kavaris

Consciousness is also the thing that underlies consciousness, so its like, there isnt a concrete place to point to to call the actual reality or the perceived, or what came first if there was like, a mirage-like place settling and then becoming not-abstract; Theres a sortve centerfuge of decision-making we have to navigate, and then that sortve points ppl east or west so to speak on what we—the ppl—feel is the deepest part of our experience. With that said... For sure, our experience is like a storm of unsettled water before it has calmed to a still position—such that it can be examined for what it is—even still, it is no more fundamental or abstract or not abstract than anything else, more than it is just *more congenial to our life* versus *more detrimental*, as it could be said that reality is best expressed in a state of chaos or falling apart—of course, we want to say that reality and experience are conducive to those things where our life is also promoted for the better, but those are tightly integrated with the ways in which we decide and judge and define things. As we turn, evolve, we are letting go of all conceptual understanding of what there is to understand, re establishing who or whats doing the understanding.

Heres a proposition yous can pre-suppose/declare: "All cases of infinity are paradoxical". NOTE: Predicates: Properties or relations applied to objects (sometimes called 'conditions')(e.g., "is paradoxical") Subjects/Objects: The entities the predicates describe (e.g., "cases of infinity") Continuing on, ask yourselves then, are there ever situations where we can see an infinite amount of things going forward, that does not also share a space very close with an inevitable paradox regardless? Like, is there anything that can be both limitless and non-paradoxical, or, are they almost always synonymous - in every case? But suppose the answer ended up more complicated (which... it might not, but who knows, right?..) then, we would go further on to use some form logic-esque. 🐾 P || ~P ; "For any proposition P, either P — OR its negation is true..."(and "nothing else" - insinuated by semicolon) and is to make clearer a deliniation of those specifics, thereby solving some dilemmas that may often plague the mind (and perhaps diverging from traditional styles of communication, if it comes to it) Anyway, that was just an explanation/example, an artists rendering of one possible direction... That doesnt imply that an equation comes first, that was just circumstantial in my argument (and as you can see, it can be like "the prompt" of your 1st sentence, but, it can also appear like a "citation mark" within a sentence, or any number of other things—it is not limited to anything really right now. Maybe later we will encounter limitations for the fossils uses, though because it transcends logic since thats what it itself is to mean, it shouldnt have limitations

So the full title says: Fossils, Proposition/predicates, and paw prints - which looks like a fossil - and may extend into other shaped fossils - which are the little insignia/embems (our artistic spin) and are representative of an element, or idea, having been further investigated, such that no rational mind can travel on the same logical reasoning or inclination (i will explain this further...) Now, it would start out in logic (all the logic and reasoning, see wikipedia on "logic") propositions/predicates and such, but it would first identify structure vs unstructure (or some word to act as an antonym to structure) suffice to say, it begins w/ Universal Instantiation—that which also ties in to modus ponens — or the opposite modens tollens — as well as the laws of boolean algebra; BUT for ease of mind, you can begin thinking of this forked proposition as the law of the excluded middle, which says that, for every proposition, either **this proposition**, or **its negation is true**. So that is all to say that, there is a system that marks those points which are well structured, well formed words that a human would use. Those fossil paw prints are like little hieroglyphics in the process of marking a persons thoughts—think of it as being somewhere between pictographs and cuneiform—still carrying the impression of the artists device, wherein, to elaborate further means, 'to communicate beyond the following': logic, reasoning, words, any known letters or languages, forms entirely, visual impressions entirely, etc.... whether its in conversation, a formal writing, or just a journal entry. This implies that, you are treating that fossil as such, and are prepared to communicate beyond the aforementioned forms (and the entirety of sensual information if need be...) In conclusion, it is not purely "logic", but a more general form of... there is likely already a missing word to encapsulate what this is, and if you think of it, feel free to share. p.s. i may have missed some things. If anyone wants to further add, or come up w/ more interesting parts, feel free to add to this, otherwise, we can either discuss it, or start using it. We would need a way to communicate the fossil symbol.

see also; https://www.britannica.com/topic/logic/Logical-systems .. which is a good alternative definition, w/ different links to different areas/concepts .. or things like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_logic#Metaphysics_of_logic which would jump u to Metaphysics of logic... but theres others on there too, for instance, "Fundamental concepts" defines things like truth, arg, conclusions, and fallacies (note: i might even add to that, the idea of "definitions" versus "intentionally vague & poignant" is also a concept, that which is probably definatory—iuno what the strategic thing is) that all fall under this Philosophy of Logic

@Jannesi actually imagine images very similar to that youve portrayed here, especially the ocean one, when i think of god as its the only way to encapsulate what is like, different images of the same (and these are the first images that always come to mind) its like a flash of 6 or so images: (1) CLOUDs, (2) MOUNTAIN, (3) ICE GLACIER PLANET (which ties into some weird polly pocket/my little pony-hieroglyphic-puzzly thing), (4) Water or Ocean... Theres also (5) Kansas, or whats like a great plains of north america or some sortve large field. and i wanna say one feels like the inside of a computer. Thats six. Sometimes theres others, but they are fainter nd lead back into one another again.

just throwin this out, if we consider this space of ideas as the space of actualized/leo, then maybe it should really start from an artistic pov... i just dont actually know like, what that means, or what is a topic that is the most artistic bound, which makes me think that any place we start from can be considered as that... so thats where im headed fyi

unstructed space time nother issue, say for instance in *space & time* is like, how do you convey the idea of like "encapsulating space, such that it doesnt invoke *beyond space*", like, you have to make space the thing that contains everything—you know what i mean, but i dont see that making sense to us as humans, like, it makes sense if you write it down, but how do we reason about that, thats like, totally bizarre. like in other words, space is the thing creating everything, but, it doesnt have like, a place where non existence is on the outside, instead, it has itself? there isnt anedge at the edge... what? thats like, full-crossed-eyed and trying to question reality suddenly... So i say that like, that is the biggest problem, for us to talk about a thing that is like, a concept that is both alien, and also its got alot of crossover w/ how consciousness is the self containing thing too... its like, man... not enough ppl tlkin bout that.. so there u go... my neck still hurts today..

Like suppose we want to say: space & time is the most important—the part that we want to begin @ in order to talk about the whole of physics, or, any subsequent math (not that im saying it is the most important,we can treat something else as the most important part inside of consciousness, any points you want), but just for the sake of, supposing we started there, then that means we automatically are talking about a brain twister, like, cause there aint any geometrical thing you can imagine. So right from the start, we arent talkin about somethin that is normalized from the perspective of math & physics... can we rule math out entirely if it is a math problem we want to to travel down (or something thats like a structured language)?... we can introduce a new category of axioms, that are like, a whole lexicon of ways to begin thinking about it, like it really puts emphasis on the structure of reality... like, we dont even need to invoke the word consciousness, and yet we're already talkin about a problem that has a similar problem. Does that make sense?... Alas, we can begin from anywhere yous want, this is just the initialization of a structured idea that happens to be the realm of physics

before weve even started, the problem is fucked lol

Language and its subsequent ideas it invokes are the necessary comforts, like, they are the things we need to really not fall farther into a world of avant garde paintings, its like, at the center is language and the familiars (emotions are vectors that point us in some color of the language spectrum) and then outside is progressively scarier things, that which have to be reasoned about, and worked through—sortve finding where those unfamiliar points land. As to just be floating out in the forever is to be staggered between, "what am i", and "how do i get home", and "does this end?" type of things, and that is most logical things (a bit of a contradiction to it). Like, i think that we think we took the most logical and sound route, going by the defined terms and popular vote, but theres a perspective switch that observes it all again, and feels like we are farther from the roads that would have been the most logical; the most sound conclusion. Like, we are assuming that the things implied underneath the logical sum now are in fact how they are defined, but not considering they are that by popular vote, and not by individual-basisi's. At the same time, it is sometimes the most well structured things that find theirselves into the popular vote, at the forefront of our thoughts to begin w/, and its not till all the unstructured bits are gathered that they amalgamate and override the other, taking time for it to be corrected if it was ever incorrect or unaligned.

p.s. im also curious if anyone had recently had nightmares, and whether or not they found/noticed that the common thread was in the content they had recently watched, and whether it was outside of the popular, structured status quo... ... another issue is about getting too comfortable—and how the more haphazard person starts to allocate more information if the other person gets too complacent in their approach, and the same is true if the haphazard person gives up early because nothing makes any sense and or they feel discouraged.

I had watched several different people talk about their opinion of different things; some related to physics, some that relate to programming, some are about language and/or semantics, electrical engineering, etc, etc. *i watch a lot of different stuff*... The thing that i realized is like, you, as a person who has (and shares) his or her opinion gets more points if you are able to lead people into a very structured place mentally—like, its as if you took someones brain and placed it into someone in the 21st century when they had been way back in 100AD or something. On the other hand, for those who have a disorderly approach, or rather, an unstructured format for their ideas and/or opinions (whether its the ideas themselves or in how they communicate)—fail to align the sun crystals focus such that it can illuminate *on which timeline do the individuals traverse*, and continue on going down... Its like, you have to point people towards a vector that has been clearly allocated towards a place where things arent chaos...BUT, with that said, those that have had a more disorderly approach sometimes have little microbits of information that they are clearly gathering hapazardly, but havent found that "neat & tidy" avenue—the sorts of traction that exist in the structured persons opinion. The point is like, there are things missed in the intentional haphazard approach, and if only theyd allocate some priority towards neatening it up, they might take people on their journey with them. Iuno what the broader point of this is, but i just found myself getting lost in nightmares, and when i thought about what the commonality was, or what had most recently shifted, it was that i had followed up on a plethora of those microbits that dont exist inside the populus (i should also note that like, simply watching so many things, itll eventually start to bleed into a place that may or may not be normalized) Like, my own mind was of course very unnormalized/polarized (i also recently slept on my neck in the wrong position and my week(s) have been treacherous as a result..) and then, combining that w/ everything i watched this week, i was like, i think we arent looking at *structure itself* enough, especially because there isnt anything that is specifically about structure—however—actualized/leo is sortve in that realm, where he could make a series about structure (which there might be, but i cant recall it at the time + it mightve been more about reality, and not the N+1 stages of structure) Anyway, my neck hurts. Im gonna call it there, Maybe yous can further add to this idea of opinions really thriving on structure, and wat r ur thoughts on it.

lol. Phrase it in the other direction, asking, "If reality wasnt a product of your imagination, would you 'no longer' be able to imagine things as-per your will?" What im gettin you to see is that, it actually doesnt make sense to even say what you are saying—albeit, i understand what you are tryina say, and i dont blame you. Its a logical thing to want to say. but itll get ya thinkin in a more accelerated form.

Even better is to recognize the direction that happens when we realize consciousness as being/not-being, nor having—as a symbol that directs thoughts away from the ideas about what we assume is us, talking, or being or doing any actions, its like... To recognize a center pointer is to acclimate more and more to one of the more rougher patterns in the smoothest, the spectrum and how it may or may not go on to flourish, and to temper the... what would you call it? iuno, its hard to say anything beyond what i feel as myself, but its just like, iuno, not many ppl find ways to penetrate the very center, and then find ways to talk around it—not that i think theres a good reason to, but its like, actualized is a place where that might happen, and at that point its unusual compared to anything else you might do; and we may even find deeper holes within this hole, at which point we are finding something to talk about or realize inside of the kinked part of the loop, or finding more kinks along the loop, or however you want to look at it, doesnt matter.

The relationship between SU(2) and SO(4) is captured by the double cover.... ^so i found some really weird sht goin on with this idea starting w.. S(3) —> S(2), and then you begin asking questions, nd find out that there are like, perfect configuration spaces for what im calling, perfect relationships, and perfect identity, where S(2) is itself representative of the viewer (a single dot is the point on the sphere which is closest to the viewer—granted the sphere could have multiple circles at every point if it wanted, but ignore that for now) viewing the space of all possible S(2)'s (multiple 3D things) ... you can take the questions further thereafter.

... is math discovered or invented.... For Plato, the physical world is just an imperfect "shadow" of this mathematical reality. A circle drawn in sand is a flawed copy of the perfect Form of Circle. Mathematicians don't create mathematical truths - they uncover pre-existing relationships in this realm of Forms. Aristotle took a more empirical view - mathematics is abstracted from physical experience, but he's less clear on whether it's purely invented or discovered. He believed mathematical concepts arise when we notice patterns and relationships in the physical world, then strip away the material aspects to focus on pure form and quantity. For Aristotle, there's no separate realm of mathematical Forms. Instead mathematical objects are abstractions from sensible objects. When we see many triangular things and abstract the concept of triangle, we're doing something that's part discovery (the patterns exist in nature) and part invention (the pure abstraction is our mental construction - conceptual space) To me, they are both speaking on two different things, one is about the nature of the circular form (the nature of reality at that) or the perfect circle becoming this flawed copy, and the other is speaking on the process of abstraction, and how to navigate the space of thinking about these things, which is where we get more rigorous and inventive ideas coming out of... But you need to be asking those Plato questions too, because that is sometimes where you get a different understanding of the fundamentals, if you can straddle that line of assessing reality and math at the same time.

Okay im learning more about the geometry of this thing... alas, theres alot going on with the simple idea of a fiber bundle w/ the structure (S(1) —> S(3) —> S(2)) ), ... And, im skipping over everything to ask what we mean by saying: each point on S(2) corresponding to a "circle" (S(1)) in —> S(3) in the Hopf fibration ((S(3) —> S(2)) note: im also not looking at any of the math/physics areas, as i only know about a very small part of the traditional math story part of it u might say... 1. Pick any point (p) on the 2 sphere (S(2)) 2. Look at ALL the points in S(3) that the Hopf-map sends to that particular point (p) Those points form a complete circle (S(1)) sitting inside (S(3)) This means S(3)) is "foliated" by circles - it's completely filled up by non-intersecting circles, and each circle corresponds to exactly one point on S(2)... "Foliated" means that a space is partitioned into disjoint subspaces (called "leaves") of the same dimension, and this partition has a smooth, regular structure. -------------- So we have to talk about something very math theoretic, where a foliation of dimension k on an n-dimensional manifold M is a partition of M into k-dimensional submanifolds (the leaves) such that: Each point has a neighborhood that looks like a "product" of a k-dimensional piece (the leaf direction) and an (n-k)-dimensional piece (the "transverse" direction) -Transverse direction refers to directions that are perpendicular or complementary to the foliation leaves. The partition varies smoothly from place to place So when we say S(3) is "foliated by circles," we mean: (1) Every point in S(3) belongs to exactly one circle. These circles are the 1-dimensional leaves. Locally, the structure looks like S(1) × R(2) (or, circle × 2D transverse space, or a subspace that intersects the foliation leaves transversally (perpendicularly)) The Hopf map π: S(3) → S(2) essentially "projects out" the circular direction, leaving just the transverse S(2) base. You know what it makes me think of is like, those like "growing circles" of equal shape and size, i wanna say its a scene in the matrix or something... but i also wonder if we are suppose to imagine that, these things are all moving, so the instance ((S(3) —> S(2)) is growing equally, and moving equally. Talking to ClaudeAI, it adds, "Yes. And this dynamic view is closer to how the Hopf fibration appears in physics (like in quantum mechanics with spin states) - as its not standing still, but is flowing geometry where the bundle structure evolves coherently through time"...

heres the new lecture, but again, you gtta have a strong backround in tlkin bout those like... gauge invariance and tensors as they are used in physics nd, u know, all that stuff-since hes drawing parallels between like, "heres wat it was, but heres wat it is". p.s. the furthest in math i got was S(2) tlkin bout a 2-sphere (which is like a ball—but unit quaternions are themselves in 4 dimensions, so they are describing the exact points on a 3-sphere S(3) which youll have to look up ...) but SU(2) to illustrate something is tlkin bout special unitary group of degree 2 SU(2) is a Lie group, isomorphic to the group of unit quaternions, so you are working with quaternions nd the realm of physics, and topological space that have specific parameters... stuff like that

yeaa, i did see it. its kindve an awkward thing to watch, they on two different pages, and no one else is professional math+physics expertise ppl, but if there is, they are likely much more intrigued by it nd can confirm those chiral this that nd SU2 × SU2 × U1 p.s. theres a new lecture out w eric goin over geometric unity. but, i get the sense sean carol is more about beautfuly reciting his quantum physics lessons, nd eric is horrible at explainin this new generation of whatever the fk that it is to be the new way of thinking about math and physics, but again, you gotta b up on that stuff to follow it anyway.

I dont get it. on lsd, its like, the entirety of life had been awaiting/ and predicated on this one coincidental thought and moment i had had, at that very point in time, like... in other words, its not like im analyzing the assumption of every single thing and thought—leading up, and to, that which becomes the experience (and breaking everything in terms of whats logically available to) but still, it proceeds as if that is what just happened, even when its not. like, i dont get it, like, what is the thing that is doing the assumption breaking if its not the analysis of what its suppose to be, leading up to...

Vortex, or no vortex This is a question, sortve. not really Definition: The universe encompasses everything that exists: all space, time, matter, and energy. It includes everything from galaxies and stars to planets and even you. What we call galaxies and universes i think is slightly mis categorizing what i think it should be called, which is either a vortex (from the vantage point, a swirling area of space time that has a very bright light at the center—which is all of the recently expelled galaxies filled with bright light), or, not-a-vortex (parts from a vantage point that appear dissonant) and these galaxies dont only drift into nothingness, though, that is part of what they do... they are consumed by black holes, which spits out some material, and the materials go somewhere... there isnt a wall though, so unfortunately everything just gotta drift on endlessly, but its proportional to everything else that had drifted, like whoever was the first thing out first is leading the way on being at the edge of lonliness, and is also THE SLOWEST. Its unclear how anything forms though, and how you get lots of energy holding hands so tospeak, and i think at some point someones gotta look at it and be like (this dont make any sense) and the amount of sense that it doesnt make outweighs everything we think we know, and we're just waiting til everyone realizes it. Its either, vortex or no vortex, waitin til everyone realizes it dont make sense. And what their opinion is on, like if things dont make sense,t 🤔 WHatnow?-type questions.

I been ruminating on different questions—like brain teasers to get ppl thinking (feel free to come up w your own, as thats the idea of the thread) and i been on this one as of lately, and that is... Does anything exist without a ground level (or without being gravitational pointed towards a source, like a planet/blackhole, thus giving rise to ground levels) iuno, basically, just think of weird questions like that, is the idea

Im slightly diverging off topic into a scenario of psychedelic/consciousness, but returning to the very initial question of something v nothing — the nothing-thing that always exists, and is always w/ us in like, the grand illusionist that awaits us, slightly staggered in some regard — is the question we finally ask that we were tryina think of, that we realize (coincidentally) it turns out its like, "woops that was truth... i didnt want that", lol... Therefore, the beginning is the beginning that exists now; however it doesnt mean there couldnt have been a prior non-everything, or something that wasnt this, it just means theres no dependencies. Suffice to say, the question to ask is like, what is the real question that gets to the heart of this, that we dont remember we are avoiding, such that its like, to realize it is to be in a bit of an coincidence. Im just assuming theres always something that is a bit deeper than the very first level, however it might have more abstractness around it, as opposed to a straight forward thing that can be brought to realization through natural means. There is specific qualities too that make it like, tuning into a busy radio frequency, type've thing.

@The Caretaker Definitely fits. I'll add to that somethin' i was thinking today, now that its like the 7th day in a row that its rained here, its like, the rain makes me feel, not great (as do other ppl) and so its like, on one hand, rain and electricity is amazing, but seven days in a row not so much (its hard to think... brain dont work) I always say how like, theres moisture, as well as a little electricity in the air, like a sortve *static effect*, that is sortve like the sub atomic, super fast, super frantic conductive nature of electricity, but a little dampened so its not like electric explosions in the air... Then it mademe feel like, electricity is sortve like, one of those products/phenomenons that you can derive everything else from, including a pseudo-like gravity (i think theres a such thing as electrocuting a non-magnet material to make it behave magnetic), then there the fact that you can derive light and power from electricity, among other things like its use in chemistry.. and whatever else. its like, dang... wtf else can you discover by starting with electricity, and then trying to find other sorts of phenomenon that exist due to these frantic whatever things (iuno what happens to make things spontaneously electric.. i asked ChatGPT the othe day and i already forget)

Master's Understanding of Numbers Numbers are our attempt to map language constructs to more precise things like the shape of the coffee table, or the time it takes for the seasons to come. Its like, a way to say things about many things, like a repititious thing—used for countably many things—and formal, as well as practical; like, you can more easily think of concepts when theyve been granted an *amount of some number...* Numbers usually imply insight (the understanding of cause and effect within a particular context), observing and finding inherent relationships, similarities and differences;alas, theyre like, the introduction to such things. I think of things in artistic terms alot, like, the study of roundness (smoothness) versus jaggedness (nd how numbers might exist as products of, and vice versa), and i feel as though we are too far in the area of trying to draw/count things in regards to a smooth and cylindrical nature. Rough, scratchy, jaggedness needsa come back now. Alongside numbers are shapes, structure and change — and the relationships between them. Its almost like our natural language, but its just directed towards a different kindve thing. Numbers serve as your first collection of symbols, and your first means to think explicitly about the nature of things, and if/when represented by numbers, how they might combine, divide, subtract or multiply. Unlike our natural language which we can use to form sentences, numbers are explicitly building and/or deriving... like, you dont write downa word, and then build words or phrases by canceling them out, or like erasing it to make it present-tense, because youve ostensibly written it out exactlyas you had thought of. Numbers are always evolving in that sense, as you need to add terms, cancel out terms, break them up, re-write them out, crossing the exponent out such that your left with two expressions, its like, thats numbers. Then theres things like PI, and PI doesnt make sense (as it depends on perfect roundness and many other things, that which have very weak underpinnings), though its a standard, a constant, and numbers are one way of labeling such things (the potential w/ numbers is great, we just have to use them to our advantage) *p.s. numbers have to come from your soul... whats that line in the Oppenheimer movie, 'Can you hear the music?'.. Its like that, 'Can you see the numbers?'