'Knowledge' and 'Belief' as Primordial Antitheses

[nothing]

Yet these relationships are imaginary considering they are captured by what is imaginary according to your stance.

No, not according to 'my stance' - perhaps according to your own (mis)understanding.

All s/t motion(s) pass through the function for which 4/√Φ is a root.
This function has four symmetrical roots: ±√9.888... (real) and ±i√25.888... (imaginary)
...two real (former) and two imaginary (latter) which are related by way of
the rational integer '16' hence 1 = Φπ²/16. The nature of the relation between
rational and irrational corresponds to real and imaginary resp.

This '4' corresponds to the {Α∞Ω}{beg/end} axes captured by the four roots above
which are/is a/the product of (ie. contained in) light, thus upon which all else rests
including human consciousness.

Thus these relationships are both real and imaginary for being captured by both
real (rational) and imaginary (irrational) inter-relations, magnitude(s)-invariant.

If reality is described and defined through a series of symbol

...which it is not.

which are imaginary,

...not only, as above.

according to you,

...according to me not.

then by default these descriptions and definitions exist as extensions of these symbols and share the same property.

The relations any/all symbols (are used to) express precede(s) any/all (use of) symbols, including numerals.

Symbols are phenomenon in themselves and as phenomenon are real.

Real useful, sure.

[Skepdick]

Modern-day "philosophy" is no tenured arbiter of validity - presently, to the contrary: it is de-coupled from "existential" reality
for not even having the capacity to "test" for it, despite being in possession of the most sophisticated machine on the planet,
the human body. The faculties of the body are equipped to test for "existence" - the problem is modern-day philosophy
does not know what 'knowledge' is because there is no understanding of the nature of the relation between knowledge and belief.
The presence of one implies the absence of the other (and vice versa) such to appropriately compare them to light
(as knowledge) and darkness (as belief) wherein the latter darkness implies the absence of the former light.

Consciousness exists as non-local.

It is not something a person has in their individual possession: it is something they have access to (ie. it is everywhere).
Reciprocity may be (ie. is) a conscious relationship (as well as being the nature of the relation between the aspects of space and time).
Mind is a local phenomena only - 'only mind exists' is lunatic and like a virus in the Western "mind"set.

Blah blah blah.

You have no way of verifying whether a linguistic description of reality corresponds to reality. The whole notion is bullshit with respect to time.
Logic/formalisms produce consequences. Either your consequences agree with experiment or they don't.

When multiple logical/formal models produce the same consequences they are identical from an utilitarian point of view.

You are just juggling mental models

[nothing]

Blah blah blah.

Thanks for the warning as to what is incoming.

You have no way of verifying whether a linguistic description of reality corresponds to reality.

That is what consciousness is for, however you have to look at it the other way around:
(some of us) do have a way of verifying whether reality corresponds with a linguistic description.

In the case of (s/t) one can know the nature of the relation between the two.
In fact: not knowing the nature of the relationship is what leads to an upside-down
perspective, hence your having worked backwards to reality rather than from reality
to the linguistic description describing.

The whole notion is bullshit with respect to time.
Logic/formalisms produce consequences. Either your consequences agree with experiment or they don't.

Not only: they can also predict consequences, as science (esp. conscience) is valued for having the ability to make predictions.
Logic that is inductively derived/rooted such to predict how something like the physical universe will behave is very different
from a logic that is invented to produce desired consequences. The former begins with a clean slate entirely,
hence the ability to sever from ones own desired-to-be imaginary 'state' such to fully allow for whatever happens-to-be real 'state'
is a fundamental factor in any/all logic/formalism/language (use of).

When multiple logical/formal models produce the same consequences they are identical from an utilitarian point of view.

...this seems bizarrely irrelevant to me, no indication of how this relates.

You are just juggling mental models

Are you sure it is not just you juggling wikipedia articles ?
Do you "believe" they are authoritative in any way/shape/form?
Because I do not, and do believe I already stated this earlier.

The internet (all of it) is the festering cesspool of modern-day propaganda.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yet these relationships are imaginary considering they are captured by what is imaginary according to your stance.

No, not according to 'my stance' - perhaps according to your own (mis)understanding.

All s/t motion(s) pass through the function for which 4/√Φ is a root.

1. False, this is a series of symbols which describe reality. 4/√Φ is, as a series of symbols, imaginary if symbols, according to you, are imaginary. There is no 4/√Φ which exists except as a description. This description is not real given the premise the symbols are imaginary. Its realness is determined by its ability to align with reality, but if symbols are not real, then this description you use is an alignment between what is real and what is imaginary thus your stance is a result of entropy in the natural order (what is real dissolves to what is imaginary).

2. The alignment between symbols and real phenomena are determined by abstractions. A symbol merely points to an object, but as pointing this necessitates a common bond between the abstract symbol and the physical phenomenon. This connection between the abstract and the physical necessitates a common form of "pointing" where one phenomenon is directed by another through a linear progression. This linear progression necessitates a form which supercedes and exists through the abstract and empirical reality simultaneously.



This function has four symmetrical roots: ±√9.888... (real) and ±i√25.888... (imaginary)
...two real (former) and two imaginary (latter) which are related by way of
the rational integer '16' hence 1 = Φπ²/16. The nature of the relation between
rational and irrational corresponds to real and imaginary resp.

This '4' corresponds to the {Α∞Ω}{beg/end} axes captured by the four roots above
which are/is a/the product of (ie. contained in) light, thus upon which all else rests
including human consciousness.

Thus these relationships are both real and imaginary for being captured by both
real (rational) and imaginary (irrational) inter-relations, magnitude(s)-invariant.

If reality is described and defined through a series of symbol

...which it is not.

You are using symbols to describe what physical reality is by what it is not.

which are imaginary,

...not only, as above.

according to you,

...according to me not.

then by default these descriptions and definitions exist as extensions of these symbols and share the same property.

The relations any/all symbols (are used to) express precede(s) any/all (use of) symbols, including numerals.

Symbols are phenomenon in themselves and as phenomenon are real.

Real useful, sure.

[nothing]

1. False, this is a series of symbols which describe reality.

Which may be used to describe reality.

I believe mentioned this before: your (over-)use of the definite(s) is obnoxiously crass (ongoing).

4/√Φ is, as a series of symbols, imaginary if symbols, according to you, are imaginary. There is no 4/√Φ which exists except as a description. This description is not real given the premise the symbols are imaginary. Its realness is determined by its ability to align with reality, but if symbols are not real, then this description you use is an alignment between what is real and what is imaginary thus your stance is a result of entropy in the natural order (what is real dissolves to what is imaginary).

The relationship(s) both: whence they are derived, and upon which their utility relies, is real.

I earlier stressed the importance of understanding space and time as multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion,
the uniting factor (thus of principle concern) between the "two" is thus that of reciprocity. To reciprocate ie.
"do not unto others as you would not have done unto you". Thus acknowledgement/employment of the golden rule
is a kind of practical knowledge which serves to ever-temper the being esp. against unwanted experiences.

(√5 ± 1) / 2 = Φ, (Φ - 1)
reciprocal:
2 / (√5 ± 1) = (Φ - 1), Φ

The '2' may serve as a null binary satisfying any/all discretionary binaries as they imperatively concern √1 as +1, -1.
The real/rational and imaginary/irrational are coupled via the golden ratio which exists in/as 1=Φπ²/16.

2. The alignment between symbols and real phenomena are determined by abstractions. A symbol merely points to an object, but as pointing this necessitates a common bond between the abstract symbol and the physical phenomenon. This connection between the abstract and the physical necessitates a common form of "pointing" where one phenomenon is directed by another through a linear progression. This linear progression necessitates a form which supercedes and exists through the abstract and empirical reality simultaneously.

Reciprocity is not an abstraction, it is a relation - the nature of the relation can be (ie. is) known (of).
The utility of any symbol is rendered naught if/when the (nature of the) relation itself is acknowledged/understood.
This is also a/the failure of present-day science - not having space and time coupled in/as one via reciprocity.
The correction of π from 3.14159... to 4/√Φ accomplishes this very thing: unites space and time by clarifying
the nature of the relation between rationals and irrationals (ie. real and imaginary).

You are using symbols to describe what physical reality is by what it is not.

Using conscience to derive precedes using symbols to describe.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. False, this is a series of symbols which describe reality.

Which may be used to describe reality.

I believe mentioned this before: your (over-)use of the definite(s) is obnoxiously crass (ongoing).

If a series of symbols, which are imaginary, are used to define reality then by default the definition is imaginary.

As to the crassness, the accuser is accused. The overuse of 4/√Φ as an abstraction, where all symbols, as abstractions, are imaginary (according to you) is a contradiction.

4/√Φ is, as a series of symbols, imaginary if symbols, according to you, are imaginary. There is no 4/√Φ which exists except as a description. This description is not real given the premise the symbols are imaginary. Its realness is determined by its ability to align with reality, but if symbols are not real, then this description you use is an alignment between what is real and what is imaginary thus your stance is a result of entropy in the natural order (what is real dissolves to what is imaginary).

The relationship(s) both: whence they are derived, and upon which their utility relies, is real.

Thus the connection between the imaginary and real necessitates the imaginary as real. Utility is grounded in that which is imaginary.

I earlier stressed the importance of understanding space and time as multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion,
This recipricocity is a circular reasoning as one thing defines the other through a cycle thus necessitating a cyclical form which transcends empirical reality itself.


the uniting factor (thus of principle concern) between the "two" is thus that of reciprocity. To reciprocate ie.
"do not unto others as you would not have done unto you". Thus acknowledgement/employment of the golden rule
is a kind of practical knowledge which serves to ever-temper the being esp. against unwanted experiences.

(√5 ± 1) / 2 = Φ, (Φ - 1)
reciprocal:
2 / (√5 ± 1) = (Φ - 1), Φ

The '2' may serve as a null binary satisfying any/all discretionary binaries as they imperatively concern √1 as +1, -1.
The real/rational and imaginary/irrational are coupled via the golden ratio which exists in/as 1=Φπ²/16.

2. The alignment between symbols and real phenomena are determined by abstractions. A symbol merely points to an object, but as pointing this necessitates a common bond between the abstract symbol and the physical phenomenon. This connection between the abstract and the physical necessitates a common form of "pointing" where one phenomenon is directed by another through a linear progression. This linear progression necessitates a form which supercedes and exists through the abstract and empirical reality simultaneously.

Reciprocity is not an abstraction, it is a relation - the nature of the relation can be (ie. is) known (of).
Recipricocity is a cycle thus necessitates an abstract form of the circle through circularity. The relationship between the physical and the abstract necessitates a common bond of the circular form itself as transcending the physical and abstract dichotomy.


The utility of any symbol is rendered naught if/when the (nature of the) relation itself is acknowledged/understood.
If the imaginary has utility then by default what is not real has a useful nature thus becomes real.


This is also a/the failure of present-day science - not having space and time coupled in/as one via reciprocity.
The correction of π from 3.14159... to 4/√Φ accomplishes this very thing: unites space and time by clarifying
the nature of the relation between rationals and irrationals (ie. real and imaginary).

You are using symbols to describe what physical reality is by what it is not.

Using conscience to derive precedes using symbols to describe.

False, the consciousness as occuring through symbols necessitates the symbol as real through the consciousness.

[nothing]

If a series of symbols, which are imaginary, are used to define reality then by default the definition is imaginary.

You begin with reality, not with the symbol.
People who can not tell between what is real
and what is not real are generally unconscious
such to mistake the symbol for/as the reality.

This is why one must acknowledge the reality just-the-way-it-is,
rather than espouse to some "belief" esp. if at odds with.

As to the crassness, the accuser is accused. The overuse of 4/√Φ as an abstraction, where all symbols, as abstractions, are imaginary (according to you) is a contradiction.

4/√Φ is not an abstraction - again with the crass definitions viz. "as an abstraction...".
It may be an abstraction in your own mind because you either do not (or choose not) to understand what it implies (which is obvious in this case).
The ratio relates the nature of the relation between rational (terminating) numbers and irrational (non-terminating) numbers, these two kinds of numbers being the same basis of your believing one can take an irrational (curve) and make it rational (line). They are not of the same kind, however are nonetheless relatable, and by no way less than 4/√Φ.
The nature of this relation can (also) thus be real, and not (only) imaginary, and is reflected in/as mathematical complex analysis.

None of what you say is according to me, it is according to yourself.

Thus the connection between the imaginary and real necessitates the imaginary as real. Utility is grounded in that which is imaginary.

No, imaginary is not real - these are two discretely distinct states.
That which is imagined to be, but is not, has a real consequence(s)
which amounts to human suffering(s) if/when a belief-based ignorance
ie. an "imagined" state of existence (as the reality) but is merely
implying a lack of knowledge of the reality (being something other than).

Utility is grounded in that which is consciously known to be merely imaginary.

This recipricocity is a circular reasoning as one thing defines the other through a cycle thus necessitating a cyclical form which transcends empirical reality itself.

Recipricocity is a cycle thus necessitates an abstract form of the circle through circularity. The relationship between the physical and the abstract necessitates a common bond of the circular form itself as transcending the physical and abstract dichotomy.

Not only transcends, but is also real and transcends not
according to the conditions of the relation. There are two
relevant ones: s/t=1 and s/t≠1 wherein the latter
has a "real" constituency based on an "imaginary" impetus
and the former has no beg/end, thus no cycle.

If the imaginary has utility then by default what is not real has a useful nature thus becomes real.

Acknowledging what is real allows one to infer what was/is imaginary,
believing what is unreal to be real is from whence human suffering.

False, the consciousness as occuring through symbols necessitates the symbol as real through the consciousness.

Not this again "real through the consciousness".
Consciousness doesn't make symbols anymore or less real than they actually are, conscious and/or not.

[Sculptor]

Primer video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkN8gYXiXdI



All that is needed to understand this is by employing
simple null-boundary pairs of binary roots and operators
(just as a being is rooted in two legs while operating two arms)
whose own internal relationship is that of reciprocal nature:


͏͏ ͏͏ ͏͏ ͏͏ ͏͏ ͏͏ ͏͏ to KNOW ͏͏ ͏͏ ͏͏ ∞͏͏ ͏͏ ͏͏  to BELIEVE  ͏͏ ͏͏ ͏͏ ͏͏ ͏͏ ͏
_______________________________________________
viz. by fixing the roots of ALL causation/cessation as 'to know' and 'to believe', one retrieves a primordial antitheses:
to know ALL (thus) NOT to believe = ever-expands and approaches all-knowing (god-or-no-god)
to believe ALL (thus) NOT to know = ever-contracts and approaches all-belief-based ignorance(s)
causing, sustaining an/or otherwise impeding on the cessation of any/all manner and form of human suffering.

It takes a "believer" to ever somehow "believe"
the opposite of what is true:
war is (a means to) "peace",
abuse is (a means of) "mercy",
hate is religiously "justified",
evil is good / satan is god,
wrong is right / false is true,
murderdom is "martyrdom",
themselves "superior" to others /
others "inferior" to themselves,
and/or that someone else is responsible
for their own choices/actions such
to BLAME, BLAME and BLAME others
for their own suffering state of being.

Thus concerning the heinous and criminal division:

"BELIEVER vs. UNBELIEVER"

"BELIEVERS" suffer KNOWING not
from which tree they even eat, as
only a "believer" can "believe"
evil is good / satan is god.

And concerning the "Abrahamic" Judaism/Christianity/Islam:
Adam blamed the woman (and god) (ie. others) for his own actions,
(Eve follows by blaming the serpent for her own),
thus the Religion of Adam is Blame (In Both Hands)
yet there are believers who willingly admit that theirs
is certainly the "religion of Adam" (and "pbuh") perhaps forgetting
Adam and Eve got kicked out of Eden for "disobeying" god.

All knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum.
No all-knowing god could or would be ignorant of the same, rather would be knowing of all
who is and is not concerning / abiding by the only warning ever given directly to man:

GENESIS 2:17
ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות
And of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: do not eat from it
for eating thereof in time shall certainly cause death (over death).

= to believe ALL (thus) NOT to know ...

GENESIS 3:4-5
ויאמר הנחש אל האשה לא מות תמתון
כי ידע אלהים כי ביום אכלכם ממנו ונפקחו עיניכם והייתם כאלהים ידעי טוב ורע
And saying the serpent 'certainly you shall not die as elohim doth know that in time as ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall open, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil'.

= to know ALL (thus) NOT to believe ...



Thus if life is a test, it can only be one single question:
from which tree dost thou eat?
(such to perpetually bring suffering and death into the world).



viz.

1 = Φπ²/16
__________
Φ = Spatial Constant (yang)
π² = Temporal Constant (yin)

Yes there is a significant distinction between belief and knowledge. It resides around desire on one side and evidence on the other.

Nothing of the kind is expressed in this post.
This post is a collection of shite.
It is a collection of meaning less garbage that far from addressing the question has nothing whatever to do with it.

[nothing]

Yes there is a significant distinction between belief and knowledge. It resides around desire on one side and evidence on the other.

No, it does not - desire is not confined to one side or the other:
desire to know is as valid a premise as belief rooted in mere desire.
Only one of those may perpetuate suffering: belief-based ignorance.

Nothing of the kind is expressed in this post.

This is because nothing of the sort is actually true.

This post is a collection of shite.
It is a collection of meaning less garbage that far from addressing the question has nothing whatever to do with it.

You describe your own post perfectly.

[Eodnhoj7]

If a series of symbols, which are imaginary, are used to define reality then by default the definition is imaginary.

You begin with reality, not with the symbol.
But if reality is defined through a symbol, and this definition of reality is used to manipulate reality then the symbol, thus what is imaginary, is part of reality.


People who can not tell between what is real
and what is not real are generally unconscious
such to mistake the symbol for/as the reality.

This is why one must acknowledge the reality just-the-way-it-is,
rather than espouse to some "belief" esp. if at odds with.

As to the crassness, the accuser is accused. The overuse of 4/√Φ as an abstraction, where all symbols, as abstractions, are imaginary (according to you) is a contradiction.

4/√Φ is not an abstraction - again with the crass definitions viz. "as an abstraction...".
"4/√Φ" is a series of symbols thus an abstraction.



It may be an abstraction in your own mind because you either do not (or choose not) to understand what it implies (which is obvious in this case).
Implication is the relations of what a series of symbols ought to describe.


The ratio relates the nature of the relation between rational (terminating) numbers and irrational (non-terminating) numbers, these two kinds of numbers being the same basis of your believing one can take an irrational (curve) and make it rational (line). They are not of the same kind, however are nonetheless relatable, and by no way less than 4/√Φ.
The nature of this relation can (also) thus be real, and not (only) imaginary, and is reflected in/as mathematical complex analysis.

None of what you say is according to me, it is according to yourself.

The accuser is accused.

Thus the connection between the imaginary and real necessitates the imaginary as real. Utility is grounded in that which is imaginary.

No, imaginary is not real - these are two discretely distinct states.
As a state of existence it is thus real as a state is a subset of existence. What is imaginary is that which gives image to reality. Image is definition, thus what is imaginary is that which defines reality. The symbols exist as real, and there relations to "real" phenomenon are real in themselves.

That which is imagined to be, but is not, has a real consequence(s)
which amounts to human suffering(s) if/when a belief-based ignorance
ie. an "imagined" state of existence (as the reality) but is merely
implying a lack of knowledge of the reality (being something other than).

Utility is grounded in that which is consciously known to be merely imaginary.

Thus what is imaginary is useful therefore real.

This recipricocity is a circular reasoning as one thing defines the other through a cycle thus necessitating a cyclical form which transcends empirical reality itself.

Recipricocity is a cycle thus necessitates an abstract form of the circle through circularity. The relationship between the physical and the abstract necessitates a common bond of the circular form itself as transcending the physical and abstract dichotomy.

Not only transcends, but is also real and transcends not
according to the conditions of the relation. There are two
relevant ones: s/t=1 and s/t≠1 wherein the latter
has a "real" constituency based on an "imaginary" impetus
and the former has no beg/end, thus no cycle.
Recipricocity is a cycle, as a cycle it is subject to a form which is beyond it, a circle. Form is prerequisite to being, thus what we understand of reality is a series of interplaying forms.

If the imaginary has utility then by default what is not real has a useful nature thus becomes real.

Acknowledging what is real allows one to infer what was/is imaginary,
believing what is unreal to be real is from whence human suffering.

If symbols are imaginary, and are used for definition, then believing in that which defines reality, hence your theory, results in suffering.

False, the consciousness as occuring through symbols necessitates the symbol as real through the consciousness.

Not this again "real through the consciousness".
Consciousness doesn't make symbols anymore or less real than they actually are, conscious and/or not.

Symbols are the means through which consciousness interprets reality, thus the symbols are real through the consciousness which interprets them.

[nothing]

But if reality is defined through a symbol...

...and it is not.

4/√Φ is a series of symbols thus an abstraction.

Definite(s) again - how obnoxiously crass (recurring).

The relationship they describe is both:
what is of imperative importance and
(for being not merely an abstraction)
how a radial line is in communion with a curve.

Acknowledgement of the same requires one be both willing/able
to look deeper than just the mundane surface layer that is
the symbols themselves.

It is like a finger pointing to the moon, to concentrate on the finger
(in this case, 4/√Φ as a "series of symbols")
is to miss all the heavenly glory.

Implication is the relations of what a series of symbols ought to describe.

...definitely not.

The accuser is accused.

Fantastic deduction - your post indeed satisfies that condition.

As a state of existence it is thus real as a state is a subset of existence. What is imaginary is that which gives image to reality. Image is definition, thus what is imaginary is that which defines reality. The symbols exist as real, and there relations to "real" phenomenon are real in themselves.

...like a true definitionary.

Thus what is imaginary is useful therefore real.

Not real, really useful.

Recipricocity is a cycle, as a cycle it is subject to a form which is beyond it, a circle. Form is prerequisite to being, thus what we understand of reality is a series of interplaying forms.

Reciprocity is not a cycle, rather allows cycles to both occur and inter-relate.
Reciprocity is actually a property of the golden ratio itself, hence
energy is exchanged by way of. This is the significance of π
being practically embedded in/as the golden ratio.

If symbols are imaginary, and are used for definition, then believing in that which defines reality, hence your theory, results in suffering.

Symbols are neither merely imaginary and/or used for definition. My theory may result in your suffering, however this is your problem as
the theory predicts anyone who has no conscious knowledge of their own ignorance are bound to suffer trying to find outside sources
to blame.

One need not "believe" anything at all about the reality, as the reality being known/unknown is a matter of consciousness.
It is not about the knowledge - all knowledge does is negate belief-based ignorance. The consciousness is what is important,
a conscious being is neither their body nor their mind - the former implies materialism, the latter lunacy.

This is why "I think, therefor I am..." is backwards.
"I am, therefor I may think..." is correct, and this
highlights the "state" of Western philosophy as-a-whole.

[Eodnhoj7]

But if reality is defined through a symbol...

...and it is not.

Reality is defined through symbols as the equations you offer are composed of symbols, the equations are not real in themselves (according to you) except as definitions of phenomena which are occuring.

4/√Φ is a series of symbols thus an abstraction.

Definite(s) again - how obnoxiously crass (recurring).

Repeating phi over and over again is crass according to your stance, the accuser is accused.

The relationship they describe is both:

The key word is "describe". As imaginary, the symbols that is, they describe a series of events which are occuring. These descriptions are then used to modify empirical reality thus causing the description to be a base for empirical change. If imaginary, then physical change is rooted in what is imaginary.

As to the rest I didn't bother reading. It is just a loop of the same thing in new variation.

what is of imperative importance and
(for being not merely an abstraction)
how a radial line is in communion with a curve.

Acknowledgement of the same requires one be both willing/able
to look deeper than just the mundane surface layer that is
the symbols themselves.

It is like a finger pointing to the moon, to concentrate on the finger
(in this case, 4/√Φ as a "series of symbols")
is to miss all the heavenly glory.

Implication is the relations of what a series of symbols ought to describe.

...definitely not.

The accuser is accused.

Fantastic deduction - your post indeed satisfies that condition.

As a state of existence it is thus real as a state is a subset of existence. What is imaginary is that which gives image to reality. Image is definition, thus what is imaginary is that which defines reality. The symbols exist as real, and their relations to "real" phenomenon are real in themselves.

...like a true definitionary.

Thus what is imaginary is useful therefore real.

Not real, really useful.

Recipricocity is a cycle, as a cycle it is subject to a form which is beyond it, a circle. Form is prerequisite to being, thus what we understand of reality is a series of interplaying forms.

Reciprocity is not a cycle, rather allows cycles to both occur and inter-relate.
Reciprocity is actually a property of the golden ratio itself, hence
energy is exchanged by way of. This is the significance of π
being practically embedded in/as the golden ratio.

If symbols are imaginary, and are used for definition, then believing in that which defines reality, hence your theory, results in suffering.

Symbols are neither merely imaginary and/or used for definition. My theory may result in your suffering, however this is your problem as
the theory predicts anyone who has no conscious knowledge of their own ignorance are bound to suffer trying to find outside sources
to blame.

One need not "believe" anything at all about the reality, as the reality being known/unknown is a matter of consciousness.
It is not about the knowledge - all knowledge does is negate belief-based ignorance. The consciousness is what is important,
a conscious being is neither their body nor their mind - the former implies materialism, the latter lunacy.

This is why "I think, therefor I am..." is backwards.
"I am, therefor I may think..." is correct, and this
highlights the "state" of Western philosophy as-a-whole.

[nothing]

Reality is defined through symbols...

Reality is not defined through symbols.

...as the equations you offer are composed of symbols...

The equations/symbols are not of any importance after being used to acknowledge the underlying relation...

...the equations are not real in themselves (according to you) except as definitions of phenomena which are occuring.

Here we go again "according to you" - nothing you say is according to me.
You would not be doing such a thing if you, yourself, as a conscious person (in question)
can see the relationship for yourself.

According to the function for which 4/√Φ is a ROOT of,
along with the three other roots this same function has:

f(x) = x⁴ + 16x² - 256
x = ±√9.88854381999...
x = ±i√25.888.54381999...

There is a real/imaginary symmetry shared via a rational integer of '16'.
Also note the '888' following the difference, hence 4/√Φ is BOTH
REAL and IMAGINARY. Thus π is BOTH 'transcendental' and NOT.

The transcendence occurs through the rational integer '4' being
both physical and metaphysical "measures" as the universe obeys
a symmetry linking the two: "as above, so below" is true.

Also: '888' is the number for christ thus
this axes is practically the cross, hence:



is the locally bestowed, universally employed axes/cross
which is true from the level of light onward, noting
light (s/t = 1) does not have an active beg/end,
light may only bi-rotate according to relative view.

This axes applies to the roots/operators of any given being wherein
√5 as (√1+2√4) is just that: the root of one's own in addition to/with
2 possible √4 direction/orientations, the same satisfying light, the same
satisfying relative (real and/or imagined) perception.

The solution will be used to undermine/collapse
the "believer vs. unbeliever" division, despite
the people on the planet who want perpetual division,
suffering, death and endless genocide(s).

It can be used to derive any/all roots such to be known
given it can be witnessed in-real-time at any given time
(ie. it is never not true).

Repeating phi over and over again is crass according to your stance, the accuser is accused.

More "according to you"... can not help yourself I see. Neither with
inappropriately repeating 'the accuser is accused' which is your own
perpetual state. Please do continue.

Repetition of Φ is more rather a scalar co-existence:
they co-exist both as and beyond physicality via 4/√Φ.

The key word is "describe". As imaginary, the symbols that is, they describe a series of events which are occuring. These descriptions are then used to modify empirical reality thus causing the description to be a base for empirical change. If imaginary, then physical change is rooted in what is imaginary.

As to the rest I didn't bother reading...

I stopped at "modify empirical reality". Reality can not be modified by descriptions, the latter comes by way of acknowledging the former.

[Eodnhoj7]

Reality is defined through symbols...

Reality is not defined through symbols.

Yes it is, your equation relative to Pi and Phi, is a series of symbols which represent a series of relations. It defines reality.

...as the equations you offer are composed of symbols...

The equations/symbols are not of any importance after being used to acknowledge the underlying relation...

But the underlying relation is defined through symbols. The underlying relation cannot be expressed except through symbols.

...the equations are not real in themselves (according to you) except as definitions of phenomena which are occuring.

Here we go again "according to you" - nothing you say is according to me.
You would not be doing such a thing if you, yourself, as a conscious person (in question)
can see the relationship for yourself.

According to the function for which 4/√Φ is a ROOT of,
along with the three other roots this same function has:

f(x) = x⁴ + 16x² - 256
x = ±√9.88854381999...
x = ±i√25.888.54381999...

There is a real/imaginary symmetry shared via a rational integer of '16'.
Also note the '888' following the difference, hence 4/√Φ is BOTH
REAL and IMAGINARY. Thus π is BOTH 'transcendental' and NOT.

Thus the imaginary is necessary and as necessary is a real event in itself. The imaginary, as necessary for the real event of definition (considering definition is an event), is a grounding for what is real.

The transcendence occurs through the rational integer '4' being
both physical and metaphysical "measures" as the universe obeys
a symmetry linking the two: "as above, so below" is true.

Also: '888' is the number for christ thus
this axes is practically the cross, hence:



is the locally bestowed, universally employed axes/cross
which is true from the level of light onward, noting
light (s/t = 1) does not have an active beg/end,
light may only bi-rotate according to relative view.

This axes applies to the roots/operators of any given being wherein
√5 as (√1+2√4) is just that: the root of one's own in addition to/with
2 possible √4 direction/orientations, the same satisfying light, the same
satisfying relative (real and/or imagined) perception.

The solution will be used to undermine/collapse
the "believer vs. unbeliever" division, despite
the people on the planet who want perpetual division,
suffering, death and endless genocide(s).

Actually you assume it undermines/collapses the "unbeliever vs believer" division, because you assume people will agree or understand your series of definitions. Ironically the evidence is scant that many people even understand your stance.

It can be used to derive any/all roots such to be known
given it can be witnessed in-real-time at any given time
(ie. it is never not true).

Repeating phi over and over again is crass according to your stance, the accuser is accused.

More "according to you"... can not help yourself I see. Neither with
inappropriately repeating 'the accuser is accused' which is your own
perpetual state. Please do continue.

Please do continue.

Repetition of Φ is more rather a scalar co-existence:
they co-exist both as and beyond physicality via 4/√Φ.

The key word is "describe". As imaginary, the symbols that is, they describe a series of events which are occuring. These descriptions are then used to modify empirical reality thus causing the description to be a base for empirical change. If imaginary, then physical change is rooted in what is imaginary.

As to the rest I didn't bother reading...

I stopped at "modify empirical reality". Reality can not be modified by descriptions, the latter comes by way of acknowledging the former.

If reality is not modified through descriptions then your theory changes nothing.
However descriptions do modify reality. A series of schematics, used to build a car, are the means in which a car is formed from base materials. The abstractions act as a means of change.

[nothing]

Yes it is, your equation relative to Pi and Phi, is a series of symbols which represent a series of relations. It defines reality.

Symbols define reality?
Or reality defines symbols?

One must beg/end in the reality, not with symbols.

But the underlying relation is defined through symbols. The underlying relation cannot be expressed except through symbols.

Symbols don't define anything - they are tools we use as "extensions" of our own human faculties.
A symbol is not a destination, it helps get the journey started. The reality is not a symbol(s).

Thus the imaginary is necessary and as necessary is a real event in itself.

You have 'real' and 'imaginary' confused.
"Thus the real is necessary and as necessary is an unimaginable event in itself."
One can not imagine the reality, as reality precedes imagination.

The Α∞Ω can be used to try your own presumptions against their own counter-part(s).
This can virtually invert upside-down perception(s) back up-right instantly only if/when
the person is able to acknowledge their own presumption may be "upside-down".

The imaginary, as necessary for the real event of definition (considering definition is an event), is a grounding for what is real.

Same problem.
Same solution.

"The real, as necessary for the imaginary event of definition (considering definition is an event), is a grounding for what is imagined."

Is more accurate. This "event" is the adoption of a belief(s) which are not necessarily true
which begins a cycle(s) of suffering. Knowing all not to believe ceases such suffering.

Actually you assume it undermines/collapses the "unbeliever vs believer" division, because you assume people will agree or understand your series of definitions. Ironically the evidence is scant that many people even understand your stance.

I don't assume anything of the sort, the assumption is rather your own.
I related a long time ago I moved to a different forum composed
of people who actually have/study a physical theory of the universe, thus
are able to subject it to any/all known relation(s) therein/thereof.

This was always my intention with CKIIT: that the solution
be fully compatible with the structure of the physical universe
either real (Einstein was right) and/or imagined (not).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwUd9gHusc0

One of the most enlightened beings on the planet also agrees:
"Belief is death, actually."

It is not worth my time to argue with loopy individuals
who can not realize the loops are their own shades: evolution
is a forward progression above and beyond a cyclic one.
At the level of the human being, the evolution of that being
is placed directly in their own conscious (or not) hands.
What they make of it is of their own making.

If reality is not modified through descriptions then your theory changes nothing.
However descriptions do modify reality. A series of schematics, used to build a car, are the means in which a car is formed from base materials. The abstractions act as a means of change.

It is not meant to change anything, it is meant to first acknowledge things just the way they are.
Nothing can change unless the nature of the existential reality becomes conscious in a/the being, hence
conscious knowledge of ignorance. The knowledge actually only relates to the being themselves.



If one does not know themselves, whatever distortions they have about themselves
is the same degree(s) to which their perception of the existential reality is distorted.
This is why "know thy self" is practically axiomatic - it can not not be.