Language(Logic), Geometry, Number Line are One through Chaos Theory

[Eodnhoj7]

Randomness is the absence of unity through multiplicity, where one unified phenomenon is observed through many; hence in accords to Chaos theory:

"there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, self-organization, and reliance on programming at the initial point known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory


These 7 facets of Chaos exist fundamentally as "spatial" qualities that underlie all phenomenon:

Munchauseen Trillema as:

1. All axioms are assumed points.
2. All axiom infinitely regress.
3. All axioms are circular.

Which inverts and cancels itself out into the Prime Triad:
1. All axioms are nothing in themselves, everything through the other; hence all axioms are points of origins (words in this case)
2. All axioms progress to further axioms, all axioms are connected through this progression; hence all axioms are linear continuums.
3. All axioms are maintained through cycles, all axioms progress to further cycles; hence all axioms are cyclical.




So we see:

1. Pattern as repetition; hence the movement of one form to many forms. (Unity/Multiplicity paradigm ---Munchauseen Trillema/prime triad- Law 2 "linear continuum")

All number exists through the repetition of 1 as 0 "directed". This is conducive to "mass" or "void" accelerating or a 0d point projecting to a line as a quantity or a simple "point" projecting itself as a "line".

((0→0)→1)→((1→1)→2)→((1→2)→3)→((1→3)→4)→....
(0→0)=1, ((0→0)→(0→0))=2, ((0→0)→(0→0)→(0→0))=3,...

All qualities exist through the repetition of "being" as "void" giving direction. This occurs through "light" in physics where "mass" is accelerated into volume, with the interplay of volumes through mass resulting in density as interrelated "volumes".


This can be observed in "language" as well:

(A→A) = B therefore A → B = (A,A) observes A as effectively "halved" through "B". For example "horse" is effectively "halved" when it exists under the definition of "animal". One definition moves towards another. In "halving" itself into another definition the word effectively projects itself.

"Horse" is defined through "animal" which is defined through "mammal", etc.




2. Self-Referential Loops (munchauseen trillema/prime triad - Law 3 "Circularity as maintainance and dissolution")

a. 1 loops itself, through 0, with all numbers looping back to 1, through 0, resulting in further numbers. This is conducive to point 1.
((0→0)→1)→((1→1)→2)→((1→2)→3)→((1→3)→4)→....


b. All numbers, as composed of 1, inherently loop themselves through 0.
((0→0)→1)→((1→1)→2)→((2→2)→4)→((3→3)→6)→....

c. A and B happen simultaneously


This can be observed within physics under the nature of Spin Cycles setting the foundation for the movement of all phenomenon, specifically atoms, but to cellestial events as well.

Geometrically this can be observed as a point directed to another point, through the line, observe the point existing through a "cycle" considering Point A is the same as Point B; hence all lines effectively are degrees of direction, left to right and right to left, as "cycles".


Relative to Language:

However considering A → B and B projects back to A as B → A (considering "animal" as defined exists through "horse" we can observe a form of circularity. (A → B and B → A)=C as "mammal". So these two halves as 1 are effectively "halved" as well through the cycle.

So Horse=Animal, Horse=Mammal, Animal=Mammal, Horse=Animal=Mammal="x" observes four definitions (the quartering of one phenomenon into four) which effectively exists through a spiral under the conditions of "time" but under timeless effectively exist as 1 perpetual "form"




3. Repetition as Pattern; all forms as composed of further forms equate all platonic forms as grounds of movement through the infinite degrees of forms through which they are composed. (munchauseen trillema/prime triad - Law 2 "linear continuum")

The number line, as the repetition of 1, effectively observes the number line as 1 composed of infinite repetition as a pattern in and of itself.


This can be observe in physics as all wavelengths, premised in Energy as the speed of light (volume) and therefore "light", effectively observes the various wave functions as various degrees of the wave-function of light itself.


The repetition of qualities results in further qualities as a quality in itself and can be observed in "language" as well where; horse as both a quality and a term exist through various grades of horse and the degrees which compose the horse (legs, eyes, etc.) as well as various definitions of "horse"; animal, mammal...etc.


4. self-similarity; the phenomenon is repeated through time, but as repeated it effectively exists in multiple states at once conducive to a form of quantum mechanics where the same phenomena as connected in multiple states is circular. (trillema/triad - Law 2 and 3)

1 as repeated through all other numbers, maintains itself in a non-localized state where it exists in multiple states at once; hence the number line observes not only the repetition of the line (1 to 2 observes one line to 2 lines, etc.) but effectively observing

(0→0)=1, ((0→0)→(0→0))=2, ((0→0)→(0→0)→(0→0))=3,...


Geometrically this can be observed in the Line, that while different in proportion, existing in multiple states at once within the line; its repetition results in an inherent self-similiarity where the line effectively cycles through itself.

In physics this occurs through the movement of a particle from Point A to Point B, where each locality of the particle observes in multiple states at once relative to a larger time-line. The wave function, as multiple states of the particle within a given timeline, observe this. The wave-particle dualism is an observation of this as time-zones within time-zones.


The horse is self-similar, as its repetition in time observes the horse as a form existing in multiple states at once conducive to the horse existing in multiple states at once through the time line itself. This occurs qualitatively, however in the nature of "language" itself where the horse is defined through "animal", "mammal", etc. as progressive definitions that cycle through each other in which "horse" maintains itself as a constant amidst these various definitions of the words.


5. Fractals; where a phenomenon is effectively repeated resulting in "size", through relation, where the phenomenon as repeated observes either an expansion or contraction in size conducive to a "ratio". The phenomenon may "repeat", but this repitition observes a relative (but simultaneous from a third time zone) expansion or contraction. (trillema/triad Law 2 and 3)

All numbers progressing to further number result in fractals where the progression of fractals always observes the whole number line as approaching 0 through the fractals;


1→2 observes 1 halving itself into 2 where 2 exists as a whole number in itself; hence 2 and 1/2 exist simultaneously.
1→3 observes the same where 3 and 1/3 exist simultaneously.
2→3 observes 2 divided into 3 results in 3-.66666's

As the number progresses wholly, it results in a series of corresponding fractal's simultaneously; thus the number line is always approach 1

(1→2→3→4→...) = .5 → .666....→ .75 →... → .999999

While each number, as 1 and through one is always approaching 0 due to the self-referential loops of point 2:

((1→2)→(1→3)→(1→4)→...) = .5 → .3333 → .25 → (1/n→0)


The fraction effectively exists as a fractal through the number line where 1 progressing to 2 observe a unified line as 2 lines each 1/2, the same occurs for a unified line as 3 and 1/3, etc. All fractions are effectively fractals through the number line and geometry and arithmetic are inseparable.

Hence what we observe is a relativistic expansion (expansion of number) and contraction (fraction of number)

This can be observed in the particle/wave dualism where the particle is effectively a contracted wave-function and the wave-function as an expanded particle.

Qualitatively The horse, in its progression through time exists through a series of expansion/contraction through its growth and decay but also the movements which compose it (such as running where the muscles in the legs, as well as the legs themselves, go through a series of expansive and contractive movements). This expansion through growth is a process of infinite fractals, while any contradiction is a process of infinite fractals. Movement, through the contraction/expansion in not just the growth of the horse (as a movement through time) but its musculature (as also a movement through time) as fractals observes each movement is a "fraction" of a prior movement where the multiplicity of forms through the expansion and contraction as fractals is grounded in "fractions" as actual and potential movement.

The same can be observed within the "horse" as a word in and of itself:

So Horse=Animal, Horse=Mammal, Animal=Mammal, Horse=Animal=Mammal="x" observes four definitions (the quartering of one phenomenon into four) which effectively exists through a spiral under the conditions of "time" but under timeless effectively exist as 1 perpetual "form". The word horse effectively exists through fractions of the definition under the words, "animal", "mammal", etc. with these words simultaneously expanding as multiple variations of the same word.



6. self-organization; where the phenomenon is continually joining to further phenomenon through the above. (trillema/triad Law 2 and 3 in accords to "synthesis")


What the number line observes is a perpetual synthesis of 1 and 0 in which 0 converges upon itself through 1 as a directive property akin to both the geometric line and the number line. 1, through 0, diverges into further ones which converge as further numbers.

In physics the divergence of one particle into another results in further particles while the convergence of the particles results in the wave-function; this occurs respectively with the wave function.

The quality of "horse" is a process of self-organization through time; where the movement (grade of the form of the horse as a fractal/fraction of it) effectively joins to further movements as the form of the horse itself as perpetual movements joining through eachother as eachother with the form joining to these movements effectively replicating the form (horse joining to another horse through sex results in another horse).

The definition of "horse" diverges into further words, such as "animal", where the convergence of these definitions results in a new "word" such as "mammal" in this case.



7. point of origin (initial conditions); the above exist through a point of origin that repeats through self-referentiality looping as the "movement" allowing the phenomenon to exist through time in multiple states at "once" through "fractals" as expansion and contraction allowing the point of origin to effectively self-organize by joining itself to itself.

Logic(Language),Geometry,The Number line, etc. existing through perspectives as perspectives when the subject-object dichotomy is eliminated observes 7 laws to the axiom or "self-evidence" in which:

Consciousness, under the "axiom" as "self-evidence", exists as a point of origin through point space self-referencing itself under a perpetual looping as movement, where the multiplicity of these states is conducive to "time" in which the point (and all phenomenon as a point of awareness through "consciousness") exist in multiple states at one under a repeated expansion/contraction of linear/circular space resulting in fractals allowing consciousness to effectively self-organized by merging itself within itself ("A mind free of thought, merged within itself, beholds the essence of Tao"-Tao Te Ching)

[Logik]

If you put these words into code you will see how quickly you can turn them into readable English.

First you have to structure your own mind using a rational language ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_language ). English is a mess.

[Logik]

What strikes great similarity between your expressions:

((0→0)→1)→((1→1)→2)→((1→2)→3)→((1→3)→4)→....
(0→0)=1, ((0→0)→(0→0))=2, ((0→0)→(0→0)→(0→0))=3,...

And this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_grammar#Examples

[Logik]

And this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_gr ... r_Grammars

A simple linear grammar is G with N = {S}, Σ = {a, b}, P with start symbol S and rules

S → aSb
S → ε

[Eodnhoj7]

If you put these words into code you will see how quickly you can turn them into readable English.

First you have to structure your own mind using a rational language ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_language ). English is a mess.

False...computer's cannot create readable or not readable english, they are a framework of interpretation.

[Logik]

False...computer's cannot create readable or not readable english, they are a framework of interpretation.

Inverse. If you have a well-structured mind you can produce readable English.

[Eodnhoj7]

What strikes great similarity between your expressions:

((0→0)→1)→((1→1)→2)→((1→2)→3)→((1→3)→4)→....
(0→0)=1, ((0→0)→(0→0))=2, ((0→0)→(0→0)→(0→0))=3,...

And this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_grammar#Examples

Like you said "the symbol means whatever I want it to mean". The symbol "→" observes "directed".

0 directed to 0 observes 0 as "dynamic" directing itself to 1...etc.

0 directed to 0, through the point, observes it directed (static) as 1.


((0→0)→1)→((1→1)→2)→((1→2)→3)→((1→3)→4)→....

((→)→)→ observes "→" existing in an active (→) and passive (()→) state where this active and passive state exist simultaneously in (())→.

Active as in "changing"
Passive as in "constant form"
Both as "changing form".





It can be observed as:

((0→0)=1)→((1→1)=2)→((1→2)=3)→((1→3)=4)→.

[Eodnhoj7]

False...computer's cannot create readable or not readable english, they are a framework of interpretation.

Inverse. If you have a well-structured mind you can produce readable English.

False, as readable determined by a framework of a computer cannot deal with paradoxes. Computers meltdown with infinities. Readable is also a relative terms to the point of the observer...your language is one of programming; hence you are bound within it's paradoxes and cannot escape them.

You struggle with finiteness as multiple infinities...you will not be able to understand the majority of this.

[Logik]

Like you said "the symbol means whatever I want it to mean". The symbol "→" observes "directed".

0 directed to 0 observes 0 as "dynamic" directing itself to 1...etc.

0 directed to 0, through the point, observes it directed (static) as 1.


((0→0)→1)→((1→1)→2)→((1→2)→3)→((1→3)→4)→....

((→)→)→ observes "→" existing in an active (→) and passive (()→) state where this active and passive state exist simultaneously in (())→.

Active as in "changing"
Passive as in "constant form"
Both as "changing form".





It can be observed as:

((0→0)=1)→((1→1)=2)→((1→2)=3)→((1→3)=4)→.

The problem is that as you construct many rules it becomes hard to keep track of them, and even harder to avoid equivocation/conflation etc.

Aristotle tripped over it himself. And that's precisely what computer interpreters help you with. Instant feedback on grammatical/syntactic/semantic errors.

Errors are learning, right? So a machine that tells you that you are making errors is a great teacher.

[Logik]

False, as readable determined by a framework of a computer cannot deal with paradoxes.

You can't program a paradox.

Computers meltdown with infinities.

So does your brain. You aren't really doing infinities - you are taking shortcuts.

Readable is also a relative terms to the point of the observer...your language is one of programming; hence you are bound within it's paradoxes and cannot escape them.

Here's a challenge. Program a paradox.

[Eodnhoj7]

Like you said "the symbol means whatever I want it to mean". The symbol "→" observes "directed".

0 directed to 0 observes 0 as "dynamic" directing itself to 1...etc.

0 directed to 0, through the point, observes it directed (static) as 1.


((0→0)→1)→((1→1)→2)→((1→2)→3)→((1→3)→4)→....

((→)→)→ observes "→" existing in an active (→) and passive (()→) state where this active and passive state exist simultaneously in (())→.

Active as in "changing"
Passive as in "constant form"
Both as "changing form".





It can be observed as:

((0→0)=1)→((1→1)=2)→((1→2)=3)→((1→3)=4)→.

The problem is that as you construct many rules it becomes hard to keep track of them, and even harder to avoid equivocation/conflation etc.

Aristotle tripped over it himself. And that's precisely what computer interpreters help you with. Instant feedback on grammatical/syntactic/semantic errors.

Errors are learning, right? So a machine that tells you that you are making errors is a great teacher.

False, if "all is one" I am arguing for "equivocation".

Second; creating tools which create tools, etc. ad-fininitum is using the term "creation" as an equivocator. Creating tools to create more tools just observes "creation" as having the same meaning as "=" in aristotelian logic...hence the principle of explosion you are claiming is part of aristotelian identity is actually a deep seated fear over the nature of "creation" as a foundational variable through the observer in constructive mathematics.

Error are errors as an error. Error is only incompleteness, but if the statement claims itself as incomplete it is both complete and not-complete; hence true and false (gradation of truth, as truth).

[Eodnhoj7]

False, as readable determined by a framework of a computer cannot deal with paradoxes.

You can't program a paradox.

And all problems are paradoxes; hence one cannot program a solution as one cannot program a problem in for the solution to effectively deal with.

Computers meltdown with infinities.

So does your brain. You aren't really doing infinities - you are taking shortcuts.

False, all lines are composed of infinite points...any observation of a specific portion of the line results in an infinity.

Readable is also a relative terms to the point of the observer...your language is one of programming; hence you are bound within it's paradoxes and cannot escape them.

Here's a challenge. Program a paradox.

Programming is a paradox as programming is just a replication of the observer, and if the observer is plagued by logical problems (or even questions of existence) it reflects in the programming.

[Logik]

And all problems are paradoxes; hence one cannot program a solution as one cannot program a problem in for the solution to effectively deal with.

No, they are not paradoxes. Paradoxes are (apparent) LNC violations. They are just linguistic short-comings e.g the Barber's paradox demonstrates the problems with set theory. In order to fix it - ZFC abandons the concept of "universal set". the set of ALL things.
I can solve the Barber's paradox in type theory and maintain the set of ALL things.

Problems are discrepancies between "I want" and "I can". I want to go to Mars - I can't.
Problem: How to get to Mars.

I want icecream - I can buy Icecream.
Problem: NO PROBLEM

False, all lines are composed of infinite points...any observation of a specific portion of the line results in an infinity.

All points are infinitely-precise Real numbers - bottomless pits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_number

Programming is a paradox as programming is just a replication of the observer, and if the observer is plagued by logical problems (or even questions of

You haven't yet delineated the difference between "problem" and "non-problem" (as I have done) and so you cannot assert WHY self-replication is a "problem".

[Eodnhoj7]

And all problems are paradoxes; hence one cannot program a solution as one cannot program a problem in for the solution to effectively deal with.

No, they are not paradoxes. Paradoxes are (apparent) LNC violations. They are just linguistic short-comings e.g the Barber's paradox demonstrates the problems with set theory. In order to fix it - ZFC abandons the concept of "universal set". the set of ALL things.
I can solve the Barber's paradox in type theory and maintain the set of ALL things.

Problems are discrepancies between "I want" and "I can". I want to go to Mars - I can't.
Problem: How to get to Mars.

I want icecream - I can buy Icecream.
Problem: NO PROBLEM


False, as the problem is subject to language progression grounded in "one" wording existing through "many" words...this is in itself a paradox.

Second all paradoxes are grounded in a dualism:

"I want" and "ability to" observes a dichotomy where "want" necessitates a decificiency in ability while "ability" observes a deficiency in one. Both grounded as simultaneously thetical/antithetical from an outside perspective, but from a linear perspective one is always thetical and the other antithetical.

"How" to get to mars is grounded in an equal "why" as the "why" observing the "cause" of manner in which the trip to mar's is observed

Computer's cannot logically differentiate "how" from "why" and this is a logical paradox as the "why" as a "cause" observes "how" as the means in which the cause effectively is given structure and formed (ie the trip itself) "why" effectively acts as a cause in and of itself do to its inseperable nature from "how".

For example we may determine "how" to get to the moon, but the computer cannot observe that it may be better to place "x" resources for the public psyche in "y" project instead. It cannot solve the problem of efficient choice making as it must contain the paradox of "how/why" within itself and synthesize it.

False, all lines are composed of infinite points...any observation of a specific portion of the line results in an infinity.

All points are infinitely-precise Real numbers - bottomless pits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_number

All finiteness effectively is grounded in a bottomless pit when applying "quantity" as the primary variable in determining "what is finite and what is not".

You are stuck with a logic loop, you depend upon finiteness, but finiteness necessitates a quantifiability and quantifiability is a "bottomless pit"; hence all finiteness is a bottomless pit.

Programming is a paradox as programming is just a replication of the observer, and if the observer is plagued by logical problems (or even questions of

You haven't yet delineated the difference between "problem" and "non-problem" (as I have done) and so you cannot assert WHY self-replication is a "problem".

All problem's are grounded in multiplicity where we observe an inherent state of opposition in thetical/antithetical phenomenon. This multiplicity is in itself "incompletion". Self-replication is a "problem" in the respect that the percieved axiom being replicated effectively replicate "contradiction" (multiplicity/fragmentation/chaos) thus causing a "regression" or a minimum "stagnation".

It would be equivalent to saying:

We can keep crops alive with "x" chemical.
We need crops to keep people alive.
But "x" chemical causes cancer and kills people.

[Logik]

False, as the problem is subject to language progression grounded in "one" wording existing through "many" words...this is in itself a paradox.

Second all paradoxes are grounded in a dualism:

There is no language involved in my desire for icecream.

I am expressing my desire in language, but my desire is there whether I say it or not.