has knowledge

(The above points are general as much as a given logical structure of a deduction.)

The path to the definite knowledge also includes Scientific Method (HDM) and thus Closure Principle as well.

One version of The Tripartite Definition as program of elaboration: https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2 ... ology.html

As always in epistemology, the "weight" of given knowledge comes down to the plausibility point, some knowledge being very plausible and other knowledge being weaker in plausibility terms.

[Eodnhoj7]

One may want to consider Closure Principle as standard part of JTB by Plato as one defence of knowledge against the Trilemma.

Wikipedia, Closure Principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_closure

Version by Stanford Phil. Enc.: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/closure-epistemic/

Epistemic closure[1] is a property of some belief systems. It is the principle that if a subject S {\displaystyle S} S knows p {\displaystyle p} p, and S {\displaystyle S} S knows that p {\displaystyle p} p entails q {\displaystyle q} q, then S {\displaystyle S} S can thereby come to know q {\displaystyle q} q. Most epistemological theories involve a closure principle and many skeptical arguments assume a closure principle.

The closure principle is enclosed already within the above argument as "A" is known through "B" with "B" existing because of "A". The closure principle however observes the circular nature of P and Q and must still be open to a continual progression.




Another approach is to say that the Trilemma is directly blown by Reductio ad absurdum because one has to deny any truthful relation in the World such as parenthood, geography, whole bodies of science, both by description and proofs, etc.



Parenthood, geography and whole bodies of sciences are in a continual state of movement through an inherent multipicity where the person multiplies through further people, geographic states/countries multiplie/divide, and the sciences (as evidence in history) continually change. This continual changing from a unified phenomena through multiplication or division, observes change as a process of inversion where a continual reduction is a continual inversion until nothing is left. For example I may be of "x" lineage but if I continually reduce the linear I eventually and left with "everywhere" or "nowhere".

See also Protocol Sentence by Rudolph Carnap and Logical Positivism: https://www.britannica.com/topic/protocol-sentence

Further, The Tripartite Definition for Knowledge by Plato is a classical defence, giving "entities" in a coherent network firm grounding, with additional elaboration:
1 fact p
2 person a has 100% hunch of fact p
3 person a believes fact p
4 person a has 100% data-material to what he is looking for
5 person a has 100% investigation-data integrity or "fit" to what he is looking for
6 person a is justified, objectively, that fact p
(7) Conclusion: person a has knowledge

(The above points are general as much as a given logical structure of a deduction.)

All belief exists as a form of measurement where a strict structure is applied through the course of time. For example I believe the universe works in "x" manner. In turn I live and act through this belief system and effectively structure the world in me and through me by this belief system. Hence belief exists as a premise from which we measure reality.





The path to the definite knowledge also includes Scientific Method (HDM) and thus Closure Principle as well.

One version of The Tripartite Definition as program of elaboration: https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2 ... ology.html

As always in epistemology, the "weight" of given knowledge comes down to the plausibility point, some knowledge being very plausible and other knowledge being weaker in plausibility terms.

The "plausibility of point" still follows the same problems of the munchaussen trilemma:

1) Plausibility still requires a form of circularity in not just justification but also definition. Plausibility may be defined as "x" but "x" is defined as plausible.

2) This definition of Plausibility, however must continue on ad-infinitum if it is to exist progressively through time.

3) Plausibility must be kept as an axiom in its own self.

All knowledge exist both circular and linear, as an expanding circle and therefore we understand the nature of knowledge as having specific directional qualities in the respect it exists through a state of continual movement. Knowledge cannot be seperate from movement, as movement provides the boundaries through which we observe knowledge itself.

All movement, through linear and circular definition, is axiomatic considering this provides the boundaries of knowledge as knowledge. Knowledge exists through limit with knowledge being limit in itself.

This argument is self-maintained through circularity while open to progressive definition through time.

[TimeSeeker]

What am I missing here?

A is the cause. B is the effect.

a-cause-b.png (1.08 KiB) Viewed 3737 times

B is the cause of C ...

b-cause-c.png (1.09 KiB) Viewed 3737 times

and the effect of A.

export.png (1.4 KiB) Viewed 3737 times

[Eodnhoj7]

What am I missing here?

A is the cause. B is the effect.

a-cause-b.png

B is the cause of C ...

b-cause-c.png

and the effect of A.

export.png

1) A → (A,A)B

2) (A ← (A,A)B)C ∵ B ∋ A

3) ((A,A)B → (A,A)B)D ∵ B ∋ A

1(1,2,3)) ((A,A)B → (A,A,A)C → (A,A,A,A)D)I ∵ (B,C,D) ∋ A


4) A ↔ ((A → A)= (A ⇆ A) = (A⟲) = (A = ⟲))

5) ((A → A)= (A ⇆ A) = (A⟲) = (A = ⟲)) = ⟨A⟲|(A → A)⟩ ∴ A ↔ ⟨"⟲"|"→")⟩

6) A = 1 and 0 where A,1,0 are point space as the foundations of quantity and quality.

1 = 0

https://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffile ... .1-8.shtml

where this equation observes point space as both 0 dimensional and 1 dimensional in theory.

The point, line and circle are the foundations for all logic, religion, math, quantity, quality, everything. It goes back to the presocratic/socratic/post-socratic notion of the "Monad(s)". Reason is a religion and the truest religion that exists.

[TimeSeeker]

What am I missing here?

A is the cause. B is the effect.

a-cause-b.png

B is the cause of C ...

b-cause-c.png

and the effect of A.

export.png

1) A → (A,A)B

2) (A ← (A,A)B)C ∵ B ∋ A

3) ((A,A)B → (A,A)B)D ∵ B ∋ A

1(1,2,3)) ((A,A)B → (A,A,A)C → (A,A,A,A)D)I ∵ (B,C,D) ∋ A


4) A ↔ ((A → A)= (A ⇆ A) = (A⟲) = (A = ⟲))

5) ((A → A)= (A ⇆ A) = (A⟲) = (A = ⟲)) = ⟨A⟲|(A → A)⟩ ∴ A ↔ ⟨"⟲"|"→")⟩

6) A = 1 and 0 where A,1,0 are point space as the foundations of quantity and quality.

1 = 0

https://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffile ... .1-8.shtml

where this equation observes point space as both 0 dimensional and 1 dimensional in theory.

The point, line and circle are the foundations for all logic, religion, math, quantity, quality, everything. It goes back to the presocratic/socratic/post-socratic notion of the "Monad(s)". Reason is a religion and the truest religion that exists.

Help me parse the grammar and model it in modal temporal logic (e.g turn it into an algorithm) and we can see what happens.For example this doesn't make sense to me: A → (A,A)B

What is (A,A) ?
What is A -> (A,A)?

If A is in constant state of flux then it's a dynamic (temporal) system. To represent it with a symbol is to claim it has clear bounds. Reality has the nasty habit of refusing to fit into boxes...

[Eodnhoj7]

What am I missing here?


a-cause-b.png


b-cause-c.png



export.png

1) A → (A,A)B

2) (A ← (A,A)B)C ∵ B ∋ A

3) ((A,A)B → (A,A)B)D ∵ B ∋ A

1(1,2,3)) ((A,A)B → (A,A,A)C → (A,A,A,A)D)I ∵ (B,C,D) ∋ A


4) A ↔ ((A → A)= (A ⇆ A) = (A⟲) = (A = ⟲))

5) ((A → A)= (A ⇆ A) = (A⟲) = (A = ⟲)) = ⟨A⟲|(A → A)⟩ ∴ A ↔ ⟨"⟲"|"→")⟩

6) A = 1 and 0 where A,1,0 are point space as the foundations of quantity and quality.

1 = 0

https://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffile ... .1-8.shtml

where this equation observes point space as both 0 dimensional and 1 dimensional in theory.

The point, line and circle are the foundations for all logic, religion, math, quantity, quality, everything. It goes back to the presocratic/socratic/post-socratic notion of the "Monad(s)". Reason is a religion and the truest religion that exists.

Help me parse the grammar and model it in modal temporal logic (e.g turn it into an algorithm) and we can see what happens.For example this doesn't make sense to me: A → (A,A)B

What is (A,A) ?
What is A -> (A,A)?

If A is in constant state of flux then it's a dynamic (temporal) system. To represent it with a symbol is to claim it has clear bounds. Reality has the nasty habit of refusing to fit into boxes...

The premise of standard math/logic is the problem. Here is why.

Flux and form are inseperable, hence flux and form replicate further flux and form, where the repitition of flux and form is flux and form. All statements exist as truth statements if they are self referentiality, with this self referentiality being open to progress.

If a cause is directed to effect, an effect is a cause, the cause is directed through itself as an effect.

"A" cannot exist without "->" and "->" cannot exist without "A". Hence while A directed to A always results in A as maintained as a self referential axiom it results in B as the observation of this self referentiality.

B in turn is open to further progress of self referentiality, B directed to B, because it it exists through A with A being self referential. This results in D where D is a form and function of B self refencing through A as self referencing.

A directed to B observes A directed to itself where the repitition of A results in B. B is the form and function of A.

Simultaneously, as A self referencing, B as A is directed back to A as C. C is A self referencing through B with B being an obersation of A self referencing.

Self referencing, intradimensionally, or "reflection" (all synonyms) is form and function.

So the foundation axiom is form/function resulting in further form/function with form/function being the proof and answer as a symmetrical structure.

All proof as form/functions are approximations of a form function. In short terms all answers as approximations are random because the premise is a random. However while the form/function is random, it's corresponding form/function is not. So while all proofs are effectively random, they are ordered, structured, and rational through a self referentiality.

The progressive nature that this form/function resulting in form function takes into account the randomness as this approximation, inherent within all answers

For example 1+2=3 is an approximation of 3 considering 3 = (infinite form/functions).

Example:

3 = 4-1,5-2,6-3...

3= 3-1+1-1, 5-2+2-2, 6-3+3-3...

With these progressing ad infinitum and not including further arithmetic functions.

So 1+2, while true because as a form function (+1 and +2 directed to eachother) its exists through the form function of +3, but is random considering 1+2 is an approximation of the infinite form functions that exist through the form function of 3.

So all form/functions are simultaneously random as approximations of a great form function, while inherently true as extensions of the form function through their nature.


The mirror theory two thread, in the math logic section, observes this from a quantitiatve angle. The number line is actually a function as well.

Because of this premise of form/function as true, and for everything I understand of logic separates form and function, a new but very simple language had to be created. The language is justified through itself as strictly directed movement where the line/circular directions of the numbers are axioms. Number is movement and direction as a form/function.

[Eodnhoj7]

One may want to consider Closure Principle as standard part of JTB by Plato as one defence of knowledge against the Trilemma.

Wikipedia, Closure Principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_closure

Version by Stanford Phil. Enc.: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/closure-epistemic/

Another approach is to say that the Trilemma is directly blown by Reductio ad absurdum because one has to deny any truthful relation in the World such as parenthood, geography, whole bodies of science, both by description and proofs, etc.

See also Protocol Sentence by Rudolph Carnap and Logical Positivism: https://www.britannica.com/topic/protocol-sentence

Further, The Tripartite Definition for Knowledge by Plato is a classical defence, giving "entities" in a coherent network firm grounding, with additional elaboration:
1 fact p
2 person a has 100% hunch of fact p
3 person a believes fact p
4 person a has 100% data-material to what he is looking for
5 person a has 100% investigation-data integrity or "fit" to what he is looking for
6 person a is justified, objectively, that fact p
(7) Conclusion: person a has knowledge

(The above points are general as much as a given logical structure of a deduction.)

The path to the definite knowledge also includes Scientific Method (HDM) and thus Closure Principle as well.

One version of The Tripartite Definition as program of elaboration: https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2 ... ology.html

As always in epistemology, the "weight" of given knowledge comes down to the plausibility point, some knowledge being very plausible and other knowledge being weaker in plausibility terms.

Upon further reading, I see where you are going and it is a proof, but this proof must be explained in further terms of self referentiality and progression.

[TimeSeeker]

1 fact p
2 person a has 100% hunch of fact p

Luck? Dice Roll. Fine

3 person a believes fact p

Hypothesis p. Still requires empirical testing/verification.

4 person a has 100% data-material to what he is looking for
5 person a has 100% investigation-data integrity or "fit" to what he is looking for

Data? You mean fact Q ?

Also - a 100% fit requires a Theory of everything.
Also - a 100% fit violates falsifiability.

6 person a is justified, objectively, that fact p

So P is justified through Q ?

(7) Conclusion: person a has knowledge

Invalid conclusion. Person has knowledge of P based on evidence Q.

How did you acquire knowledge of Q?

The path to the definite knowledge also includes Scientific Method (HDM) and thus Closure Principle as well.

Except for those pesky SI units which are unjustified (read: made up) time and mass

[TimeSeeker]

The premise of standard math/logic is the problem. Here is why.

Then abandon the standard premises and construct your own grammar.

Flux and form are inseperable,

They are... This is the physics distinction between waves and particles. A wave is continuous a particle is discrete in respect to time.

"A" cannot exist without "->" and "->" cannot exist without "A".

A self-sustaining causal factor without a cause. First Cause? God? Or The Universe?

"A" cannot exist without "->" and "->" cannot exist without "A". Hence while A directed to A always results in A as maintained as a self referential axiom it results in B as the observation of this self referentiality.

You've fooled yourself because you are using "→" in a duplicit way. → is a transfer function. A black box. A mathematical function

f(x) = y

So when you say A → (A,A). f(A) = 2A

This violates energy conservation laws in physics.

3 = 4-1,5-2,6-3...

3= 3-1+1-1, 5-2+2-2, 6-3+3-3...

So... A is the Universe? B and C are things WITHIN the universe Turtles all the way down

[Eodnhoj7]

The premise of standard math/logic is the problem. Here is why.

Then abandon the standard premises and construct your own grammar.

Mirror function thread two, old version but approximate of current model with 95 percent.

Flux and form are inseperable,

They are... This is the physics distinction between waves and particles. A wave is continuous a particle is discrete in respect to time.

You are correct and I am aware, the particle wave dualism thread as time zones within timezones in the science section observes this...And more... where each wave relative to other waves is a particle. The particle and wave are symmetrical duals, two side of the same coin of "directed movement".

"A" cannot exist without "->" and "->" cannot exist without "A".

A self-sustaining causal factor without a cause. First Cause? God? Or The Universe?

Its self sustenance, self referentiality, is cause as all cause stems from and exists through structure, with structure being both form and function. The cause must be observed through a form which is simultaneously a function. A as self refential, circular through is self directed linear nature, equates A as simultaneously a point of Origin.

A as form and function is not just cause, as structural, but reflects further cause (b,c,d) through itself as itself where (b,c,d) as accuses are still extensions of A as approximations of it.

"A" cannot exist without "->" and "->" cannot exist without "A". Hence while A directed to A always results in A as maintained as a self referential axiom it results in B as the observation of this self referentiality.

You've fooled yourself because you are using "→" in a duplicit way. → is a transfer function. A black box. A mathematical function

f(x) = y

So when you say A → (A,A). f(A) = 2A

This violates energy conservation laws in physics.

Not really because a black box must progress to further black boxes. The black box is defined by repitition and exists as a continuum in time.

1) Its input, with the output as a further input observes the black box existing through the repitition of a symmetrical input. The effectual input is an extension of the causal input, so that the input is maintained by a progressive cycle. Input and black box are one, where the black box and input effectively replicate from prior a input/black box.

1a. The black box repeats as formless through the input, the repitition of one input to another observes an approximation where while the prior input is of value x, and the resulting output (as an input) appears different. The output (as a relative input) is an approximation of the input where the input effectively maintains itself through variation as the output. This self maintainance through variation observes the input output dualism as not just a change but effectively extensions of eachother where the input exists through change as the output. The input is self referential by changing itself through itself with the black box effectively being the change of the input that is inseparable from the input.

2) Its output, with the input as a further output observes the black box existing through a repitition of symmetrical output. The effectual output is an extension of the causal output, so that the output is also maintained (like the input) by a progressive cycle. The out put and the black both are one, following the same form and function as the input and black box, the output/black box effectively replicate.

2a. Symmetrical to point 1a.


3) The input and output, where relatively all inputs are outputs and all outputs are inputs, are symmetrical duals. The black box is effectively a point of inversion, or function, where the input and output are dual forms through the black box as existing through the black box.

4) The input and output are inseperable from the blackbox, so the proof is merely a dualistic symmetry between the input and output, with the black box beong the inseparable element inherent within both as a point of origin in one respect. And as a point of origin, this term applies, considering its inversive properties mirror that of a 0d point or void as inversion.

5) The black box as inversive formlessness causing the input to invert into another input, causes the black box as formless to take on a form through its continual repitition along a time line where the input/output relatively invert into a formless nature in themselves due to a constant variation in a continuum where they change but the repetition of the black box effectively makes it a constant. The black box becomes a constant and the input/output act as formless black boxes in themselves causing the black box to take form through repitition as "the black box".

6. This input, exists through the output as an extension of the input, where the input and out put exist as one progressive cycle.

The black box continually cycles itself into further black boxes under a continual progressive cycle.

The black box and input/output(as input) exist as a progressively circular proof where this existence is proof, as they maintain a symmetry that acts as proof.

The black box and input are inseparable, and exist as one self sustained loop where variation through the output is the random element of the input being canceled out. And the input is random in the respect it is an approximation of some prior structure.

In short terms it is a rational structure, the input/black box, when viewed as a proof in itself.

All proof is structure and all structure is symmetry. All symmetry is repitition. Base repitition begins with self referentiality that is open to expansion where this expansion is strictly a mirroring of no form into form where the formless (in self referencing) cancels itself out into form with all form maintaining itself through this self canceling process.



7. Actually it does not violate the laws, but rather transcends them. The laws of physics are maintained, as the laws of physics are premised in a relativism where the laws relative to any conversation of energy necessitate a cycling nature within them as well as a progressive expansion of space (which we can observe in physics right now). The thread about "the wheel and the road" in the metaphysics section observes space as created and inherently logical. We assume the laws due not cycle, but they can only exist as true if they do.

Going back to the black box, as I have thread in the physics section addressing this already (as well as a few other posters), if we go back to point 6 and observe the black box as a constant, where the black box is effectively is the origin point of all inputs and inputs as outputs (again all output are inputs through there directional capacity towards the black box), the input is strictly a connector between multiple black boxes.

So the black box can effectively, as a point of origin where everything exists through it as it, can be inverted into a metaphorical "white box" where all inputs and outputs are mere connectors as the approximation of many "white boxes".

In regards to "->" it in itself is subject to its own nature. A -> B where A is cause and B is effect as an extension of cause and there for a cause in itself. "->" observes a continuum (as self direction in this case) where it is composed of further continuum. This can be observed in a cause directed to further cause (effect) composed of further causes/effects with this sub continuum composed of other continuums...So on and so forth as a continuum in itself which cycles back to "->". "->" is composed of infinite "->" as "->", hence "->" alone is its own proof existing through further proofs of A,B,C... . Proof replicates proof and this is proof.

3 = 4-1,5-2,6-3...

3= 3-1+1-1, 5-2+2-2, 6-3+3-3...

So... A is the Universe? B and C are things WITHIN the universe Turtles all the way down

A as the universe where A exists through B and C, with B and C existing as universes, observes the universe as both one and many as perpetual movement.

This goes back to the question of unity.

Quantitatively 1 is unity and units where 1 exists as a perpetual function.

1 has a tri-fold nature.

The nature of 1 as a function can be observed through addition, multiplication and powers where these exist continually through one (All these functions are constants through an infinite series of numbers with these functions as never changing through the infinite series as 1 with all numbers existing through 1 as one number in themselves).

Addition observes 1 as unifying positive state. Addition is the origin of arithmetic as a positive.

Multiplication observes 1 as unities approximate to unities as a unity. Multiplication is the defining element of arithmetic as the relation of unities.

Powers observe unity as relation with another unity as relation observing a circular maintaining nature of "n" where is cycles through itself.

[TimeSeeker]

Mirror function thread two, old version but approximate of current model with 95 percent.

Mirror function in maths is f(x) = -x

Not really because a black box must progress to further black boxes. The black box is defined by repitition and exists as a continuum in time.

Yes time-series. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_series . And so your mirror function is simply an oscillator https://anaconda.org/TimeSeeker/mirror- ... n/notebook

Or if you don't want it quantized - it's a sine function.

Actually it does not violate the laws, but rather transcends them. The laws of physics are maintained, as the laws of physics are premised in a relativism where the laws relative to any conversation of energy necessitate a cycling nature within them as well as a progressive expansion of space (which we can observe in physics right now). The thread about "the wheel and the road" in the metaphysics section observes space as created and inherently logical. We assume the laws due not cycle, but they can only exist as true if they do.

Metaphysics is theoretical physics. It's untestable. Like string theory.

[Eodnhoj7]

Mirror function thread two, old version but approximate of current model with 95 percent.

Mirror function in maths is f(x) = -x

The name is still being determined. Mirror arithmetic, mirror calculus, etc. to avoid confusion. It gives the general set up except does not observe each positive number is a point, and each negative number is a line. Geometric quantities (where drippings, quad points,
Penta points, etc. are the foundation for number etc.

Not really because a black box must progress to further black boxes. The black box is defined by repitition and exists as a continuum in time.

Yes time-series. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_series . And so your mirror function is simply an oscillator https://anaconda.org/TimeSeeker/mirror- ... n/notebook

So is this original or what exactly? Regardless, due to the geometric table, the function is conducive to a directive line. I argue this in the 1 as a function thread in the math section, as well as 1 as linear space in another.

It appears we are on similar pages.



Or if you don't want it quantized - it's a sine function.

Not only, because it gives premise to the number line, spatial axioms as directed movement, numbers replicating into sets, fractals as geometric shapes, etc.

All numbers as directed movements would have to have corresponding geometric shapes where addition, multiplication, and powers (and dual negative functions) translate to geometric forms as well considering the number and function are inseparable.

The number must be both function and form as geometric figures. However this would require the geometric form too be defined as a quantity and not just a quality, with these quantities defined through point space as the origin of the figure rather than standard lines/laterals.

The number is both form and function. The form/function premise of...mirror calculus (was what I had in mind last night)...observes all replications of a form function as an inherent extension of the original form function where replication occurs.

I am hesitant to argue it is strictly a numerical oscilator when the numbers as form functions in themselves are oscillations.

Number is oscillating space.

I am working on updates and these updates to mirror calculus would necessitate what would be called a mirror number (similar to the basic Pythagorean concept of number existing through reflection). The mirror number would exist solely as a directive quality and contain all element of addition, multiplication and powers within a positive mirror number (subtraction, division, root) where these functions are inherent within the number resulting in further mirror numbers.

Actually it does not violate the laws, but rather transcends them. The laws of physics are maintained, as the laws of physics are premised in a relativism where the laws relative to any conversation of energy necessitate a cycling nature within them as well as a progressive expansion of space (which we can observe in physics right now).

The thread about "the wheel and the road" in the metaphysics section observes space as created and inherently logical. We assume the laws due not cycle, but they can only exist as true if they do.

One axiom of the law of conversation is that all localizations (a structure of the universe that extends from the universe) maintain there energy. This necessitates a form of circularity as a form of empirical self referencing.

Metaphysics is theoretical physics. It's untestable. Like string theory.

All tests are random, as while x/Y may be the probability of one test but there is no probability that determines the test. The framework of the test is subject to not just the individual but those determining the funding as well.

The question is relegated to what is the nature of the test and it is strictly a framework which can be replicated with the results being replicated. It is an observation of symmetry, so to speak, which determines the truth. In these respects all empirical testing is a form of reflection where a test exist through results which exists through further tests where the test effectively reflects itself in different variations but as a constant.

Empiricism as test through test, reflects metaphysics as being through being. Metaphysics as an act of reflection is strictly a science of recursion and is inherent within all abstract and physical degrees of the human experience.

The test, as fundamentally a human experience is really a reflection of not just the world but how we perceive ourselves and in these respects is a projection of how humans see the environment around them.

The truth, according to the test, is determined by where it reflects with the test. The test, as a framework, is the construction of what we understand.

Hence the results actually determine the test where what we deem as probabilistic in a framework determines the framework as probabalistic itself in the respect that the framework exists according to probability. The framework cannot exist, except through what it contains, hence what is contained is an element of the nature of the framework.