Foundations of Synthesis As Absolute Truth and Relativistic Truth

[Eodnhoj7]

The foundations of synthesis result from an inherent underlying symmetry inherent within all phenomenon, relative to there individual contexts as well as certain universal symmetries that extend across the "whole" of being.

1. All phenomenon synthesize; hence all phenomenon are not just synthetic in nature but synthesis "is" the phenomenon itself.

ex: 1 in a particulate state may effectively join itself to itself as 2, but this act of synthesis is still 1: 1(2), 1(3), 1(4), etc. Another may be sexual pair bonding of male and female observed under the "child" or "marriage/coupling". Another may be Capitalism and Communism as Nazism. Etc.

2. Synthesis is both the form and function of convergence and divergence; hence synthesis is both convergence/divergence.

ex: 1 may diverge to 1 and 1, while simultaneously joining as 2. The process of divergence maintains a simultaneous convergence, and vice versa relative to the context with context itself being subject to the same laws.

Context A: 1 diverges to 1 and 1.
Context B: observes context A as 2 through convergence
Context C: 2(1) observes context A and B as converging while 2,1 may observe context A and B as divergent. Each number, and number as a group, respectively is synthetic as a process of convergence/divergence in themselves

Context A: Child diverges from mother and father
Context B: Family as context A through convergence
Context C: Family(Father, Mother, Child) observes context A and B as converging while Family,Father,Mother,Child observe Contexts A and B as diverging. Each "class", and "group of classes" respectively is synthetic as a process of convergence/divergence in themselves.

Therefore:

Context A: Axiom A diverges to Axioms B and C with "⏅" observing intuitively the "top" of the triangle as unity directed to a
base of multiplicity: A ⏅ (B,C). This can be observed synonymously to the "or" "⋁" logical connective where the base of the symbol, representing "unity" moves "upward" to a state of divergence.

Context B: Axiom B and C converge dually to Axiom A with "⏄" observing intuitively the "bottom" of the triangle as multiplicity directed toward a base of unity: (B,C) ⏄ A. This can be observed synonymously to the "and" "⋀" logical connective where the base of the symbol, representing "multiplicity" moves "upwards" to a state of convergence.

Context C: Axioms (A,B,C) all exist through a process of simultaneous convergence/divergence from a third context with "⊤" observing intuitively the joining of isomorphic properties as "synthesis" in and of itself: ⊤(A,B,C). This can be observed as simultaneous "and/or" logical connectives.

All phenomenon exists as convergence/divergence; hence all phenonmenon are both form/function.
⊤(A,(B,C)) → ⊤(A ⏅ (B,C) , (B,C) ⏄ A)

And "synthesis" is subject to synthesis recursively as a cause and effect (approximation of a cause as a cause in itself through the cause) paradigm.
Synthesis is "deterministic" in nature due to its repetition of convergence/divergence as a structure; and as recursive cycles the same symmetry which is the foundation for determinism. "⊜" as both an "equal" sign and "circle" sign observes equivalent as a cycle. This circular nature is the foundation for "absolute" axioms

⊤(x) ⊜ ⊤(x1)


Dually Synthesis "acausal" in nature due to its inversive/isomorphic properties where one axiom inverts to a similar axiom. "→" observes "directed away from its origins, through its origins" thus necessitating an inherently "isomorphic" property due to a projection away from one origin effectively resulting in a similiar phenomenon. This progressive nature is the foundation for "relativistic" axioms.

⊤(x) → ⊤(x1)


3. The convergence of one phenomena to (an)other phenomenon(s) requires an isomorphic symmetry between the phenomena.
ex: 1 diverges to (1,1) = 1(2). The nature of 1 joining to 1 observes 1 as having a common symmetry though it is inherently seperate. The isomorphism occurs, where 1 as "unity" effectively is observed as 1 as "many", with unity/many having fundamentally similar properties to the other.

This isomorphic symmetry does not have to exist within the entirety of the phenomena, as the phenomena itself, but inherently within parts/elements of the phenomena. For example Axiom A and Axiom B are variations of eachother, and as variation contain elements of assymetry to one another. However Axiom A may contain elements of Isomorphic symmetry to Axiom B (using base sexuality of organism's can be a common natural example) that effectively allows a joining.

ex: 3 does not equal 4 in the context of this example, nor standard arithmetic. However 4 and 3 share a base element of being composed of "1", hence can "join" as 7,12,64,81 because of the common element of 1.

This isomorphic symmetry, for examples sake will be observed as "A>" (active/projective) and "P>" (passive/receptive), observes the inversion of one space to another. A child may observe "A>" as a cube and "P>" as the hole in which to put the cube in within a board, but this inversion observes a distinct separation of the board from the cube. Isomorophism observes an inherent process of inversion and is the foundation for relativity, as observed in point 2, where the "cube" and "board" are parts of eachother. The recursive properties of the cube and board, as structures that exist through eachother, can be observed under the common quality of "wood" which effectively is the underlying causal median of the board and cube as a structure.

This symmetry effectively observes a replication of certain common parts/elements, percieved in distinctly seperate and various phenomenon, as having a common bond across not just a set of phenomenon but all phenomenon themselves.

[Logik]

The symmetry is an illusion. Reality is asymmetric.

It is this discrepancy between symmetrical expectations and empirical observation that is colloquially known as falsification.

It is this asymmetry which allows information to flow. Akin to an osmotic gradient.

If the quantity of information in your head was symmetric with the quantity in reality - you would never learn anything new.

Falsification is surprise.

Surprise that your symmetrical model doesn’t work.

[Eodnhoj7]

The symmetry is an illusion. Reality is asymmetric.

Symmetry and asymmetric are the grounding base of all processes of measurement. To argue one, or the other is an "illusion" is to effectively state certain properties of measurement are illusions in and of themselves.



It is this discrepancy between symmetrical expectations and empirical observation that is colloquially known as falsification.

Falsification occurs between abstract/abstract and empirical/empirical phenomena as well:

1. The incomplete nature of an equation,
2. One empirical sense (observing a stick bent in water) incongruent to another (feeling the stick is straight in the water)
3. Falsifcation is dependent upon definitions not aligning with other definitions, but the definitions themselves always contain some degree of symmetry as the replication of parts. The number composing the equation always contains a replication of certain quantities of other numbers (always 1) and the stick in the water appearing "curved" replicates curvature found elsewhere in nature.

It is this asymmetry which allows information to flow. Akin to an osmotic gradient.

That is where you are projecting an inherent contradiction, as this "flow" is rooted in both a wavelength or a linear form/function composed of further linear/form functions.

Assymetical linear projection is composed of fractal/fraction lines and as such, only observes that the line is symmetrical in and of itself while observing its existing between two points, all of which have a center point, as inevitable.

You can try to escape symmetry, but it won't do you any good.



If the quantity of information in your head was symmetric with the quantity in reality - you would never learn anything new.

False, because space as the foundation of being; and being infinite in nature, is both composed of and composes infinite axioms as it is axiomatic in itself.

Falsification is surprise.

Surprise that your symmetrical model doesn’t work.


Don't project your perspective failed model on other's.

[Logik]

You can try to escape symmetry, but it won't do you any good.

I can say the exact same thing about asymmetry. And we are stuck at an impasse.

Unresolvable axiomatic disagreement.

[Eodnhoj7]

You can try to escape symmetry, but it won't do you any good.

I can say the exact same thing about asymmetry. And we are stuck at an impasse.

Unresolvable axiomatic disagreement.

You are stuck at an impass, as the premise is that synthesis is a grounding in the convergence and divergence of absolute and relative truth and necessitates a sense of "unity" effectively existing through "multiplicity" and vice versa. Asymmetry and Symmetry exist simultaneously without contradiction when necessitating a triadic structure where all phenomenon are inherently center-points in and of themselves.

You cannot argue one without the other; hence both exist simultaneously.

To argue a rise in assymetry, results in a symmetry within observing the change in assymetrical values.

To argue a rise in symmetry, results in an asymmetric view of symmetry.

Both exist through eachother; the dichotomy is an illusion as absence of truth but truth nonetheless.

[Logik]

You are stuck at an impass, as the premise is that synthesis is a grounding in the convergence and divergence of absolute and relative truth and necessitates a sense of "unity" effectively existing through "multiplicity" and vice versa. Asymmetry and Symmetry exist simultaneously without contradiction when necessitating a triadic structure where all phenomenon are inherently center-points in and of themselves.

You cannot argue one without the other; hence both exist simultaneously.

To argue a rise in assymetry, results in a symmetry within observing the change in assymetrical values.

To argue a rise in symmetry, results in an asymmetric view of symmetry.

Both exist through eachother; the dichotomy is an illusion as absence of truth but truth nonetheless.

How can synthesis be grounding when reduction is the opposite of synthesis?

You've hit the rock-bottom of foundationalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitism

[Eodnhoj7]

You are stuck at an impass, as the premise is that synthesis is a grounding in the convergence and divergence of absolute and relative truth and necessitates a sense of "unity" effectively existing through "multiplicity" and vice versa. Asymmetry and Symmetry exist simultaneously without contradiction when necessitating a triadic structure where all phenomenon are inherently center-points in and of themselves.

You cannot argue one without the other; hence both exist simultaneously.

To argue a rise in assymetry, results in a symmetry within observing the change in assymetrical values.

To argue a rise in symmetry, results in an asymmetric view of symmetry.

Both exist through eachother; the dichotomy is an illusion as absence of truth but truth nonetheless.

How can synthesis be grounding when reduction is the opposite of synthesis?

You've hit the rock-bottom of foundationalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitism

reduction is divergence, induction is convergence, the terms "reduction and induction" are subject to variations of divergence/convergence in and of themselves and as such synthesis observes foundationationalism grounded in coherentism and vice verse as synthetic attributes of this same self-referencing law.

I have not hit rock bottom, as there is not bottom to a center point.

Give up...you are just pushing gibberish...or don't...I don't care either way.

[Logik]

reduction is divergence, induction is convergence

That's not my paradigm.

My paradigm is reduction <-> synthesis on a continuum. Systems theory. Both are tools for understanding the whole.

They are both useful and necessary towards "understanding".

I have not hit rock bottom, as there is not bottom to a center point.

I thought you are the one who claims that all points are made up of infinite other points. So what is this center-point you are speaking of?

It was there... but if you care to zoom in you'll notice that... Oh WAIT. This point is made up of INFINITE other points.

Sucks to be you. Just as you thought you found some foundation - it vanished. By reduction.

Keep going deeper into the abyss. Maybe you'll get bored. Maybe you won't.

[Eodnhoj7]

reduction is divergence, induction is convergence

That's not my paradigm.

My paradigm is reduction <-> synthesis on a continuum. Systems theory. Both are tools for understanding the whole.

They are both useful and necessary towards "understanding".

But you reject infinitism, so this "continuum" you are talking about...doesn't really exist.

I have not hit rock bottom, as there is not bottom to a center point.

I thought you are the one who claims that all points are made up of infinite other points. So what is this center-point you are speaking of?

It was there... but if you care to zoom in you'll notice that... Oh WAIT. This point is made up of INFINITE other points.


It is simple, existence is its own proof reality does not need changed...and any ideological movement which seeks to change it creates the enemy which will kill the movement.

Sucks to be you. Just as you thought you found some foundation - it vanished. By reduction.

Reduction, as a process of divergence as well as the definitions of "reduction" existing through a process of divergence, is a foundation. That is what you don't understand, the laws exist as they are...you are not really "doing" anything that is not are has not been done already.

Suck to be you, you have no foundation or coherent response that does not entropy in accords to your own premise.

Face it, computer programming is just a sped of form of entropic change...it does not provide anything of qualitative value...just quantitative value.

Keep going deeper into the abyss. Maybe you'll get bored. Maybe you won't.

Even abyss is a neutral term observing good and bad elements...

[Logik]

But you reject infinitism, so this "continuum" you are talking about...doesn't really exist.

I have conceptualised it - therefore it exists.
It's bounded. Good and evil. 1 and 0. Existence and non-existence.
I manifest my thoughts into being through action.

It works - therefore it is useful.

It is simple, existence is its own proof reality does not need changed...and any ideological movement which seeks to change it creates the enemy which will kill the movement.

Small-minded ape. Your existence is temporary and pure luck! Reality has bigger plans than keeping you alive.

Look at the jelly fish! No brains - no reason - no symbols. Sure outlived everything else on Earth.

Suck to be you, you have no foundation or coherent response that does not entropy in accords to your own premise.

As a foundationalist, how would you even know what coherence is?

My own premise is grounded in Darwinian truth. That which maximises our chances of survival is moral and good.

That which leads to your own extinction - well. Nature thanks you for selecting yourself out...

[Eodnhoj7]

But you reject infinitism, so this "continuum" you are talking about...doesn't really exist.

I have conceptualised it - therefore it exists.
It's bounded. Good and evil. 1 and 0. Existence and non-existence.
I manifest my thoughts into being through action.

It works - therefore it is useful.


And I am tearing all your logic apart...hence your use...creating a law to avoid that entropy.

It is simple, existence is its own proof reality does not need changed...and any ideological movement which seeks to change it creates the enemy which will kill the movement.

Small-minded ape. Your existence is temporary and pure luck! Reality has bigger plans than keeping you alive.

Look at the jelly fish! No brains - no reason - no symbols. Sure outlived everything else on Earth.


Ahh...someone is being reduced to ad-hominums. ROFL!!! Remember, you have not choice but to entropy in accords to your own values.


Actually there is no proof it is temporary if the elements that compose me are continually recycled or exist as part of a higher continuum. "Luck?" I don't need it as luck effectively is just a constant state of probablism; necessitating the human condition goes on through higher laws of reason.

The very nature of measurement grounded in a continuum, with the human consciousness existing in accords through that continuum through the very process of socratic reflection itself, necessitating humanity is a continuum and death may not be as big as a problem as we make it out to be.

Suck to be you, you have no foundation or coherent response that does not entropy in accords to your own premise.

As a foundationalist, how would you even know what coherence is?

My own premise is grounded in Darwinian truth. That which maximises our chances of survival is moral and good.


"Darwinian Truth?" ROFL!!! It is still a theory, adaption is strictly a linear progressive element defined by the laws of space itself.

You want to "maximise" survival...but all of us are going to effectively die in one form or another anyhow. Computer programming is just a masturbatory version of wannabe philosophy. I mean you can do it all you want, but it isn't going to solve the larger problems you are setting out to overcome.




That which leads to your own extinction - well. Nature thanks you for selecting yourself out...


So you support genocide?

[Logik]

And I am tearing all your logic apart...hence your use...creating a law to avoid that entropy.

Are you? By what criteria for "tearing apart"? All the things I've built are still there. Your computer still works...

Ahh...someone is being reduced to ad-hominums. ROFL!!! Remember, you have not choice but to entropy in accords to your own values.

Ad-hominem? No. I reject your value-system. It's destructive not constructive.
You don't understand my own values, so you are just arguing against a strawman.

Actually there is no proof it is temporary if the elements that compose me are continually recycled or exist as part of a higher continuum. "Luck?" I don't need it as luck effectively is just a constant state of probablism; necessitating the human condition goes on through higher laws of reason.

It is a constant state of probabilism. But you don't understand probability theory...

The very nature of measurement grounded in a continuum, with the human consciousness existing in accords through that continuum through the very process of socratic reflection itself, necessitating humanity is a continuum and death may not be as big as a problem as we make it out to be.

Death isn't a problem. Life is just more fun than death.

"Darwinian Truth?" ROFL!!! It is still a theory, adaption is strictly a linear progressive element defined by the laws of space itself.

You want to "maximise" survival...but all of us are going to effectively die in one form or another anyhow. Computer programming is just a masturbatory version of wannabe philosophy. I mean you can do it all you want, but it isn't going to solve the larger problems you are setting out to overcome.

You are still arguing against programming. You've done nothing to undermine computation.

It's Mathematics. It's complexity.

It's ALL of the decision-problems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALL_(complexity)

So you support genocide?

I do?

[Eodnhoj7]

And I am tearing all your logic apart...hence your use...creating a law to avoid that entropy.

Are you? By what criteria for "tearing apart"? All the things I've built are still there. Your computer still works...


And look at it...it appears not to know what to do with itself...it cannot figure out any use without going into a loop about what use is.

As to it's existence...it will be replaced, or gotten rid of all together, or whatever...and "whatever" is the word.

Ahh...someone is being reduced to ad-hominums. ROFL!!! Remember, you have not choice but to entropy in accords to your own values.

Ad-hominem? No. I reject your value-system. It's destructive not constructive.
You don't understand my own values, so you are just arguing against a strawman.


What could be more constructive than arguing all things are center-point to something else?

Or the human condition itself is "meaning", not what it can or cannot create?

So, considering you view yourself as an elitist as non-computer programmers are apes, what do you think you are better than everyone else? Pride comes before the fall.

Actually there is no proof it is temporary if the elements that compose me are continually recycled or exist as part of a higher continuum. "Luck?" I don't need it as luck effectively is just a constant state of probablism; necessitating the human condition goes on through higher laws of reason.

It is a constant state of probabilism. But you don't understand probability theory...


And neither do you evidently, as we are left with probabilism being undermined by greater more absolute truths.

The very nature of measurement grounded in a continuum, with the human consciousness existing in accords through that continuum through the very process of socratic reflection itself, necessitating humanity is a continuum and death may not be as big as a problem as we make it out to be.

Death isn't a problem. Life is just more fun than death.


Good, then why create computer's to avoid death?...Not that really do.

"Darwinian Truth?" ROFL!!! It is still a theory, adaption is strictly a linear progressive element defined by the laws of space itself.

You want to "maximise" survival...but all of us are going to effectively die in one form or another anyhow. Computer programming is just a masturbatory version of wannabe philosophy. I mean you can do it all you want, but it isn't going to solve the larger problems you are setting out to overcome.

You are still arguing against programming. You've done nothing to undermine computation.

It's Mathematics. It's complexity.

It's ALL of the decision-problems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALL_(complexity)


Actually the number of threads observing mathematics is contradictory in nature, in the math/logic section, just equate programmers to be the Catholic Priests of the Middle Ages.

I mean let's really look at the situation;

here you are, a computer programmer, trying to justify computation through computation.

All I am doing is just taking the darkness and inverting it.

The modern technocratic paradigm eliminates the human condition, by necessitating the human condition depending on "shit it does not need".

You are just a salesman of an ideological product, you have to push it because deep down people know they really don't need it...history proves this.

So you support genocide?

I do?

Eradicating the human condition in terms of quantity over quality is genocide at a large scale.

[Logik]

And look at it...it appears not to know what to do with itself...it cannot figure out any use without going into a loop about what use is.

But I do know what use is? That's how I determine whether something is useful to me...
I can't convince you that it's useful to me but then again - do I care what you think?

What could be more constructive than arguing all things are center-point to something else?

Putting it to practical use.
Enabling other people to use your invention?
Making it more accessible to other people?

Use it to actually build something that other people can benefit from?

Or the human condition itself is "meaning", not what it can or cannot create?

Yet here you are. Trying your damn hardest to express yourself. To invent the "prime triad".

Trying to create a new language.

Irony much?

So, considering you view yourself as an elitist as non-computer programmers are apes, what do you think you are better than everyone else? Pride comes before the fall.

I told you. Programming is not my identity. My identity is my name.

I solve problems. Problems of complexity. Problems of scale. Risk. Some of the problems I happen to solve are well-suited for computation.

And neither do you evidently, as we are left with probabilism being undermined by greater more absolute truths.

You are in the "truth" game. I am in the "no harm" game. I can tell you (with great degree of certainty) that airplanes crash at rates significantly lower today than they did 50 years ago. Flying is much safer now.

Why? Risk management.

Good, then why create computer's to avoid death?...Not that really do.

For the same reason we create everything. To maximise our own utility.

Actually the number of threads observing mathematics is contradictory in nature, in the math/logic section, just equate programmers to be the Catholic Priests of the Middle Ages.

here you are, a computer programmer, trying to justify computation through computation.

Am I? Despite telling you that I am not a "computer programmer". You insist on imposing your language on me.


You are just a metaphysician.

All I am doing is just taking the darkness and inverting it.

Yes. Mathematics.

The modern technocratic paradigm eliminates the human condition, by necessitating the human condition depending on "shit it does not need".

Well, I don't know about you but I need Mathematics very much!

It's just - complex equations are a whole lot easier to calculate with computers. If you prefer to do it by hand - nobody is forcing you to use a computer.

Convenience is all. Time-saving.

You are just a salesman of an ideological product, you have to push it because deep down people know they really don't need it...history proves this.

Yes. I am. I sell Mathematics. Packaged in a box that is easy for other people to use. People who don't have the time to study mathematics to the depth/level that I have.

I am making Mathematics accessible to as many people as I can. Using computers as the vehicle.

Many people couldn’t give a shit if it worked because Matrmatics or because unicorns.

Eradicating the human condition in terms of quantity over quality is genocide at a large scale.

No idea what that means.

[Eodnhoj7]

And look at it...it appears not to know what to do with itself...it cannot figure out any use without going into a loop about what use is.

But I do know what use is? That's how I determine whether something is useful to me...
I can't convince you that it's useful to me but then again - do I care what you think?


Because you are selling a product noone is buying (here).

I am simple arguing that the universe exists through certain core principles whether you like it or not.

What could be more constructive than arguing all things are center-point to something else?

Putting it to practical use.
Enabling other people to use your invention?
Making it more accessible to other people?

Use it to actually build something that other people can benefit from?


The problem of practicality is that it is not the be all end all of problem solving. Many practical endeavors are not really practical when you apply an infinite regress to them.

Take for example building a house. What people really need is simple. Warmth, security, cleanliness, etc. They do not need a mansion. Why do they need these things? Because it enables a sense of balance or equilibrium. The rooms enable shelter from extreme weather, warmth (physical and psychological) to counter the cold, cleanliness to a maintain some unified sense of health.

However the nature of practicality, because it is never really defined, also argues the mansion is practical as a continual redefinition of "need" (which practicality does not do) is subject to a continual regress, thus practicality is subject to the same regress.

The nature of any definition is defined fundamentally by its ability to maintain some form of equilibrium between the abstract and physical, abstract and abstract, physical and physical natures of reality we exist through in order to negate suffering where it can be negated.

Is it practical to work 80 hours a week if it robs you of your physical or psychological health? The same applies obviously for doing "nothing".

Is it practical to create a new tool to acquire more material goods as the expense of social cohesion (people working helping eachother) and acquiring more material possession that not only cause a problem in the environment but effectively requires a constant upkeep that robs one of time?

You see my point?

Or the human condition itself is "meaning", not what it can or cannot create?

Yet here you are. Trying your damn hardest to express yourself. To invent the "prime triad".

Trying to create a new language.

Irony much?


Not really. All philosophy tries to reduce, induct or just flat out give definition to the nature of phenomenon. It is not just "philosophy" itself that does it, but effectively the human condition which is philosophical, or knowledge oriented by nature.

We exist through observation, this observation is rooted in self-evidence where there is not only just a subject-objective paradigm but in clearer terms a sense of awareness of "I" and "other I".

All of this is founded in the act of definition. In these respects, the nature of consciousness as rooted in definition, necessitate all of being as having some degree of a self-evident or "axiomatic" nature.

The question is, considering self-evidence is the focal point of reality, what is its nature?

The axiom fundamentally being any phenomenon of existence itself ranging from:

1. The observer.
2. A tree.
3. A mathematical statement.
4. A mathematical statement as an idea in the head.
5. A mathematical statement as an idea in the head and on paper.
6. A feeling about going to work.
7. Seeing another person have a feeling.
8. The squirrel running across the road.
9. The squirrel running across the road as a memory.
10. The squirrel running across the road as a logical conclusion given a cat is chasing it.
11. Anything and all things including "The All".

Necessitates an understanding of the nature of what constitutes an axiom, with this in itself being "axiomatic".

So what we observer is that, using example number 2 "the tree":

1. The tree is a point of origin, the tree exists as is. As part of the environment it is fundamentally an extension of everything. At the same time it is effectively nothing on its own terms.

2. The tree also projects itself in a linear manner. It does so through time. It progresses to further trees, as we can observe in basic reproduction, where each new tree is fundamentally separate from the original as a tree in and of itself as a variation of it, while maintaining a connection with the prior and future tree by observing the repetition of common symmetry

3. The tree exists through a cycle. It is maintained through a cycling of inherent qualities (such as linear branching) that effectively repeat themselves in a continual manner in not just the tree itself, but also the reproduction of the tree. While these qualities are maintained, they are simultaenously "dissolved" through a variation. The branching may continual repeat through a cycle within not just the growth of the tree but the reproduction of the tree, however this branching dissolves into variations of the same phenomenon of the branch...no two branches are exactly the same however the symmetry of the branch as a linear pattern resulting in a seperation into further linear patterns by a Y effect, is always repeated.

Now the above observes how the tree as an axiom exists. Let's take a different Axiom, number 9 this time:

1. "The squirrel running across the road as a memory". The memory exists as is. As a part of not just other memories, but observations of reality, it is an extension of everything. At the same time it is effectively nothing on its own terms.

2. This memory projects itself in a linear manner to further memories through time. In progressing to further memories it is seperate from these memories as a variation of it, while maintaining a connection with the prior and future memories through a common symmetries.

3. The memory exists through a cycle. It is maintained by the cycling of inherent qualities that composed the memory (such as the image of the squirrel being repeated) as well as the memory itself being repeated. Simultaneously the memory is dissolved into certain variations (the squirrel may be repeated, but with various movements) where the squirrel running across the road may be repeated but observed through different variations (the angle, the movements of the squirrel to the tree) etc.

Now we have two seperate axioms. One of an actual "tree" and another of a memory:

1. Both axioms exist as a point of origin where they exist "as is". Both are an extension of everything, and both are nothing in themselves.

2. Both axioms project to further axioms through time. Both exist through a progressive seperation through variation. Both exist through an inherent connection through common symmetries.

3. Both axioms are maintained by a cycling of common symmetries that repeat, while they common symmetries as cycling effectively dissolve into various other symmetries.


Thus we can observe common foundations to all phenomenon as not only rooted in direct movement, but fundamentally "space" through the qualities in which they exist.

This argument is logical, but cannot be computed as it observes space as the foundation for everything; computation thus is not the be all and end all of phenomenon.

So, considering you view yourself as an elitist as non-computer programmers are apes, what do you think you are better than everyone else? Pride comes before the fall.

I told you. Programming is not my identity. My identity is my name.

I solve problems. Problems of complexity. Problems of scale. Risk. Some of the problems I happen to solve are well-suited for computation.


But what you argue is strictly just "probabilities" and "relativity" at its root...that is it, but that is not all of logic.

And neither do you evidently, as we are left with probabilism being undermined by greater more absolute truths.

You are in the "truth" game. I am in the "no harm" game. I can tell you (with great degree of certainty) that airplanes crash at rates significantly lower today than they did 50 years ago. Flying is much safer now.

Why? Risk management.


Yes airplanes do crash at a lower rate, but the amount of human labor required to not just work a plane or create one has also dropped as well in light of further automation.

Flying is much safer, but it doesn't solve the problem that people have to fly around to begin with. Now this statement I just said sounds absurd, but the truth is people have to fly more because they cannot support themselves where they are at...they are fundamentally seperated from the environment in which they live.

It is just a relativistic loop and technological progress is just a fracturing of the human condition and any sense of "quality" that allows for a heightened sense of pleasure.

Good, then why create computer's to avoid death?...Not that really do.

For the same reason we create everything. To maximise our own utility.


What utility? How can you keep "maximising" utility when utility is fundamentally grounded in a strict progress that never ends, thus nothing changes.
Progress is just a loose term for a fracturing process. We may be able to talk to strangers over the internet now, but any sense of quality communication where a person is involved with the person in front of them is eradicated. Modern luxury doesn't even allow for hedonism, as pleasure always requires some sense of quality to it where the subject-object dichotomy is neutralized.

Actually the number of threads observing mathematics is contradictory in nature, in the math/logic section, just equate programmers to be the Catholic Priests of the Middle Ages.

The fact you cannot respond to these premises, as argued in other threads, only shows what you push is grounded in contradiction and makes no sense.

here you are, a computer programmer, trying to justify computation through computation.

Am I? Despite telling you that I am not a "computer programmer". You insist on imposing your language on me.


You are just a metaphysician.


And reducing everything to "utility" is not a sense of metaphysics itself?

All I am doing is just taking the darkness and inverting it.

Yes. Mathematics.

All the contradictions are posted in the math/logic section, don't push your religion here....and it is a religion as it is grounded in contradiction by nature; hence is necessitated by belief.

The modern technocratic paradigm eliminates the human condition, by necessitating the human condition depending on "shit it does not need".

Well, I don't know about you but I need Mathematics very much!

It's just - complex equations are a whole lot easier to calculate with computers. If you prefer to do it by hand - nobody is forcing you to use a computer.

Convenience is all. Time-saving.



Carpentry requires mathematics, as well as just basic everyday finance. However this act of "measurement" is grounded on the ability to maintain an equilibrium. Mathematics, when idolized, is not able to maintain an equilibrium.

You are just a salesman of an ideological product, you have to push it because deep down people know they really don't need it...history proves this.

Yes. I am. I sell Mathematics. Packaged in a box that is easy for other people to use. People who don't have the time to study mathematics to the depth/level that I have.

I am making Mathematics accessible to as many people as I can. Using computers as the vehicle.

Many people couldn’t give a shit if it worked because Matrmatics or because unicorns.

Math is just made up, it is a perspective, nothing more.

Eradicating the human condition in terms of quantity over quality is genocide at a large scale.

No idea what that means.

It is simple and I will give an example.

There was a documentary I seen a while back about the west virginia coal mines. The whole region was prosperous and everyone was happy. They worked and when they did not work they spent time with there family and friends.

Then they starting using large scale automation, which not only decimated the labor population (causing the area to morally and culturally collapse; hence having less "quality" lives), but also strip the area of resources faster than could be maintained.

Now the area is filled with drug addicts and a general sense of despair.

Killing the human spirit is genocide.