All Problems are Rooted in Ideology and Intuition

[Logik]

Actually it is complete as it is self-referencing and self defining where synthesis exists as both a process of recursion and isomorphism.

Then it is also isomorphic to computation. What you are describing is called Turing-completeness.

It's isomorphic to the ALL class in complexity theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALL_(complexity)

That which synthesizes is called a 'generator'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generator ... ogramming)

The argument contains what you provided above but is not limited to it as each "axiom" is a point of origin leading to further axioms simultaneously. All axioms are original and as such negated computation by an inherent element of spontaneity, which while resulting in chaos theory as each axiom can only be approximated, the axiom effectively come from "nothing" and as such cannot be computed.

All axioms are random, but randomness does not mean "disorder". While the formation of the axiom may effectively be spontaneous for a variety of reasons

a. Axiom A may variate into Axiom B by standard entropy/negentropy.

b. Axiom A may variate into Axiom B because Axiom B is an approximation of Axiom A in light of Axiom C. Axiom A is an approximation of some other axiom in light of Axiom C. Axiom A reversibly is an approximation of Axiom B and/or C. etc.

c. etc.

; the axiom results in further axioms; necessitating an inherent order where the axiom as "spontaneous" maintains corresponding axioms to which it connects and seperates from. All continuums inherently are "rational" as the composition of the continuum, as an axiom in itself, is composed of and composes further axioms.

What we deep fundamentally as "irrational" fundamentally is an absence of connection or a cessation in the continuum. In these respects "spontaneity" and "randomness" are irrational relative to the observer, but because they always contain a constant repitition of a "continuum" they are never truly irrational. There is no true irrational in light of space being the foundation axiom of all "being".

You are describing quantum computation.

[Eodnhoj7]

Then it is also isomorphic to computation. What you are describing is called Turing-completeness.

It's isomorphic to the ALL class in complexity theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALL_(complexity)

That which synthesizes is called a 'generator'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generator ... ogramming)

The argument contains what you provided above but is not limited to it as each "axiom" is a point of origin leading to further axioms simultaneously. All axioms are original and as such negated computation by an inherent element of spontaneity, which while resulting in chaos theory as each axiom can only be approximated, the axiom effectively come from "nothing" and as such cannot be computed.

All axioms are random, but randomness does not mean "disorder". While the formation of the axiom may effectively be spontaneous for a variety of reasons

a. Axiom A may variate into Axiom B by standard entropy/negentropy.

b. Axiom A may variate into Axiom B because Axiom B is an approximation of Axiom A in light of Axiom C. Axiom A is an approximation of some other axiom in light of Axiom C. Axiom A reversibly is an approximation of Axiom B and/or C. etc.

c. etc.

; the axiom results in further axioms; necessitating an inherent order where the axiom as "spontaneous" maintains corresponding axioms to which it connects and seperates from. All continuums inherently are "rational" as the composition of the continuum, as an axiom in itself, is composed of and composes further axioms.

What we deep fundamentally as "irrational" fundamentally is an absence of connection or a cessation in the continuum. In these respects "spontaneity" and "randomness" are irrational relative to the observer, but because they always contain a constant repitition of a "continuum" they are never truly irrational. There is no true irrational in light of space being the foundation axiom of all "being".

You are describing quantum computation.

Elaborate your Point....argument/link/whatever.

[Logik]

Elaborate your Point....argument/link/whatever.

In classical computation the fundamental unit is the bit e.g binary digit. A bit can only be one of two values: 1 or 0.

In Quantum computation the fundamental unit is the qubit ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit )
Which can have "infinitely" many values (in theory. In practice limits apply) between 0 and 1

To represent the value of a Qubit we use Bloch spheres ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloch_sphere ).
Using basic geometry/trigonometry we can encode any value between 1 and 0 on the surface of a sphere - called a "pure state" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_state#Pure_states )
And infinitely many more states by referencing points within the volume of the sphere - called mixed states ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_s ... xed_states ).

But my personal observation is that a Bloch sphere is what you call a "point line and circle" you speak of e.g 𝇇 in 3 dimensions.

That means your axioms are 2-state quantum systems. You seem to insist on tri-value logic, or 3-state quantum systems. Whatever - it can be modelled in the mathematics of quantum computation.

This principle generalizes to an arbitrary (infinite?) number of states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_state but at that point the Block sphere is no longer useful as a visual aid and the mathematics become exponentially more complex with each qubit you add into your system.