Foundations of Synthesis As Absolute Truth and Relativistic Truth

[Eodnhoj7]

I mean look at you, you and all your "wisdom", you keep cycling through "programming" as the pinpoint of your argument in progressive variations of the same thing...it is almost like you are "stuck" going in some perpetual loop.

It's not a loop. It's recursion.

Subtle difference that absconds you.

A loop ends up at the same space coordinate.

False, each repeated axiom is a space coordinate as a localized entity in itself and as such "the loop ending in the same space cooridinate" is a observing the same point repeat itself.



A recursion can never end up at the same spacetime coordinate.



False; each space cooridinate is superpositioned and can be in the same place while in separate places at the same time.

For example I may observe particle A existing in both positions B and C. Particle A is a space on its own terms. Positions B and C are the space in which that space exists; hence observing that Particle A as a space exists in two simultaneous spaces at once.

This is usually observed under quantum entanglement, however can be observed in the recursion of a variable in a time line where the variable, as a time zone in itself as it is composed of parts, may exist simultaneously on another part of the time line when the time line itself is taken as a whole.

Hence going back to your first point, the variable may project linearly but because it goes back to its origins through an inherent repetition (axiom A is directed to Axiom A through recursion) we are left with a loop as the one point always travels back to the original point.

[Logik]

False, each repeated axiom is a space coordinate as a localized entity in itself and as such "the loop ending in the same space cooridinate" is a observing the same point repeat itself.

How do you know it's the same point and not another one just like it?

[Eodnhoj7]

False, each repeated axiom is a space coordinate as a localized entity in itself and as such "the loop ending in the same space cooridinate" is a observing the same point repeat itself.

How do you know it's the same point and not another one just like it?

Because similarities are a common bond, with all commonality observing a unified variable stemming through multiple localities.

[Logik]

Because similarities are a common bond, with all commonality observing a unified variable stemming through multiple localities.

Multiplpe localities eh. Is the observer at both of those localities at the same time to make sure of that?

[Eodnhoj7]

Because similarities are a common bond, with all commonality observing a unified variable stemming through multiple localities.

Multiplpe localities eh. Is the observer at both of those localities at the same time to make sure of that?

Actually yes, I can observe a quality on x side of the room replicated in y side of the room. Both qualities are the same, but both qualites exist in different positions, with the observer existing in a position that unites the two position under one position (the perspective).

[Logik]

Because similarities are a common bond, with all commonality observing a unified variable stemming through multiple localities.

Multiplpe localities eh. Is the observer at both of those localities at the same time to make sure of that?

Actually yes, I can observe a quality on x side of the room replicated in y side of the room. Both qualities are the same, but both qualites exist in different positions, with the observer existing in a position that unites the two position under one position (the perspective).

You can look in two places at the same time? Fuck me!

Can you teleport yourself also?

[Eodnhoj7]

Multiplpe localities eh. Is the observer at both of those localities at the same time to make sure of that?

Actually yes, I can observe a quality on x side of the room replicated in y side of the room. Both qualities are the same, but both qualites exist in different positions, with the observer existing in a position that unites the two position under one position (the perspective).

You can look in two places at the same time? Fuck me!

Can you teleport yourself also?

Yeah I can, I can see a book in one place right next to another in a seperate place as the books themselves are places.

[Logik]

Yeah I can, I can see a book in one place right next to another in a seperate place as the books themselves are places.

So teleport to my desk then ! I have beer and a white board.

This conversation is going to go much faster in person!

When can I expect you to beam in?

[Eodnhoj7]

Yeah I can, I can see a book in one place right next to another in a seperate place as the books themselves are places.

So teleport to my desk then ! I have beer and a white board.

This conversation is going to go much faster in person!

When can I expect you to beam in?

If the conversation is going to go much faster in person...it really does defeat what you do for a living now does it?

[Logik]

If the conversation is going to go much faster in person...it really does defeat what you do for a living now does it?

False dichotomy.

Conversations certainly work best in person, BUT when that's not possible for whatever reason conversations certainly go faster over computers than they do over pen, paper and postal service.

If we didn't have computers we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
And you still haven't teleported yourself here - so I think we are better off for having them.

[Eodnhoj7]

If the conversation is going to go much faster in person...it really does defeat what you do for a living now does it?

False dichotomy.

Conversations certainly work best in person, BUT when that's not possible for whatever reason conversations certainly go faster over computers than they do over pen, paper and postal service.

If we didn't have computers we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
And you still haven't teleported yourself here - so I think we are better off for having them.

Strawman, no dichotomy was drawn.

If we did not have computers, I would be out actually living a life because people would not be on social media all the time.

[Logik]

Strawman, no dichotomy was drawn.

You implied that computers are not needed because face-to-face communication is good enough.
I pointed out to you that having computers is better than not-having-computers where face-to-face communication is impractical

If we did not have computers, I would be out actually living a life because people would not be on social media all the time.

They would be in libraries instead. Have you ever been to a library? You aren't allowed to speak!

[Arising_uk]

...
They would be in libraries instead. Have you ever been to a library? You aren't allowed to speak!

I only wish this was still the case.

[Eodnhoj7]

Strawman, no dichotomy was drawn.

You implied that computers are not needed because face-to-face communication is good enough.
I pointed out to you that having computers is better than not-having-computers where face-to-face communication is impractical

If we did not have computers, I would be out actually living a life because people would not be on social media all the time.

They would be in libraries instead. Have you ever been to a library? You aren't allowed to speak!

I have implied how we manifested technology is the problem, and as such "modern" technology is the problem due to its extension of the human condition and how we percieve not just the world. Technology is inevitable, computation through the human condition (ie "Reason") is inevitable. But when these tools eradicate the human condition, then they become illogical due to there inability to meet the needs of a "quality" life they were designed to create.

The solution? From what it appears, considering the premise I propose that "All is space" and the foundation of unifying this space by the eradication of "void" or "darkness" which sets the foundation for "multiplicity" (this I have explained earlier, but may have to again) is using "space itself to unify space"...for only space exists. This is going to sound like a windbag or empty headed statement so I will have to explain if you do not understand.

The "technological" solution, besides the necessary teaching of virtuous conduct by observing the nature of cycles through the golden rule, most likely is observed (which some studies out of russia appear to justify) is pyramid and obelisk building that will enhance man's rational abilities rather than reducing him to a cog in the machine.