Meta-Relativity and Contexts

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Meta-Relativity and Contexts

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:59 pm

META-RELATIVITY AND CONTEXTS

Considering all variables exist through further variables this looping necessitates the variable as a context, this is considering a context is a loop.

All contexts as the centerpoint for further contexts necessitate all contexts as equivocating to another context through an underlying context. These are meta contexts, through recursion (or Assumptive Law of Inherent Middle), that underlie all other contexts.

Meta relativistic contexts allow for equivocation of seemingly unequal numbers.

The quantifiabilty of numbers as contexts equates to numbers in and of themselves, where a number is equal to it's own quantity. The quantification of the sets of numbers which compose the number causes one set of numbers to equate to another, thus seemingly different numbers equate through the contexts by which they are composed. The number is equal to the number of contexts which forms it with the totality of contexts being a context itself.

A) 1=0
(0) = 1( )


B) 1=2
(1(0)) = 1( )1( )
(2) = 1( )

b) 0=2
(0(0)) = 1( )1( )




C) 2=3
((1)(1)) = 1( )1( )1( )


c) 0=3
((0)(0)) = 1( )1( )1( )

c1) 1 = 3
(3) = 1( )


D) 4=3
((2)(2)) = 1( )1( )1( )

d) 0=4
((0)(0)(0)) = 1( )1( )1( )1( )

d1) 1=4
(4) = 1( )

d2) 2=4
((2/3)(2/3)(2/3)) = 1( )1( )1( )1( )

Again, a number is equal to the number of numbers which compose it as both the number, and the numbers which compose it, are contexts. Seemingly different numbers can equivocate through the contexts which form them as the summation of these contexts. The common underlying median between percievably different numbers are contexts. Context equal to context, allows equivocation through context.

An empirical example of this would be a red brick and red car, equivocating to eachother through red. They are equal through red, but unequal otherwise, the framework is always right and wrong given context.

Another example:

The sun and moon are both equal through having color and round shapes. "Color" and "shape" are inherently middle contexts that allow one context to equate to another.

The sun and moon are unequal as having different colors and different surfaces to the shapes. While "color" and "shape" is an inherent middle context, that both "Sun" and "Moon" have in common, this middle context is fundamentally empty as it diverges into different colors and shapes. These contexts, as fundamentally void of definition inverts into different contrasting contexts resulting in a definition of this middle term.


The sun and moon are simultaneously equal and unequal as the contexts through which they align necessitates an equivocation of certain phenomena and lack of equality in another.

Another example from a seperate angle observes the truth value changing in response to a change in context:

1. (Einstein is alive) =T/F
2. (Einstein is alive in the 21st century as an idea) = T but potential F
3. (Einstein is alive in the 21st century) = F but potential T


Numbers 2 and 3 are also simultaneously true and false given a larger context. For a truth value to change all one has to do is change the context, thus truth value always requires a potential truth value as well.

The general state of contexts, as being simultaneously true and false given another context, necessitate proof in alignment of contexts alone where falsifiability is not necessarily the primary determinate of truth.

A third example:

A unicorn exists = T/F
A unicorn exists as a dream = T
A unicorn exists as an empirical biological entity = F

"A unicorn exists" can always be either justified or falsified dependent upon the context it is represented through. "A unicorn exists" is true when it reflects under the context of "dream".

Both the "unicorn" and the "dream" share a symmetry through "imagination" which acts as an underlying context both "unicorn" and "dream" exist through. Imagination is A Superpositioned Context.

Both the "unicorn" and the "biological entity" have an absence of symmetry through the context of "empiricality" which is a context that does not underlie both "unicorn" and "biological entity" but only "biological entity". "Empiricality" is underlying context which "unicorn" and "biological entity" do not share, thus an absence of symmetry as an absence of shared context is observed. Unicorns are not empirical.


Truth And Falsifiability Change According To The Context Presented, Thus "A Unicorn Exists" Is Both True And False.

What we deem as true is determined by the repeatability of the event within a given context. The expansion of the context in turn changes the measure in which a phenomenon is repeated. It is this repeatability through the expansion and contraction of context which gives a necessary prerequisite to context as determining truth and false values.

All events are falsifiable, or justifiable, given the appropriate context. Thus empirical testing is not necessarily the sole means of justifying a phenomenon as the context from which truth value is derived is subject to a non empirical means of determining the context itself.

It is the absence of empiricality, in determining context, that necessitates all empirical truths being grounded within a prerequisite abstraction that stands above the empirical senses itself. For example the testing of a rat's diet within the contexts of A and B events may as well be empirical in the test itself but what determines which context is applied is based upon an abstraction.

Under these terms all empirical testing is subject to a descriptive process of reasoning where phenomenon are defined in accord to abstractions. Part of this abstraction is the consensus of which abstraction to apply, with this not being subject to any empirical laws but rather group agreement. In simpler terms the test applied to measure a phenomenon are not limited to empirical knowledge but rather a group subjective agreement as to which empirical test the phenomenon is subject to.

Thus in the quest of justifiability, all scientific and philosophical truths are derived from a group agreement in test ability, as any test can be applied to any phenomenon thus leading to any set of results within a given scientific or philosophical experiment.

What is derived through the process of experimentation is the application of context, with the summation of "everything" as "reality itself" being unable to be tested considering the summation of experience must be aligned within a given outside context thus causing a disjunction between "everything" and "test for everything". Testability, as context application, suffers an infinite regress as what can be tested will always have a test beyond it necessary to justify the former context.

The summation of reality alone, as "everything", will always have the test/context itself as a subset thus leading to a circularity: The test is needed to justify reality, but the test must be "real" in order for the test to be valid, this reality to the test is unjustifiable without going into a circularity.


All contexts are true, as existing, and the alignment with other contexts necessitates this truth value as grounded in degrees of interpretation given the very nature of existence itself is a premeditated truth value that underlies all contexts.

Falsifiability thus lends itself to a manifestation of degrees along a continuum, where all contexts as continuums derive truth value from alignment with further continuums.

What we deem as false is a misalignment between contexts, yet this misalignment necessitates each context is self referentially true by the fact they are degrees of existence. It is in manifestation of degrees, where each context as a continuum is part of another context as a continuum, that necessitates existence as a relation of parts which form a whole.

This whole is the summation of interlinked parts with this interlocking of truths determining which have truth value and which do not. Truth is thus premised in the connection between contexts with any absence of connection, as an absence of symmetry between parts, being the sole determinate of what we deem as falsifiable.

In shorter terms, falsifiability is an absence of connection between contexts as an absence of symmetry. Symmetry acts as the sole unifier by reflecting certain common bonds which exist across contexts. Symmetry is a connection across contexts as a superpositioned context that exists in multiple contexts at the same time.


All assertions, existing as relative to the observer, necessitate each assertion as having multiple angles of interpretation thus necessitating each assertion as having multiple levels of meaning.

The phrase: "Nothing exists" can be translated at minimum as:

1. Absence of "thingness" exists.
2. There is no existence.
3. Existence is not limited to "things".
4. Existence is limited to "things".

All of which are correct statements, given the appropriate context. Therefore each statement is layered with potential meanings and context is always necessitated by an expansion to further context. What we understand of an assertion, which exists as a self referential context under it's own terms due to (P=P), is decided by the contexts which are derived from it potentially. Each assertion, as a context through the law of identity, under it's own terms is a self referential loop.

It is the inherent identity processes of the assertion as self referential, due to (P=P) as its identity property, which also necessitates each context as inherently empty in and of itself. As empty all contexts are a means of change into a newer context.

The context as actual is dependent solely on the potential contexts which are derived from it, therefore in the relation of actuality and potentiality the assertion is determined retrocausally in a manner where what the assertion may mean exists as defining the context for what it is.

The potential is linked towards the actual in such a way that meaning is determined by future contexts in a manner where the assertion, as a context, is linked across time and becomes transfinite. Meaning exists in a larger finite state compared to its original finite assertion.

The actual state of a phenomenon variates into further actual states through its potential state. The actual state is one of form, the potential state is one of formlessness. The formless potential state of a phenomenon acts as a means of inversion from one actual state into that of another. The form is negated by what is formless, this negation of the actual is the change which manifests the actual into further actuals.

For example, a singular piece of wood exists. This piece of wood is cut. The actual state of the wood is divided through the formlessness of the cut resulting in multiple pieces of wood. The wood as an actual changes into multiple actuals through the formless nature of the cut. The cut is the potential change of the wood into further actuals.

This negation of the actual results in the division of the actual into another manner of existence through a potentiality which manifests as formlessness. Formlessness is the means of change of one state into another. It is the synthesis of the actual and potential that allows the actual to be a dynamic state of progression where actuality manifests as a continuum.

This dualism between the actual and potential reflects a state of synthesis through context, where the context as actual is changed through a potential formlessness.


Everything reduced to context, necessitates all definition as inherently relative. Relativity is absolute considering what is absolute is the identity of the context as a context. Context is true as existing self referentially, it is false as open to expansion. Definition takes on the nature of rings within rings.

To say truth is relative is to assert there are certain contexts which always align with other contexts, certain rings must align with other rings. This alignment necessitates absolute truth as existing. The context as having any secondary nature to truth is in itself a context, thus what we understand of context is the inversion of one context to another, causing one context is exist recursively through another.

1. All contexts are center points to further contexts.
2. All contexts are empty in themselves yet exist through further contexts.
3. All contexts are instrincially empty loops which exist through further loops.

Being exists through cycles which allows for a context to both be a center point to a further context while intrinsically empty.


What is absolute is 1 underlying absolute cycle, which is approximated through many cycles. Absolute truth is approximated through relative truth.


For example, a series of monads exists. There is no one monad at first glance but many. However each monad is the same form with their summation resulting in many different forms. Each monad exists through the same shape, thus even though there are many monads, technically it is the same form repeated again and again. One form is approximated through many forms, so while there are many monad it is actually the same one in different forms. Unity is approximated through multiplicity.

Relativity and absolute truth both exist simultaneously.


When determining truth we are always left with a beginning point perspective and there are no formal rules for deciding this other than inversion to another perspective and the replication of it in a new manner.

Pure geometric forms underleye all abstract and empirical being as being in itself is form which exists "as is". What we understand of reality is a series of forms which expand and contract from a single point.

In these respects, to cycle back to the original definition, all reduces to a common point, line and circle expressed through a spiral.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests