The True Origin of Reality

[Sir Doom]

It's established knowledge that the function that allows information to exist, is manifested by asymmetry. We proved (with logic) an absoluteness of any kind is asymmetrical, which by way of injective function synthesizes information of infinite potential. We've drawn logical comparisons of theory of monads, theory of wave structure of matter, and theory of information. We've illustrated consistent patterns throughout these various fields.

Unnecessary.

I've also provided and can continue to provide various supporting evidence for the suggested truth that trifold synthesis of nothing is the origin of reality.

Is that not a clear hypothesis?

Would you prefer something like this...

I have hypothesized that we are in fact of a reality in which everything is truly only one paradoxical constant of infinite potential, therefore we should observe some sort of constant paradoxical resonant signature among all interpretable observation that is inherent of the original paradoxical function. In other words, if an absolute nothingness’ paradoxical emergence is the true foundation for realities’ coherence, then only a paradoxical reality will be truly real. We should observe a constant inability to identify true constancy except in the case of nothingness being absolute and everything being one.

Or something like this...

• Hypothetically, could an origin of logical paradox be possible?
“I assume yes, it seems inherent of nature, and the supportive evidence is....”

• Is anything truly interpretable or measurable as finite or absolute?
“I assume only paradoxical nothingness and the all of everything are absolute, and the supporting evidence is....”

• Are there patterns of recursive inverse deduction inherent in all observation?
“I assume yes, all existence is resonant of the suggested paradoxical function of absolute absence, and here is the supporting evidence....”

I am not currently sure how else to assert this messaging for you to achieve arriving at an understanding of the intent and reason of it.



I'm not sure what the acronym OP is referring to.

OP means 'original post' or 'opening post'. The start of the thread. And yes, all of these are far more concise versions of the hypothetical origin you assert in your opening post, and therefore I do prefer them to that. This does not however change anything as your reasoning to assert this does not bear out due to logical leaps that you are making.

In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (or the law of contradiction (PM) or the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.

Exactly why your statements are false. Because you are trying to ignore this.

Dialetheism is the view that there are dialetheias. One can define a contradiction as a couple of sentences, one of which is the negation of the other, or as a conjunction of such sentences. Therefore, dialetheism amounts to the claim that there are true contradictions. As such, dialetheism opposes the so-called Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) (sometimes also called the Law of Contradiction).

Right, as I said. You are trying to ignore contradictions. In this case you are trying to avoid them by establishing a precedent for doing so.

A contradiction literally means speaking against something. It identifies an inconsistency. It means that two opposing things cannot be true at the same time. For example, the president's speech about raising taxes was a contradiction of his previous speech where he talked about lowering taxes. This is a contradiction b/c is the president going to raise taxes or lower them? He can't do both.

Yeah, I know what a contradiction is.

A paradox is a seeming contradiction. While it may seem that the ideas are opposite and cannot be true at the same time they actually are.

And your statements, "identity of no identity" and "absolute absence of absolute absence" do not qualify. They are merely contradictions and not paradoxes. You do understand the difference, don't you? Every contradictory statement is not a paradox. Especially when you recognize that the terminology used is not necessary.

Are you familiar with the study of 'paraconsistent logic' and 'intensional paradox'?

Yes.

You present your claim as if maybe authoritatively accurate, or as if you are holding a high level of incite with the theories of paradoxes and contradictions. I appreciate this I am certain my efforts of punctuation, or spelling, or syntax are riddled with technical error, but have you understood the nature of what we're discussing as far as the intention of the message, and what it entails?

Yes.

Or are you having actual difficulty in visualizing the concept because the meaning presented appears as you say, "faux"?

I am not having any sort of difficulty other than maintaining my interest in this thread. I called it a faux-paradox because it isn't a paradox at all but you are treating it like one. That wasn't dubious at all, so I don't know why you wouldn't have picked up on it.

If this is the case can you describe which aspect seems artificial? Or as you mentioned if I am, "presenting a contradiction (which only requires one to recognize and eliminate it to solve)." Could you please elaborate and do so, so we may all clearly understand?

Sure. Here is a 'real' paradox (the liar paradox):

"This statement is a lie."

The terminology within the statement is NOT a contradiction, it is the implication that creates the contradiction. If the statement is true, it is necessarily false. If the statement is false, it is necessarily true. That's a paradox.

Here is one of your faux-paradoxes (paraphrased of course):

"The identity of nothing is 'no identity'."

The terminology within the statement IS a contradiction. If the statement is true, it is necessarily false. If the statement is false... it is necessarily false. This is not a paradox.

 

[Quadrivium]

but what you are doing does not allow for the mathematical concepts you are supposedly relying on to apply.

I would suggest using a calculator and dividing something by zero. You'll get something along the lines of either undefinable or infinity, depending on your device. Point being even the simplest of Maths does apply. As well as the "complex".

A quote from 'DUALISING INTUITIONISTIC NEGATION'
GRAHAM PRIEST
Universities of Melbourne and StAndrews, City University of New York

"One of Da Costa's motives when he constructed the paraconsistent logic Cw was to dualise the negation of intuitionistic logic."

This paper describes paraconsistency with complex maths if that is what you're wanting to see.

 

[Sir Doom]

I would suggest using a calculator and dividing something by zero. You'll get something along the lines of either undefinable or infinity, depending on your device. Point being even the simplest of Maths does apply. As well as the "complex".

A quote from 'DUALISING INTUITIONISTIC NEGATION'
GRAHAM PRIEST
Universities of Melbourne and StAndrews, City University of New York

"One of Da Costa's motives when he constructed the paraconsistent logic Cw was to dualise the negation of intuitionistic logic."

This paper describes paraconsistency with complex maths if that is what you're wanting to see.

Irrelevant.

 

[outhouse]

I'm offering explanations with references and sources for those that are interested.

.

With all the credibility of imagination, and nothing more.

I think this word salad is POE and nothing more.

 

[Quadrivium]

This does not however change anything as your reasoning to assert this does not bear out due to logical leaps that you are making.

What exactly are the "logical leaps" you're referencing here?

Exactly why your statements are false. Because you are trying to ignore this.

I am not attempting to ignore this. They are not claimable as false for this reason, they reference the credibility of dialethiesm.

Right, as I said. You are trying to ignore contradictions. In this case you are trying to avoid them by establishing a precedent for doing so.

This sir is a claim of empty proportions. I have not established the logic of paraconsistency. This was done by generations of humanity.

And your statements, "identity of no identity" and "absolute absence of absolute absence" do not qualify. They are merely contradictions and not paradoxes. You do understand the difference, don't you? Every contradictory statement is not a paradox. Especially when you recognize that the terminology used is not necessary.

You do understand this difference you describe, but you are missing the point as to why that reasoning doesn't apply to the functions being described. There is established logical reasoning as to why, and I've provided that information.

As for every contradictory statement being a paradox? I've never presented this assertion.

Using the term "identity of no identity" is simply an analogy to describe an essence of absoluteness as in the purest form in the real world. Likewise "absolute absence of absolute absence" is meant to describe the same thing. The analogies are attempts to express natural information that represents a fundamental conflict between the essences that form the asymmetry of absoluteness within the reasoning of the real world. Naturally our linguistic constructs reflect this real world paradox as seemingly intuitive contradiction.

However upon comprehending the holographic nature of monadic fractal dimensionality coinciding with the parallels of the paraconsistent logic of information, space , and cognition, (everything we know) the information is supported by and in support of this notion.

Sure. Here is a 'real' paradox (the liar paradox):

"This statement is a lie."

The terminology within the statement is NOT a contradiction, it is the implication that creates the contradiction. If the statement is true, it is necessarily false. If the statement is false, it is necessarily true. That's a paradox.

Here is one of your faux-paradoxes (paraphrased of course):

"The identity of nothing is 'no identity'."

The terminology within the statement IS a contradiction. If the statement is true, it is necessarily false. If the statement is false... it is necessarily false. This is not a paradox.

Again the Liars paradox was one of the very first things I provided credible information about understanding why this type of reasoning is a logical fallacy.

You have yet to establish any credible reason for anything else. You have only asserted old ideas of logic that have already been referenced and proven to be inaccurate.

 

[Quadrivium]

With all the credibility of imagination, and nothing more.

I think this word salad is POE and nothing more.

You're claiming the worlds combined research of the fields of all study are not credible? I'd like to understand the reasoning for that.

 

[Sir Doom]

What exactly are the "logical leaps" you're referencing here?

That your description of 'nothing' creates a paradox and that this paradox can be used to establish the origin of the universe.

I am not attempting to ignore this. They are not claimable as false for this reason, they reference the credibility of dialethiesm.

Pardon me. I am incorrect. You are not attempting to ignore logic. You are very successfully ignoring logic.

This sir is a claim of empty proportions. I have not established the logic of paraconsistency. This was done by generations of humanity.

Well, that isn't what I said. I said you are establishing a precedent. Essentially, you are arguing that other people ignore contradictions, so it should be okay for you. That is not the case.

You do understand this difference you describe, but you are missing the point as to why that reasoning doesn't apply to the functions being described. There is established logical reasoning as to why, and I've provided that information.

Absolutely false. I know exactly why you WANT that reasoning to not apply. It DOES apply. You just wish it didn't.

As for every contradictory statement being a paradox? I've never presented this assertion.

Then you should know exactly why your statement is not a paradox.

Using the term "identity of no identity" is simply an analogy to describe an essence of absoluteness as in the purest form in the real world. Likewise "absolute absence of absolute absence" is meant to describe the same thing. The analogies are attempts to express natural information that represents a fundamental conflict between the essences that form the asymmetry of absoluteness within the reasoning of the real world. Naturally our linguistic constructs reflect this real world paradox as seemingly intuitive contradiction.

WRONG. There is absolutely no reason to accept either analogy as accurate, and the fact that both are blatantly contradictory demonstrates that they are patently false. Therefore, they FAIL as analogies. If your thoughts on this topic are analogous to these contradictions, then your thoughts on this topic also FAIL. Neither statement is representative of reality in any way and instead have served to confuse you into thinking you stumbled on something big. When in fact you are just tricking yourself with faulty language.

However upon comprehending the holographic nature of monadic fractal dimensionality coinciding with the parallels of the paraconsistent logic of information, space , and cognition, (everything we know) the information is supported by and in support of this notion.

Word salad. You will not impress me by doing this. Or, if it makes you feel more at home:

The entity responsible for the linguistic construction present in the electronic communication residing in the monochromatic quadrangle of the previous elevation is insufficient to cause any modification within the framework of the corresponding conceptual notions constructed within the biological thought engine possessed and maintained by the entity presently responding.

Again the Liars paradox was one of the very first things I provided credible information about understanding why this type of reasoning is a logical fallacy.

You have yet to establish any credible reason for anything else. You have only asserted old ideas of logic that have already been referenced and proven to be inaccurate.

So, you're really just going to ignore the clear difference I just illustrated?

 

[idav]

I would suggest using a calculator and dividing something by zero. You'll get something along the lines of either undefinable or infinity, depending on your device. Point being even the simplest of Maths does apply. As well as the "complex".

Dividing by zero doesn't give you an answer, if that is what it boils down to in physics its cause they don't have an absolute. One issue is that things get so "infinitely" small, but never zero.

 

[Sir Doom]

Calculators don't actually know math, so it really doesn't matter what they say about dividing by zero.

 

[Sir Doom]

Want to see something funny?

"No thing has the identity of 'no identity'."

Now that is a true statement.

 

[outhouse]

You're claiming the worlds combined research of the fields of all study are not credible? .

No, Just yout perversion on that research.

Unsubstantiated word salad proves nothing.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Trifold analysis has already been rendered obsolete in the face of conceptual breakthroughs in the fields of subfractal infinities and finite interquantum paradoxes, pioneered in the last decade. Even a cursory analysis of any of the seminal papers on Negative-Dimensional Inversions of Recursive Paradox Theories or Inversely Correlated Positive-Negative Logical Waves would enlighten one in this regard. Quadfold analysis, and its corollary supralogical processes, has forever replaced the incomplete and problematic method of trifold analysis, and any theoretician worth his salt would already know this.

 

[Skwim]

Trifold analysis has already been rendered obsolete in the face of conceptual breakthroughs in the fields of subfractal infinities and finite interquantum paradoxes, pioneered in the last decade. Even a cursory analysis of any of the seminal papers on Negative-Dimensional Inversions of Recursive Paradox Theories or Inversely Correlated Positive-Negative Logical Waves would enlighten one in this regard. Quadfold analysis, and its corollary supralogical processes, has forever replaced the incomplete and problematic method of trifold analysis, and any theoretician worth his salt would already know this.

Love it! Just love it!

 

[Quadrivium]

Trifold analysis has already been rendered obsolete in the face of conceptual breakthroughs in the fields of subfractal infinities and finite interquantum paradoxes, pioneered in the last decade. Even a cursory analysis of any of the seminal papers on Negative-Dimensional Inversions of Recursive Paradox Theories or Inversely Correlated Positive-Negative Logical Waves would enlighten one in this regard. Quadfold analysis, and its corollary supralogical processes, has forever replaced the incomplete and problematic method of trifold analysis, and any theoretician worth his salt would already know this.

I'd like to see some reference backing up your claim

 

[outhouse]

I'd like to see some reference backing up your claim

I verify it.

 

[Quadrivium]

I verify it.

yeah with what

 

[Desert Snake]

I'd like to see some reference backing up your claim

Good luck waiting for that. Look, you can't on the one hand say that I'm "not understanding" your theory, then present different theories that would contradict each other. Further, the conclusion you drew from said theor(ies?) was bogus and unrelated to the "scientific evidence" you presented me. It's fail/fail at this point unless you have something else.

 

[outhouse]

yeah with what

The exact same thing you verify yours with.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yeah, its not a commonly used term, maybe there's a better one I'm not aware of if anyone knows? It can also be described as 'recursive inverse deduction', but I think the initial implications of that may vary too easily.

However, Injective function helps describe this if you want to look that up too. But the basic premise though is the bottom limit as to what makes information possible.

To synthesize (or make) information three unique elements are required to interact together.

So we say tri-fold synthesis.

Synthesis of information is possible when a functions' domain does not imprint its self onto its codomain.

So the three elements are the function, the functions domain, and the functions codomain.

As long as these three elements comply with injective function, then unique information is expressed. Otherwise there is no coherence to interpret.

So an analogy...

[0+0=0] this doesn't give us anything unique to work with (on the surface for the sake of the analogy anyway), the whole time we're just considering 0 in relation to 0 with no other avenues to explore. We can rearrange it however we like but we're just dealing with 0. [0+0=0], [0-0=0],...

In this case the function of 0 whose domain is of 0, has imprinted its co-domain with its own property of 0, so this does not synthesize any new information.

[0+1=1] on the other hand speaks to infinite potential. The function of 0 whose domain is 0, imprinted the inversion of itself (rather than itself) upon its co-domain being 1.

Now we have the necessary components to develop infinite variation.

[0+1=1], [1+0=1], [1+1=2], [0+2=2], [2+1=3],...

Does that make sense?

Nope, because that isn't trifold.(three). That's two.
'0' is not a value in those sets.

 

[Quadrivium]

That your description of 'nothing' creates a paradox and that this paradox can be used to establish the origin of the universe.

My description of nothing? Please try to understand (if it's possible for you) as you keep repeating the same misconception. I understand it's probably beyond your capabilities so no worries if you can't get past your own "beliefs", which you fail to backup with any sources other than "because you said so". But that's really irrelevant, as most of your utterances have proven to lack any solidity. I'll try one last time to spell it out for you, though I doubt you'll grasp it still. Also this is but one small part of the whole package which you've chosen to ignore yet you still claim folly without considering the meaning.

Absoluteness is the quality or state of being without restriction

Absence is a state of being without something

The combination of these terms "absolute absence" creates a new meaning.

The quality of a state that is both absent and without restriction. (you may choose to see this as contradiction, that's okay. But you are failing to understand that we are intentionally describing an actual embodiment of conflict)

This quality is an observable one. We observe it when we acknowledge that we exist.

Not by observing our existence, but by observing the impossibility of our non-existence.

This observation illuminates before us a hypothetical inversion of everything.

An inversion of everything is... nothing.

Nothing is the translation of an absence. And this absence, is without restriction.

Therefore logically we can understand nothingness, in the real world and we CAN refer to it as the absolute absence of absolute absence, while maintaining logical coherence of meaning.

Above all of that, there is something much more important and definitive than linguistic construct, (which you claim is meaningless) is the unending amount of supporting evidence for the larger picture which reflects this conflict described through real world analogy.

Was it really that hard to grasp? Or do you just enjoy playing games and trying to change focus?

I'm not going to bother with responding to your other nonsensical comments most of which are expressions of frustration, sarcasm, and attempts to insult.

You have not bothered to provide any credibility other than your opinion and that's not worth any more time on this topic of linguistic meanings. But should you be able to provide some sources for claims that allows one to cross reference, then I'll be happy to do so.

And one final note. When you reject this notion you are denying many accomplished and credible sources that support it. Sources like Harvard's philosophy department, just to name one.