File: flower-combo.png (277.3 KB)

I'm not sure how to attach a .pdf but you'll find everything from that link. Here is a picture of the doubly twisted hopfion encoded with fib words from the side, it looks just like the EM field including the asymmetry

File: flower-combo2.jpg (310.2 KB)

for those who have ever seen the ferrocell, this is what the ferrocell is replicating. The toy is just an HTML file that you open up in your browser.

>>16984111
>most simplest rule for growth
>fibonacci substitution
In what way?

>>16984115
>>16984122
There's many ways to construct a toroid, anon.

File: 064b4189e02686921e27dd9a16ab3ee7.mp4 (2.9 MB)

>>16984123
The answer is uniqueness, minimality, and primitivity

this is gone over in subsection : The Fibonacci substitution as the minimal primitive endomorphism

goes over the proof for uniqueness, minimality, and primitivity

as for the toroid construction, the doubly twisted hopfion perfectly encodes the fibonacci substitution, its the most minimal and primitive geometric built on the most minimal and primitive combinatoric...

There's infinite potential in the void, so you can always say oh there's this rule or there's that rule or you can construct a toroid an infinite number of ways

I'm saying what's provably the most primitive and minimal

>>16984132
>goes over the proof for uniqueness, minimality, and primitivity
Explain your proof in as plain english as possible. Nobody's going to critique an entire essay that appears, on the face of it, to be schizo babble.
Jargon and arbitrary redefinitions do not make your case sound more compelling.

>>16984140

okay there is no more minimal claim than

1.null-set

feel free to contest.

2. null-set implies {null-set} , distinction from nothingness

two symbols allow you to encode any and all information.
This is infinite information potential.

a translation is simplest rule

lets go thru all the simplest rules for the two letter alphabet we now have to see what grows first , what's interesting

[00]
[00]

[10]
[00]

[11]
[00]

[10]
[01]

are all boring and do nothing interesting. They don't encode any information

[11]
[10]

is our first one that does anything interesting, its the fibonacci matrix.

that's all we are doing, we are following the provably minimal claim and simplest rules and seeing what physics falls out. If you manage to find anything simpler let me know lol

>>16984151
Define "interesting."
In what way is this fibonacci matrix more simple than an increment?

basically the void has the highest gradient (infinite information potential) and that information cannot entropically flow through

[00]
[00]

[10]
[00]

[11]
[00]

[10]
[01]

because they do not encode any information

[11]
[10]

is the simplest matrix that encodes the most information. Its about entropy reduction. The gradient has no choice but to flow thru the fibonacci matrix because any higher projection i.e. 3x3 4x4 matrix would require more symbols which would be less entropically minimal.

>>16984154
the increment is asymmetrical, aperiodic yet ordered. its maximally stable, most irrational, recursive, hierarchical, self-referential, has a rich internal algebra that is used to build and project everything else. the fibonacci matrix 2x2 has those features while the other 2x2's do not.

File: pop-science.png (45.7 KB)

>>16984158
like the geometric primitive is highly asymmetric yet deeply ordered, here you can see that a bit more clearly with a low hopf fibre soliton

>>16984155
>they do not encode any information
>the simplest matrix that encodes the most information
Are you using an operating definition of "information" here? All of those Matrices encode the same exact amount of information by any standard mathematical use of the term.
>>16984158
Sure, so within a 2x2, an increment and a fibonacci substitution are identical. But you choose to extend the projection via fibonacci rather than a simple increment. Why?

>>16984111
An individual is in between to continually refresh to the outside. This includes God.

>>16984173
see, you introduce a 'simple' increment, . You are taking the increment for granted as if its just there.

What are you incrementing things by? How did you decide on your increment? you only have two symbols. Where did you get an increment? We haven't even gotten into digital projection or the natural numbers.

[11]
[10]

has an internal algebra, the others don't.

like get a piece of scratch paper and go thru all the 2 letter rules

A->AB, B->A
A
AB
ABA
ABAAB
ABAABABA
ABAABABAABAAB
...

the only one that has non-trivial growth.

Again, I don't choose, I can't choose. I am picking the only available option. The only thing that causes increments in the first place is phi.

Like that's the point, I don't have anything else to work with. I am making the most minimal claim and following the first available rule, it's that simple

>>16984111
>null theory
Literal retarded word salad garbage for a simple logic assumption

>>16984195
An increment doesn't even need two letters. A unary counting scheme would be:
A
AA
AAA
and so on. Why must a two letter scheme even exist?

how can I obtain the number π from the null claim and the fibonacci substitution?

File: pepe-aput-coffee.png (14.8 KB)

>>16984207
find me a kernel that is simpler and more accurate, nut up or shut up. ur too fucking dumb to realize the absolute gem you've stumbled upon

>>16984217
>accurate
I would like to see you derive a single law from this system where the derivation isn't "it kinda has a similar shape on a glorified graphing calculator."

>>16984210
okay, completely trivial growth, encodes no information. Each spot is an A, no distinction, no algebra. I know whats in the fifth spot, I know what's in the billionth spot. I have full omniscience of that sequence because its so empty of information

What can I do with an endless string of A's? There's no rules or algebra to be had

Why must a two letter scheme exist? We assumed null-set. If we assume null-set, {null-set} follows. Assuming null-set forces a two-letter alphabet.

Goes back to finding a more minimal claim than null-set. If you got something more minimal than null-set let me know. a two letter alphabet is just what comes with making the most minimal claim.

File: pepe-cringe.jpg (25.2 KB)

>>16984219
hey dumbass e=mc^2 , newtons inverse-square law, newtons 3 laws, lorentz invariance, etc. all fall out as theorems

so if you'd like to see that open the paper its what its there for

Did you even look at how crisp and clean the orbitals are in the hopfion viewer?

y'all seriously have no idea what I made lol

>>16984217
>umm I need to invone da null hypotenuse to correlate whether or not the kick in my nuts is what caused my testicular explosion
stfu nigga

File: apu-big-yikes.gif (1.3 MB)

>>16984235
yeah u sound like a faggot

>>16984229
>trivial growth
If by "trivial" you mean "simple," then yes. It explicitly outcompetes your growth scheme in that regard. Either you regard simplicity as a feature of your system or you don't.

>encodes no information
False. The number of units is the information.

But let's play with your 2 letter scheme for a moment:
A
AB
AA
ABB
ABA
AAB
AAA
ABBB
That's what a standard increment looks like in a binary system.

>hey dumbass e=mc^2 , newtons inverse-square law, newtons 3 laws, lorentz invariance, etc. all fall out as theorems
Provide one example.

>Did you even look at how crisp and clean the orbitals are in the hopfion viewer?
I don't care how they look. Show me a derivation of the laws

File: all-of-them.png (146.2 KB)

>>16984238
how does it outcompete? it doesn't lead anywhere. the fibonacci substitution is the simplest rule that encodes the most information. Your rule is simple, it doesn't encode shit though

>False. The number of units is the information
so creating a binary register is actually much more complicated of a rule than a substitution rule

>Provide one example.

Mate those are all examples lol

>I don't care how they look. Show me a derivation of the laws

I posted the derivation for the laws. It's in the OP. I can't force you to look at it lol.

>>16984255
What do you even mean by "information" in this context?

>False. The number of units is the information
>so creating a binary register is actually much more complicated of a rule than a substitution rule
How does the second statement follow from the first?

>Mate those are all examples lol
What I'm asking of you is to show how you derive one of these things. Show us your most elementary derivation of any observable phenomenon here. Don't expect others to do the legwork for you of parsing out the unclearly defined jargon that makes up your "paper." It's on you to show how this postulate results in anything observable at all.

>>16984269

>What do you even mean by "information" in this context

its a sturmian word that's most primitive and most minimal like I told you at the beginning. Don't shit on me when I give you accurate answers then say its jargon and at the same time ask me to derive things for you

>How does the second statement follow from the first?
I'm saying look for the simplest rule that first leads to growth
You choose a complicated rule, it already failed the prerequisites

>What I'm asking of you is to show how you derive one of these things.

mate im gonna be real with you, ur having trouble understanding information density, primitivity and minimality in part I and ur asking for stuff in Part XX.

you understand what I'm saying when I say this right? You are arguing with me over the simple proven stuff. You shat on me when I pointed out where it was proven. You are still arguing over the simple proven stuff.

SO why would I proceed any further? What would be the point of showing you anything when you behave like that?

The derivation is in there if you want it, that's the entire point of a paper. It is on me to show how that single axiom results in anything, and I DID.

>>16984293
>its a sturmian word that's most primitive and most minimal like I told you at the beginning
Sure sure. What do you mean by "information." You certainly don't mean it in any standerd mathematical sense (eg. Shannon entropy) or are very explicitly misapplying it as shown earlier with your ramblings about matrices.

>>16984293
>You choose a complicated rule
How is a binary counter "more complicated" than your fibonacci operator?

>ur having trouble understanding
No. I am very explicitly accusing you of selectively redefining or misapplying the terms you're using.

>why would I proceed any further?
Idk man, you made the thread.

>>16984300

>How is a binary counter "more complicated" than your fibonacci operator?

Are you claiming it isn't? prove it to me then.

define the rules for your binary counter in a way that is simpler than

A turns into AB, B turns into A at each step

you really are taking so much for granted

>>16984215
OP can you answer?

>>16984303
>A turns into AB, B turns into A at each step
That's actually the a hilarious irony here. What you described IS the binary counter.
A
AB
AA
ABB
The binary counter overlaps, yours stacks to the right. Both follow the same rule. Both have a rule that is not defined in the terms you provided. You make an implicit assumption and expect others not to notice it.

>>16984307
It first shows up in the irrational rotational algebra of A->AB, B->A and its also forced by the fib-mobius parity on S^3 ( which is the continuous version of the discrete steps of phi^2=phi+1 )

I don't have a closed form derivation on pi though, I haven't explored in that direction at all desu.

>>16984316
>It first shows up in the irrational rotational algebra of A->AB, B->A
how so?

>>16984309
no its not the same, you've added extra steps. I'm not stacking anything.

A is turning into AB, B is turning into A, at every step. No more, no less.

I don't know what you are doing, you haven't been able to coherently articulate any rule whatsoever

>>16984318
Your terms expand rightward whenever possible. My terms expand rightward only if required. It's the same ruleset otherwise.

>>16984317
the math changes over from something that is represented combinatorial to something that can be rotate. Like pi is forced, but its not derived. Its still a transcendental number doing transcendental bs

>>16984330
Is your system mot powerful enough to do basic geometry?

>>16984329
I'm not expanding rightward or leftward or anything of that, A is turning into AB, B is turning into A at every step

sounds like ur adding a bunch of rules, and that sounds complicated. Are you sure that rule your making up is simpler than my rule?

>>16984334
Look at your series. That expansion is rightward in the text. It could be "truly" expanding whatever direction just as mine is but at that point you're arguing irrelevancies. You don't even realize the assumptions you're making.

If we want to be more "rigorous" your transformation involves an assumption of global incrementation (all A's become AB and all B's become A) whereas mine assumes locality (a single term is affected with domino effects on immediately surrounding terms).

>>16984330
How are you implementing rotation in this system?

>>16984195
>[11]
>[10]
That's XOR which means I'm not fundamentally opposed, and
>everything is distinction via rewrite
is at least not
>guys I promise it's really still all sets
again.
The abstract rewrite representation seems tangled to me by virtue of having to hide that
>turns into
must be motivated somehow, which you seem to solve via eagerness and singular application of each rule per step per symvol? Which of A->AB and B->A applies first, and from which side of the string?

>>16984485 (me)
>XOR
Retard

>>16984343
bro you don't even have the bandwidth to realize A is just turning into AB and B is just turning into A, at each step

there is no expanding anything rightward or leftward. Whatever you think you got cooking just isn't it.

look, you actually can't make a simpler rule, that's the whole point, its why I linked you that sub-section earlier. It's proven that you can't come up with a simpler rule. not a thing up for debate, I was just trying to demonstrate to you how you can't make a simpler rule but you can't even manage the simplest possible rule so idk what to tell you l0l

>>16984438
i switch from the cantor set of the fibonacci word into C*-algebra


>>16984485
all motivating actions come from entropic minimization. Starting with the infinite information potential of the void I'm looking for the simplest thing that can encode information

Water flows downhill, I'm just looking for the channels it goes through

fibonacci substitution is first chosen because of its unique primitivity and minimality (entropic reduction, this is the pipeline where information actually flows)

it then goes into the doubly twisted hopfion because it perfectly encodes the fibonacci substitution without any loss of information. It doesn't lose information in the process, therefore its a no entropic action that can be taken, with the added benefit of allowing more storage through holographic projection

Literally everything is just making the most minimal claim and picking the entropically minimal rule

For A->AB, B->A, there is no side to the string

A is turning into AB, B is turning into A. You can work forwards, you can work backwards, it does not matter

A
( A turns into AB)
AB
( A turns into AB, B turns into A)
AB + A = ABA
(A turns into AB, B turns into A, A turns into AB)

AB+A+AB = ABAAB

There are no sides, there is no left to right or right to left

A is turning into AB, B is turning into A, at every step

>>16984589
>A is turning into AB, B is turning into A. You can work forwards, you can work backwards, it does not matter
>A
>( A turns into AB)
>AB
>( A turns into AB, B turns into A)
>AB + A = ABA
>(A turns into AB, B turns into A, A turns into AB)
>AB+A+AB = ABAAB
>There are no sides, there is no left to right or right to left
>A is turning into AB, B is turning into A, at every step
Oh, OK, yeah I see now that I interpreted an ambiguity into your description that doesn't actually exist as such, thanks for the explanation.

>>16984663
yeah its really simple at the end of the day, all of your principles can be derived from phi and fibonacci words

like for example

ABAABABAABAAB

if you notice the B's never touch. This is where causality and motion comes from. B-repulsion builds up into entropic minima of the saddlepoints on the hopfion/soliton which leads to the other laws.

>>16984589
>bro you don't even have the bandwidth to realize A is just turning into AB and B is just turning into A, at each step
"Just" A turning into AB and B "Just" turning into B results in an expansion when interpreted the way you're interpreting it. I know exactly what you're doing. But you're somehow confused when I call out the assumptions involved in your interpretation of that rule.
You implicitly assume expansion then repeatedly deny there is any. It's right in front of your face. It's the whole reason you declare it a "growth" rule at all.

File: bobby-scholar.jpg (15.3 KB)

>>16984749
like ur entire schtick is bad faith braindead retarded attempts at gotcha's

its expanding because of the rule, expansion is not the rule. It's not expanding left ward or right ward (like I said but ur real bad at reading), the sequence itself is expanding. You're adding expansion as part of the rules for your construction in order to mimick the natural expansion that results from A->AB, B->A

find a more minimal claim or a more simpler rule for growth (you can't, provably so) if you got gripes about it. Getting stuck on why this is the simplest rule for growth is a bad look imo

File: pepe-coffee-slap.png (29.8 KB)

>>16984758
>Look at your series. That expansion is rightward in the text.

Lets do a small one as demonstration, we will follow the rule from right to left and left to right

ABAAB

we are following rule left to right

AB + A + AB + AB + A = ABAABABA

now I will do it right to left

AB+A+AB+AB+A = ABAABABA

WOW! same thing! There's no leftwards or rightwards expansion! A still turns into AB, B still turns into A, WOW!!!

ABAABABAABAABABAABAABABAABAABABAABAABABAABAABABAABAABABAABAABABAABAABABAABAABABAABAABABAABAABABAABAABABAABAABABA

>>16984758
>its expanding because of the rule, expansion is not the rule.
The way it expands is assumed.
You're acting as if the expansion is the only way it could operate but the binary counter demonstrates otherwise. You assume one additional rule. I remove the assumed rule and impose another.

>>16984770
>There's no leftwards or rightwards expansion! A still turns into AB, B still turns into A,
You're missing the point entirely.
See: >>16984343
>It could be "truly" expanding whatever direction just as mine is but at that point you're arguing irrelevancies

File: bobby-vs-goku.jpg (86.2 KB)

>>16984782
dawg just come up with a simpler rule if you got one stop with ur erroneous pedanticism

>>16984786
The unary counter is much simpler but you reject it because of your own pet definition of "information" that doesn't align with any existing mathematical model.
The binary counter follows the same exact rule you're using but you assume expansion is mandatory and global while I assume expansion is local and conditional.

What you asked for was already provided in multiple ways. You just continue burying your head in the sand because you can't handle the fact that "muh golden ratio" has no special relationship to physics *at all*.

File: dont-make-me-do-it.jpg (70.5 KB)

>>16984794
you haven't been able to define a rule bro

watch me do it, watch carefully now

"At every step, A turns into AB, B turns into A
starts at A"

A
AB
ABA
ABAAB
...

you haven't been able to make a simpler rule for non-trivial growth ( and you can't, its impossible. Like you are literally trying to argue something that has already been proven ). An endless string of 1 or 0 or it flip flopping is sterile. If I can know everything about the string from its initial rule then its not encoding anything.

A->AA tells me everything. I know what happens in the 1,000,000th index. The string at 1 steps is the same information at 1 million steps. It's the same sterile relationship all the way thru

Like do you really not see this? Do you really not understand this? Is this you trolling?

like just come up with a simpler rule ( you can't )

>>16984794
I'm not assuming anything regarding expansion, It's just the natural consequence of the rule. If expansion for you is local and conditional, then mark that down as your rule-set. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

>>16984806
but like also think of the physical consequences of your actions this early on.. The fibonacci word already sets expansion as GLOBAL, you are already trying to redefine expansion as LOCAL

this is what is wrong with physics bro, everyone is trying to do too much when things already just work..

Like what are you going to build a construction that has local expansion and then somehow at the end of derivation you are going to do some conversion to make the expansion of space global again? why not just have it naturally fall out at the beginning?

like think about what it is ur actually doing lol

>>16984803
>>16984806
>>16984833
I'll keep this simple for you:
Address the local vs global assumption. Your rule assumes the action is applied to all terms in the same way at all times simultaneously. This is an assumption.
Justify it.

>>16984836
null-set is a subset of all set

there, justified

>>16984749
Maybe he's talking about expansion as in the output of iterating the rule in comparison to the input and he thinks something like the Shannon entropy of it grows without bound (which isn't actually true).

>>16984111
Of course nothing exists. What do you think a "root" is? In fact, I'll do you one better, what do you think equality is?

For two things to be equal, their difference must be nothing. x^2+7x=-7, or x^2+7x+7=0. And these roots are the irreducible elements of all polynomials. Equality is entirely based on the idea that nothingness conceptually exists.

>>16984841
Your conclusion does not follow from this statement.

>>16984883
you guys really just ought to read theorem 7 and remark 8 and 9

like I get it, its a long document, but why even try to discuss it if you don't at least give it a cursory glance. Like... you guys don't have to figure out the "maybe" of what I mean. what I mean is already there.

Again I say, if you guys disagree with A->AB, B->A being the most simplest rule for non-trivial growth, feel free to find another rule. If you guys think there's a claim more minimum than null-set, feel free to provide it.

>>16984888
exactly, that's the point of what I'm saying. I only have to make the most minimal claim ( that nothing conceptually exists) that every else already de facto agrees with, and the entirety of physics falls out. You aren't allowed logic or equality without it.

The claim is uncontestable once you really analyze what I did. To deny null theory you have to deny set theory, along with the foundations for everything else.

>>16984907
of course it does, you wanted additional reason for why its global, I gave you the reason why its global. Its part of the package that comes with null-set as your axiom, you get infinite information potential and you get null-set globally.

again, its getting old, but define a simpler rule if you got one ( you can't and you won't )

you understand? I'm literally asking you to do something simple, it just has to be simpler than what I'm doing. You can't do it. That should really tell u something

>>16984912
>I gave you the reason why its global.
No. You didn't. It's like if I asked you to prove Jommy stole the cookie from the jar you you asserted "the sky is blue" as proof. It's a complete non-sequitur that has nothing to do with the question asked.

>define a simpler rule if you got one
I did with the unary counter. You rejected it with special pleading about your non-standard definition of "information."
I gave you an equally simple rule with the binary counter which follows the exact same rule you explicitly defined while not following the rule you implicitly assume.

>>16984908
Nah, I'm not reading it, I'm just gonna try to guess what you mean from your word salad ITT.

>>16984908
Here's a fun exercise for you: give us a single reason to care. Nobody's going to read theorem 7 of dome shit nobody cares about.
You claim all these physical laws naturally arise from this system of yours. Show us how. Show us how fibonacci substitution results in anything observable. Provide your most elementary derivation of any known phenomenon at all. Do so in this thread in plain english.

Until you do that, don't be surprised when nobody takes you seriously. It's not us being ignorant. It's you failing to make a point.

File: fren-not-so-frenly.jpg (95.0 KB)

>>16984925
how is it non-sequitur to cite a property of null-set when you are building a rule off of null-set?

Are you fucking retarded?

>I did with the unary counter

No, you never actually defined the rule, you just said "unary counter". You failed the exercise I was trying to show you because you're too goddam lazy and dumb to go down that path. At best, you showed a pattern without explicitly stating what the rule to generate that pattern is.

Feel free to prove my wrong by linking to the defined rule (you can't, you never did)

>You rejected it

I can't reject what I never received. I'm trying to get you to define your rule so I can clearly demonstrate why it's not as simple as my rule

again I will show you , watch very carefully maybe you'll get it this time

"At every step, {A turns into AB, and B turns into A}
Start at A"

See how I explicitly defined the rules? See how I can then write the rules symbolically?

A->AB, B->A
A

Do you think you could manage to explicitly define the rules for your construction? I know its really really hard to do this but I have faith that you can pull it off, I believe in you!

>>16984589
>you actually can't make a simpler rule,
Sure you can, A stays A such that A^n+1->....->A^n+inf
No B ever appears, now we've taken the rule down from a complexity of 2 to a complexity of 1

>>16984589
>i switch from the cantor set of the fibonacci word into C*-algebra
Gibberish. You are incapable of explaining both how you do this and how you define rotations in a C*-algebra

>>16984955
dawg I gave the master kernel , it spits out the observables at 0.063% RMS, everything forced, no parameters. Go to that if ur too lazy for the paper. If you want to know how it works you might try to understand what I'm saying at the very beginning instead of being obtuse and disingenuous

Like I'm telling you why unary is trivial and more complicated ( I have told you multiple times) but you remain stuck on it for whatever god awful reason

Like I'm straight up telling you A->AB, B->A is physics itself and you insist on literally the dumbest shit

>>16984961
my brother, where are you getting n's and + and 1 from? We have two symbols, A and B

>>16984960
>a property of null-set
How is the global nature of your rule "a property of the null set?" That's literally the question.

>you never actually defined the rule, you just said "unary counter".
"Add A to the sequence."
That's the rule. That's all there is to it. Nothing needs to "become" anything. Just add A.

>>16984962
section 22....

>>16984968
Screencap it.

>>16984964
>dawg I gave the master kernel , it spits out the observables at 0.063% RMS
Wow. That sounds really cool. Can you show me?

File: numerical_predictions.png (74.1 KB)

>>16984967
so your saying A->AA

and you don't see how that is trivial growth? you're saying that is non-trivial? just a raw string of useless data that contains minimal information. no algebra, no internal structure, just an endless string of 0. fascinating.


>>16984970
eat my nuts, y'all are real sorry around here

>>16984972
here's the output script. Go look at the hopfion_viewer.html if you want some real jingly keys

>>16984979
>so your saying A->AA
No. A isn't "becoming" AA. A is just being appended to the sequence. No transformation is necessary as that's just another bit of complexity you're assuming.

>trivial
We've been over this. Either you value simplicity or you don't. The "triviality" is a feature.

>contains minimal information.
You have not defined "information" in any meaningful way. Exactly the same amount of mathematical information can be encoded with a string of A's as can be encoded with a permutation of A's and B's.

>>16984979
>here's the output script
Nice table you got there. Show me a derivation.

File: remark-45.png (20.2 KB)

>You have not defined "information" in any meaningful way. Exactly the same amount of mathematical information can be encoded with a string of A's as can be encoded with a permutation of A's and B's.

>>16984998

https://zenodo.org/records/20349584?token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzUxMiJ9.eyJpZCI6IjY2NGZkMTg2LWNkNDctNGFjMi1iMzE0LWEyM2JiZDgzMTJkMiIsImRhdGEiOnt9LCJyYW5kb20iOiI4MGE1ZTczMzgyM2RiMTc0ODJmNzFlZmE2ODgwNGRmNyJ9.PNzWZrBLwiI7dnGhw2XAGmkXar9v3Mdd5SOLXmuypjAa1DITgXNte9rTc-Pn3UZXXTZHJC8OBFoML-xJ_DWKvg

>>16985000
not him but what extra information do you get with the fibronacci counting compared to unary?

>>16985002
Not clicking that. If you can't provide a simple derivation in this thread then why should anyone care about your paper?

File: found-a-fren.png (98.6 KB)

>>16985010
the internal structure is hierarchical, recursive, self-referential, aperiodic, asymmetric.

You get access to all of these features once you select the fibonacci substitution as first rule. Unary has none of them. You can't get an asymmetry flow of time with an unary because there is no bias, its the same going forward as it is backwards.


The asymmetry of time comes up whenever you express the discrete increment of phi^2=phi+1 into a fibonacci-mobius strip, it then becomes a continuous increment

File: I-am-upset.png (25.0 KB)

>>16985014
dawg you are irrelevant, I don't need your approval or endorsement. If you need the kernel, the kernel is there. If you need the derivation, the derivation is there. If you just want to whine and cry like a bitch go ahead, be my guest. I came to show something cool and interesting. If you don't find it cool or interesting then you can FUCK OFF

>>16984964
>where are you getting n's and + and 1 from?
Ever heard of a series?
The same thing you're trying to construct in your argument?
Except instead of A tending towards AB and B tending towards A you will have A that always tends towards A
Replacing with binary
1
10
101
Is your series, where mine would be
1
1
1
1
...
As A tends towards infinity

>>16985018
>the internal structure is hierarchical, recursive, self-referential, aperiodic, asymmetr
In other words, you value it for aesthetic appeal. Cool. Not sure the universe cares.

>>16985036
You haven't provided a derivation of anything. You keep linking to a paper that you apparently can't explain in plain english.

Pick anything observable. Show how it arises from this fibonacci transformation. Stop linking to your shitty paper and explain it.

>>16985062
I don't really care about OP's AI slop but it's funny how brainlets like you think an idea is invalid unless the author dumbs it down and spoonfeeds you so that you could form a coherent opinion on it.

>>16985062
Sorry for barging but like, isn't the point of a scientific paper specifically that it isn't in plain English to guarantee technically correct explanations? Or are the formulonies actually not that important after all?
I'm not the author, but as I understand the thread the statement - in plain English - is that from nothing we get duality which itself constantly develops into complexity, but clearly you would agree that this is not much of an explanation.

>>16985066
>an idea is invalid unless the author dumbs it down and spoonfeeds you
No. The idea isn't "invalid" because of that. But it's a massive red flag when someone hides their extraordinary claims behind a wall of jargon. OP could be absolutely 100% correct. But if he refuses to make his case, then he shouldn't be surprised when nobody takes him seriously.

The question is "how is this theory different from all the other schizo babble that sounds just like it?" Answer that and maybe I'll sincerely engage with it.

>>16985072
>it's a massive red flag when someone hides their extraordinary claims behind a wall of jargon
You can say the same about any theoretical physics paper. You only make the complaint based on credentials.

>The question is "how is this theory different from all the other schizo babble that sounds just like it?"
Who said it is? It's just that your crowd is foaming at the mouth constantly about "schizos" and not being able to actually engage with their stuff and refute them makes you froth even harder.

>>16985077
>You can say the same about any theoretical physics paper. You only make the complaint based on credentials.
The problem isn't that the jargon exists. You're correct in your earlier post:
>>16985067
>isn't the point of a scientific paper specifically that it isn't in plain English to guarantee technically correct explanations?
But, outside of the paper, there exist plain-English breakdowns of what's actually being claimed and a rough idea of how they get from point A to point B.
String theory is very heavy in jargon and math. But if you ask its proponents to summarize it, you'll get something along the lines of "the properties of fundamental particles arise from the vibrational modes of so-called 'strings' which make up all particles in the universe." And if you ask "in what way," you'll get an answer. Not a defensive "fuck off and read the paper."

>>16985087
That's not my post, I just couldn't be bothered to read through the thread any more than I can be bothered to read OP's paper, so I didn't notice someone else already rubbed your face in it. If it wasn't for your religious zeal to deboonk "schizo" takes and the compulsion to LARP as a rational skeptic, you would've ignored the thread. But you're an impulsive niggermoney on one hand and too intimidated to engage with the OP on the other, so you're gonna spend the entire thread arguing why the correct /sci/ etiquette is for OP to spoonfeed you until you feel you can respond.

>>16985091
>y-you're too intimidated to parse through OP's schizobabble
Sure thing buddy.
Still waiting on OP to make anything resembling a coherent point.

>>16985067
A well-written paper in any field includes introduction and explanation in plain english.

>>16985098
>>16985107
>the brainlet will be stuck in this loop forever
Textbook case of >>16985091

>>16985110
Arguing about other people arguing pointlessly is even more pointless. It's an even more generic and boring loop that applies to any arbitrary thread.

>>16985118
>pointlessly arguing about others' pointless argument about arguing pointlessly
How pointless...

>>16985054
yes bro I know what a series is but you are introducing a whole lot at a stage that has not much of anything. How are you constructing exponents? How are you even counting? We don't even have naturals yet.

>>16985062
in other words, ur a fucking retard, stay in the peanut gallery chudling. I've explained over and over, if you haven't gotten it yet you'll never get it.

>>16985067
Yes, you gotten what the peanut gallery could not.

From nothing comes a duality that leads to complexity from simplicity

very easy concept, very clearly demonstrated.

>>16985072

>"how is this theory different from all the other schizo babble that sounds just like it?"

well gee maybe its the fact that it is zero-parameters with a single forced input with an accuracy of 0.063%

that might be telling you something idk

Here I'll explain it once again for all the brainlets around here ( I thought there would be more smart people here desu )

you pick the most minimal claim and follow the simplest rules. Rules are picked on entropic minimization.

The end. that's the entire theory. It was never complicated, I've repeated this multiple times, y'all are genuine just retarded.

>>16985087
I'm going to tell you fuck off if you ask for a derivation and I hand you the derivation and you whine about it

You never asked for an explanation or a summary. Don't be disingenuous about what you asked for.

>>16985119
Indeed, every step down the meta ladder is even more generic and pointless, first step included. "If you were really smart you would just ignore this thread" is a self-effacing point every time

>>16985122
>"If you were really smart you would just ignore this thread" is a self-effacing point every time
Whom are you quoting, brainlet?

>>16985127
a paraphrase of
>If it wasn't for your religious zeal to deboonk "schizo" takes and the compulsion to LARP as a rational skeptic, you would've ignored the thread.

>>16985128
That's not a paraphrase, though. A paraphrase retains the original meaning. Are you literally disabled?

>>16985121
>you pick the most minimal claim and follow the simplest rules.
I will say this once again: your rule is not simpler than other rules posted. A unary sequence has fewer rules and can encode exactly the same amount of information. You reject it because it's not "interesting" in your subjective opinion.

>>16985129


WOW U GUYS ARE SO SMART BY BEING PETULANT SUB-HUMANS, VERY IMPRESSED BY YOUR COMMAND OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

>>16985130
Hey mate, give it a read again

>>16985000

>>16985130
oh wait since you are just going to repeat I might as well repeat,

here it is again
>>16985000

>>16985130
I will say it once again and once again and once again and once again,

read this

>>16985000


have you read it ?

Great, read it again

>>16985000

have you read it yet?

Great, read it again

>>16985000


fucking chudling brainlet

like this motherfucker sincerely thinks he has a point with the unary

here read it again since you love posting it non fucking stop

>>16985000

READ DAMN YOU.

YOUR UNARY HAS NO STRUCTURE.

YOU CAN'T BUILD SHIT WITHOUT A STRUCTURE.

DUMBASS.

>>16985121
The exponent is there merely for visual aid, since A^n = A^n+inf we can simplify it as A=A or simply A

>>16985135
The order shown in binary can be represented as a sequence length in unary.
Your "structure" requirement is arbitrary.

>>16985146
I mean that's really just an identity then, it doesn't have much at all going on. Seems like a trivial rule

I'm looking for the simplest rule that leads to (non-trivial) growth

endless 0's and endless 1's are boring 0/1 latching is boring, fibonacci matrix is the first one that can actually be built on

File: apu-face-palm.jpg (5.2 KB)

>>16985154
aight dawg whatever the fuck you wanna say, go ahead and try to pull physics out of something lacking structure lemme know how that works out

>>16985164
You haven't shown physics coming out of your system yet. You keep insisting that we read your paper but you haven't even begun to show that your system is even sufficient to do anything with.

I skimmed your portion on 3+1 dimensional spacetime and it seems to just assert "4 is the smallest non-fibonacci integer and the sum of two fibonacci integers therefore that's where spacetime comes from."

>>16985161
Aren't A=AB and B=A merely identities? If A=AB and B=A we can simplify it to just A=AA and each A could encode a bit of information by being either alone
A = 0
or paired
AA = 1

>>16985166
yeah other than the no-parameter 0.063% accuracy kernel I haven't shown anything

It's kinda the elephant in the room, it's probably best to keep ignoring it

>I skimmed your portion on 3+1 dimensional spacetime

Okay so what do we use to construct time and space for the spectral triple doubly twisted hopfion?

We use F_2 and F_4

By geometric construction F_2 is time and F_4 is space.

>>16985173
its not A=AB, its A turns into AB

its a fibonacci substitution
A->AB, B->A

A
AB
ABA
ABAAB
ABAABABA

the fibonacci words are your fundamental building blocks used to construct everything else, true primitives.

>>16985177
>no-parameter 0.063% accuracy kernel
You haven't shown this. You assert it. You've shown a table but not how you got there.

>what do we use to construct time and space for the spectral triple doubly twisted hopfion?
>We use F_2 and F_4
>By geometric construction F_2 is time and F_4 is space
So you're imposing fibonacci terms into a topological structure and asserting that this is where the entirety of topology originates? Good going.

>>16985182
Yes, I understand what you're saying, but equivalently it can be said that if A turns to AB then A is equal to AB, so substitution itself becomes an excess parameter in your set of rules, since instead of writing A->AB you can simply write AB and instead of writing B->A you can simply write A. So since A=AB and B=A then AB=AA and A=AA and so A=A
From there we can write
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
So if we imagine A=0 and AA=1 we cpuld construct an alternating series of binary encodings that overlap in superposition.

File: Screenshot_20260520-141831.png (2.0 MB)

E^2 = m^2 + p^2
m^2 = E^2 - p^2
m^2 = (E+p)(E-p)
m = (√E +i√p)(√E+i√p)(√E+√p)(√E-√p)
Mass is a standing wave phase locked to the real observable phase
p=(√E+i√m)(√E-i√m)(√E-√m)(√E+√m)
Momentum is the moment of mass phase locked to the real observable phase
And "massless things" are not truly massless, they have imaginary mass that is phase locked to the imaginary complex phases we cannot perceive because we are phase locked to the Real phases.

All of QED, and QFT cannot be described without i and wick rotations. The photon doesn't move through Real spacetime, it is a particle in the complex phase which appears to be a waveform in the Real phase, while mass is a particle in the real phase that appears to be a waveform in the complex phases. Shrodingers equation says that waveforms spread indefinitely, that is what the formula predicts. Mass defies this, so QFT which denies the ontological existence of a syntropic restorative complex phase is not only not ontologically grounded, it's not science at all. It conjures black box instruments without ontological grounding to obscure its own conclusions in order to continue denying that Logos, which has been articulated as God, and encoded in our myth for thousands of years, doesn't exist.

>>16985187
ur right, let me put binky baby in his high chair and spoon feed him

no, I don't impose anything. There's a single claim and a single forced input and everything else is a result of that. I didn't choose F_2 and F_4 as time and space, that's what they must be given the claim and the rule.

>>16985191
>There's a single claim and a single forced input and everything else is a result of that.
I understand that's what you *want* this to be. I'm telling you it seems to be very much not that. And you haven't justified that this is anything more than you arbitrarily imposing fobonacci terms where they don't need to be.

File: flower5.png (864.7 KB)

>>16985190
wave/particle duality comes from the hopfion, depending on where and how you measured it you'll see difference faces of it or behaviors.

File: COBBEE-BEANS.png (226.5 KB)

>>16985196
what have I chosen then bud, tell me the parameter/s I have arbitrarily imposed. There's one input at the beginning that's forced structurally on the basis of uniqueness primitivity and minimality, everything else is the result of that. 4 is also an over-determined unique solution. It can't be a parameter if its the only option.

I will gradually peer review your paper OP, at least until I get bored. Finished Part 1. I don't contest any of the claims about the Fibonacci sequence and related constructions.
One issue: you seem to be claiming that you're able to reconstruct huge swaths of mathematics from just the empty set and the Fibonacci substitution. Your Axiom 1 is "the empty set exists", which every mathematician already takes as an axiom and makes your paper look amateur. I suspect you put it there because you want to emphasize that you're starting from as few assumptions as possible. But in Definition 2 you appeal to {0} which traditionally the axiom of pairing, and then you go on to talk about the free monoid over an alphabet which requires significantly more ZFC yet.
Maybe you should just take the existence of alphabets and monoids as your foundational concept.
Actually did learn some interesting things from Part 1's Fibonacci facts. Looking forward to continuing.

>claim nothing in the beginning
>require introduction of something
>"if something existed then it is interesting that something else would exist"
>from nothing
>null
"something theory" is a better name.

thanks op, will not read.

>>16985205
Got it, thanks for actual criticism. Yes, I put it there for emphasize. The focus is more of a reconstruction of physics than of math and how mathematical principles emerge physically. I'll definitely do some revisions

>>16985202
Why that particular hopfion? Why a hopfion at all?

>>16985216
a doubly twisted hopfion perfectly encodes the fibonacci matrix

as I said before, most minimal claim, most simplest rule, then you follow the principle of entropic minimization

going from the fibonacci matrix into the doubly twisted hopfion is not only entropically free, it then allows you to encode more information. Then whenever the information/energy/mass gets too dense it then projects holographically into a soliton to further have space to encode

>Why that particular hopfion? Why a hopfion at all?

its entropically free to transition from a fibonacci matrix to a doubly twisted hopfion, it provides an avenue/pipeline for information to flow

All principles can be reduced down to "water flows downhill"

>>16985221
>a doubly twisted hopfion perfectly encodes the fibonacci matrix
Your reasoning is circular. You impose this fibonacci operator as the most fundamental component of the universe (perhaps second to the empty set) and then take a hopfion which encodes the resulting matrix and then act surprised when they correspond. And somehow you use that topological structure to then say "this is where spacetime comes from" as a result of an imposed mathematical correspondence.

>>16985232
im saying 4 is overly-determined and unique

I then say the doubly twisted hopfion is a free route / entropic minimum path for the fibonacci matrix to take

if it takes this path ( it does ) then time and space must be F_2 and F_4

Again, what am I imposing? What are the parameters? What am I 'surprised' about?

>>16985215
Honestly I had to skim part 2 a bit since now I'm getting lost in the technical jargon.
Another writing tip: who's your audience here? If it's professional mathematicians then you don't actually need a whole lemma (34) proving that 4 is the smallest non-Fibonacci number and other obvialities. If you're writing for a more undergraduate audience then you can't just drop in phrases like Z/2Z-grading and "first Stiefel–Whitney class" without explaining what you mean more clearly

>>16985244
>the doubly twisted hopfion is a free route / entropic minimum path for the fibonacci matrix to take
"You can represent a matrix in a certain way" is not the same as saying "this certain way naturally arises from that matrix." This conflation seems to be rampant in your paper. You can represent this fibonacci matrix as a mobius operator, therefore the mobius operator naturally arises from the fibonacci matrix? It's a critical flaw im your paper's reasoning. You make a logical leap by showing various ways to represent this operator and then assert those representations as a natural consequence of the operator.

File: ken-wheeler2.jpg (78.6 KB)

>>16985253
each construction has a different use, the fibonacci-mobius is a primordial construction that is responsible for the flow of time, the projection of shapes and numbers. time is the continuous expression of the discrete phi^2=phi+1

Anyway you can run it thru the coexter/platonic proof, the hopfion or the algebraic, all 3 converge on the same predictions

but the doubly twisted hopfion definitely arises in nature, you can see the doubly twisted hopfion from the ferro cell and my hopfion_viewer.html is the only program that has managed to replicated what is seen in the ferrocell so I have additional experimental reason to believe in the doubly twisted hopfion besides its entropic minimality and its convergence with the coexter/algebraic proof

>>16985250
got it, I'll go over and add annotation and commentary. I was also considering writing a pop-science version as well that is easily digestible.

File: doubly-twisted-hopfion-interior.jpg (772.9 KB)

real doubly twisted hopfion pic

File: flower2.png (257.3 KB)

toy doubly twisted hopfion

>>16985256
That these classrs of structures appear in nature is not the point. The point is you constructing an example of one via fibonacci operator cannot be taken to imply every other example of a given structure is consequent of that particular operator you used.
This is like when people see the golden spiral then conclude every logarithmic spiral is related to the fibonacci sequence.

>>16985256
the jargon didn't let up and I got filtered so now I'm just skimming through offering thoughts
Theorem 108: I'm confused about the significance of this theorem. You seem to be presenting it like 4 is the only number that simultaneously satisfies conditions C1-C4, but your proof is that 4 is the *only* number satisfying condition C2, and also the *only* number satisfying condition C4. I don't understand the conceptual significance of this configuration

>>16985266
>>16985256
also, what's the "lepton-mass polynomial" you talk about in Theorem 107? You never define that in your paper, and that phrase doesn't turn up anything on Google (this is of course one reason you need to cite sources)

>>16985260
sure I agree but I needed a geometric primitive for the Dirac operator in order for the spectral triple to be able to do anything. I identified the fibonacci hamiltonian as the physical basis, I needed something that worked with the fibonacci hamiltonian. The doubly twisted hopfion is what works. There is only so many options that can even fit in that slot...

Like I'm not picking things willy nilly, there's a lot of constraints I had to deal with.

>>16985266
I'm just showing that it's an overly-determined unique from multiple angle. Its capable of dropping any of them and still being the unique solution. Just saying its an overly unique solution, just clarifying that it's not handpicked.

>>16985268
Got it, I'll clarify the polynomials. The fibonacci-mobius is responsible for the gauge groups and the platonics and the gauge polynomials come from this interconnected relationship. Yeah re-reading it is very vague where I'm getting that from, thanks for the check

>>16985277
Now I've skimmed ahead to your summary -- which I would have placed in the introduction
>M¨obius parity 3+1d spacetime. The admissibility level l = 4 has Zeckendorf decomposition 4 = F4 + F2 = 3 + 1, identified as spatial and temporal dimensions (Theorem 37). The level 4 is the smallest Zeckendorf-2 integer, the smallest non-Fibonacci, the first pure-Lucas, and the smallest σ-unreachable length: four coincident senses converge on l = 4 (Lemma 35).
how does mobius parity play into this argument?

>>16985279
mobius parity is the global time, its the continuous expression of the discrete increment phi^2=phi+1 . There's room for information to leak from discreteness into continuity, and so it does.

I'll need to write a paper on the cosmology, that's a whole topic in itself

>>16985277
>There is only so many options that can even fit in that slot...
That is also not the point. Let's say the hopfion is the only thing that "fits that slot." This should not be taken as a relationship to the infinitely many other doubly twisted hopfions which don't fit in.
Again, it's the same error people are making when they say golden spirals are ubiquitous in nature when, in reality, nearly all naturally occurring logarithmic spirals have a completely unrelated eccentricity.

>>16985277
>I needed a geometric primitive for the Dirac operator in order for the spectral triple to be able to do anything.
Oh, and this is a problem as well. If your thesis is that all of these things arise "naturally" from your initial conditions, then the fact that you're going around looking for things that "fit in a slot" is evidence to the contrary. You're explicitly constructing things to make the model work rather than letting the model do the work for you. Every time you do that, you're injecting a new set of assumptions, which you claim your model lacks.

File: solar-system.jpg (297.1 KB)

>>16985303
I get what you're saying, I really do, but there has to be a geometric primitive capable of dynamics. I could've had fallacious reasoning ( or not ) in choosing the hopfion but I had to choose something.

And it works well, the entropic minima of the saddlepoint of the hopfions is used to derive newtons inverse square law, big G, lorenz invariance, etc. So it was obviously the correct choice in retrospect.

so even if my reasoning behind my decisions aren't necessarily perfect, the result is, and that's the important part.

>>16985311
yes, if only models could construct themselves

but they can't. I still need to think things out.

>>16985312
Unless I misunderstand you, I don't think you're addressing what I was saying.
Let's say you choosing a doubly twisted hopfion was perfectly valid. Let's also say that doubly twisted hopfions are ubiquitous in the universe. Without contesting either of those points, my point is that you still need to show that the specific doubly twisted hopfion that arises from your theory is the same as those which arise from the natural laws of the universe. That is how you begin to show that your model's laws and the universe's laws are the same laws.
At least your model does make a testable prediction, I'll give it that.

>>16985314
I think I see where you're coming from. But the way you pitched this model is that you can extract all of physics from this simple fibonacci operator. But by the time we get to your first description of a physical property of the universe (3+1D spacetime) you're already relying on assumptions you've made beyond that simple set of axioms you started with.

File: doubly-twisted-hopfion-int2.png (912.4 KB)

>>16985325
remark 32 covers the forcing actions for the hopfion.

the hopfion was something that I knew had to be there and afterwards it turns out to be forced.

This was similar to the 4 but in reverse, I knew the 4 was there and was forced but I didn't know why it was there or what it represented until later.

everything is still forced, it has to be a doubly twisted hopfion, I just didn't have the concrete reasoning for why it had to be forced until I had a chance to take a deeper look at it.

>At least your model does make a testable prediction, I'll give it that.

oh yeah bro the accuracy is great and the orbitals are literally the crispest orbitals I've seen, if you hadn't had a chance to look at the tidal locked 3 body on rainbow I highly recommend it

>>16985283
In this post as well as the article I find myself getting confused by how loosely you're using the phrase mobius parity. When you originally define it you say it's the name for the Z/2Z grading. Then in Corollary 26 you give six very different examples of Z/2Z gradings or constructions of that flavor and call them all instances of mobius parity. Are you just using mobius parity to capture the idea of "mathematical object with a notion of sign which is well-behaved with evenness/oddness"?
Also can you explain the conclusion of Lemma 20(iii) a bit? I don't see how the fact about phi-conjugate relates to mobius parity.

>>16985334
also no one has a master kernel with an auto-selection rule for corrections. That is a genuine zero-parameter master expression. That is the REAL DEAL. Show that to someone who knows what they are looking at and it will melt their McNugget

>>16985334
That's not what a "forcing" looks like. What you did was a retrofit. I'll refer you to your post here:
>>16985314
A forcing would be a portion of the model that does, indeed, "construct itself." The most generous interpretation of what you did was to ask "what geometric primitive fits here?" then found one that fits the bill. Without questioning the validity of doing that, a forcing would be if a geometric primitive happened to arise from simple iteration of your axioms without need to ask the question at all. No shift in representation is "forced." That you represented it with a hopfion isn't forced. What is forced is the particular hopfion that represents your operator after you've chosen that particular representation. That's why showing that this particular hopfion is what shows up in nature is the important bit.

Hey OP, Theorem 53 is false. Base-phi balanced ternary representation (that's essentially what you're describing there) is definitely not unique. By fudging around with the greedy algorithm, you can write 0 -- and therefore any other number -- as a sum with some nonzero coefficients

>>16985337
the mobius parity Det M = -1 manifests in 6 different ways, they are all equivalent to the mobius parity

Det M = - 1 = phi * ( -1/phi)

they are the dual eigenvalues of the fibonacci matrix and they tag along for the ride whenever that fibonacci matrix becomes continuous in the form of the mobius

File: fren-youre-alright.jpg (65.3 KB)

>>16985345
thanks! yeah I need to rewrite the bergmans and rewrite that section , I'll make a note of it. I did end up finding the actual rule I think yesterday, which is what the master expression uses. I didn't realize there was a discrepancy in the greedy search though

>>16985341
perhaps you're right, I'm considering toning down the language. I'm going to look over everything and take these messages under consideration

File: fren-hold-the-line.jpg (58.9 KB)

alright guys thanks for the suggestion, I am cooked for tonight, gonna be doing revisions later

>>16985352
You don't just need to rewrite that section anon you need to re-prove every theorem that used it previously and re-evaluate every time you use the concept of Bergman's corrections, since they might not be well-defined

>>16985346
You're still being confusing. Is the modulus parity the expression "Det M = -1"? Is it the determinant itself? Is it your name for the two eigenvalues? You're doing math here, you need to rigorously define your technical terms (unless you're not using it as a technical term at all but just a conceptual catch-all)

>>16985359
(a+bi)/(c+di) = (b-ai)/(d-ci)
Modulus conserved

>>16984589
>+
that nigga ain't a "turning", that bitch a concatenation!, when you turn you turn, you don't glue!

File: 1731103891097952.jpg (1.1 MB)

>>16984111
checked

your work has certaintly encaptivated my attention OP

>>16985345
Seems like an analgous issue to

https://youtu.be/5Rr-ZT6A7cw?t=155

MMP approaches this from https://mystical-metaphysical-number-system.github.io/mmp/docs/Number/Resolution/NegativeMultisets

by imposing a balanced ternary structure on the empty set- there is a rank 0 nothingness, and two rank 1 nothingness that have hands. the rank 0 operates like the ground voltages (0V) and the rank 1s operate as Open circuit vs closed circuit or A and B

This is motivated by ditching von neumann and embracing Chua and doing the HP labs NIMPLY + ground voltage which is a non-commutative universal gate that can has the 1D tape

https://mystical-metaphysical-number-system.github.io/mmp/docs/Applications/Memristors

i think if you reformulate your forcing function thorugh limits of the V-I diagram and the pinched hysteris loop you'll find what your looking for

File: kawaii-data.jpg (66.8 KB)

>>16985358
yah that's what I mean, I have to go down stream of that and fix everything.. Thankfully bergman corrections are at the end of the stream so there's not much to change. It also has an auto-selection rule now instead of being arrived at analytically.. The greedy approach really was a placeholder until I found the actual rule

>>16985359
I am revising the document to make it more explicit
the Z/2 grading is the mobius parity itself, the different faces are logically equivalent presentations of the mobius parity depending on what side you're working from.

>>16985650
hey, thanks! yes, it has certainly captivated my attention as well, I've been in a rather obsessed state about it. I'm trying my best to keep the narrative chain clean from null-set to relativity.. currently just cleaning things up and adding commentary, annotation along with any missing gaps.

a very similar ternary structure emerges from the mobius, its used to construct the gauge groups polynomials. I somehow did not include this explicitly but you can look at the gauge polynomials to see the result. The next version of the paper will show the ternary structure explicitly.

File: apu-calculations.jpg (12.0 KB)

>>16985650
this does seem like an experimental route to test mobius stuff though, ur gonna have to give me a bit to digest this

File: Screenshot 2026-05-18 at 17-35-52 CDS Portal.png (847.8 KB)

i created a reality shattering device that uses qrng and a secret deterministic mode now all i see are triangles everywhere
the pixles on my monitor have become triangles

>>16985694
I'm still confused by Lemma 20(iii) about how mobius parity connects the two eigenvalues

alright im back i had to add quantum gravity and singularity resolution since someone asked for it

>>16985881
okay so those eigenvalues are in the fibonacci matrix and it basically means that at all scales it will be itself

the fibonacci mobius is the continuous expression of the discrete fibonacci matrix. When the fibonacci matrix folds into itself and expresses as the fibonacci-mobius those eigenvalues are still present because its still the same thing, just expressed continuously

so the mobius parity cocycle is time, its the tick rate. The main thing those eigenvalues are saying is that as time asymmetrically and continuously progresses forward, the fibonacci-mobius and time will remain itself no matter the scale.

Metaphysical solipsism has caused me to no longer believe others exist. I mean, think about it. Solipsism ultimately implies that EVERYTHING only exists in the mind. The only other way to view it is that the world is you. I am the world. Or a combination of both. The world seems to exist but only exists in the mind. The world itself is my mind. The mind emerges from nothingness? Boltzmann brain is an equally likely theoretical framework. I think there is very compelling evidence that I am just all information arranging itself as all of this. Matter exists in a superposition yada yada. The point is, there is no compelling evidence for anyone else being "real." I stopped believing in time long ago because it seems to be an illusory property of a seemingly material world. There's no reason to believe I am bound to time. Or that truth would take any amount of time to learn. Truth is already innate and requires no time-bound search. This may sound like a schizo ramble but I think it hits upon core truths. There's really no reason to believe material learnings as, in my opinion, they are all results of thinking you are a flesh-bound biological organism fated to perish and never exist again. And this just isn't the case

>>16985955
>the fibonacci mobius is the continuous expression of the discrete fibonacci matrix. When the fibonacci matrix folds into itself and expresses as the fibonacci-mobius those eigenvalues are still present because its still the same thing, just expressed continuously
what kind of mathematical object is "fibonacci mobius" here? I don't know what you mean by "the continuous expression"

>>16986002
okay so phi has a relationship with itself

phi^2=phi+1

where its a discrete increment of itself

this can also be expressed by
[1 1]
[1 0]

I can turn that fibonacci matrix into a mobius strip with phi characteristics. I call it a fibonacci mobius strip because what else could I call it lol

the same properties are there, but now they are expressed continuously instead of discretely

the fibonacci mobius is just discrete phi expressed continuously

>>16986009
I get the connections between phi, fibonaccis, and that matrix, but you're losing me when you say you can turn it into a mobius strip. You're saying you get a topological space? Or are you speaking metaphorically?

File: groyper-and-apu.png (632.2 KB)

>>16986106
Yes, it's a literal topology, not a metaphor.

the fibonacci word is perfectly capable of filling the lower slots discretely as a 1d string

0, 1 , 1 , 2 , 3

but it can't fill 4

0, 1, 1 , 2 , 3 , 5

it skips over 4

In order for the fibonacci word to represent 4, it needs to be a composite

F_2 + F_4 = 1 + 3 = 4

In order to form this composite, you need to encode the 1d fibonacci word into a 2d object

following the principle of entropic minimization we want a bare minimum topology that perfectly encodes the fibonacci word. It has to be the simplest topology with no information loss.
information loss = high entropy
no information loss = low entropy
complex structure = high entropy
simple structure = low entropy

The topology that encodes the 1d fibonacci word into a 2d object according to these qualifications is the mobius strip.

0d null-set -> 1d fibonacci word -> 2d fibonacci-mobius strip -> 3d doubly twisted hopfion -> 4d soliton

minimum claim -> minimum rule -> minimum topology -> minimum geometric -> minimum dynamics

It's all water running downhill. The principle is the same throughout.

>>16986135
is it the same topological space as the actual mobius strip, or is it your name for a different space?

File: apu-purple-coffee.jpg (107.2 KB)

>>16986138
It's literally a mobius strip that's reading off the infinite fibonacci word. Its the same topological space as a mobius strip that carries the fibonacci word.

You can just think of a mobius strip with a continuous string of ABAABABA... being read off.

If I encoded the mobius with "GROYPER", it'd still have the topology of the mobius but the innards are "GROYPER". The topology isn't going to change, just what is inside of it

>>16986139
What does it mean for a topological space to read off or encode a word.?

File: mask.jpg (75.4 KB)

>>16986135
So you have [math]\mathbb{F}\times \mathbb{F} \rightarrow \mathbb{N} : (F_n,F_m)\mapsto F_n+F_m[/math]
and equip [math]\mathbb{F}\times \mathbb{F}[/math] with the smallest topology making the map continuous?

>>16986212
close enough conceptually, the ordering of the pair matters though

[eqn](F_n, F_m) \longmapsto \bigl(F_n + F_m, (-1)^{n+m}\bigr) \in \mathbb{N} \times \mathbb{Z}/2[/eqn]

the mobius parity matching the Det m = -1 of the fibonacci matrix preserves the order which is asymmetrical and encodes a lot of things down the line like bergman corrections, hopfion chirality, flow of time, etc. It also sets F_2 = time and F_4 = space

framework completely falls apart otherwise, its responsible for everything downstream. Very delicate construction, good for falsifiability thou

>>16986198

hmm lemme see if I can make analogy

So imagine the mobius is an analog clock on the wall. The analog clock is a topological space. It has an hour hand and a minute hand ( the mobius has an inner side and an outer side ). encoded on that topological space are 1-12 / 60 ticks ( the mobius is encoded with fibonacci words ). I can read off the clock by looking at the hour and minute hand *in order* to get the time ( I can read off both sides of the mobius *in order* to get the composite )

this analogy relates to >>16986212
in that the order matters. If the hour hand is at 8 and the minute hand is at 34 but I read the minute as the hour and the hour as the minute then when the time ticks to minute = 35 then I would read that as a whole hour passing instead of just a minute and the entire construction fails

File: mask2.jpg (120.9 KB)

>>16986400
But [math](F_n,f_m) \mapsto (F_n+F_m, (-1)^{n+m}) = (F_m + F_n, (-1)^{m+n})[/math] does not take order into account.

you are just throwing buzzwords Stevens

>>16986135
How do you represent 12 then? If 4 requires 2 Fibonacci numbers, thus 2 dimensionality?

I think for every n, there is a number m that is not representable as the sum of n Fibonacci numbers. In this case for n = 2, we have that 12 can't be represented as a sum of 2 Fibonacci numbers

When x is less than 12 and is a Fibonacci number, 12 - x is not a Fibonacci number.

>>16986467
(F_n, F_m) (F_n + F_m, (n − m) mod 2)

my bad, I copied the wrong line

I'm really not trying to use buzzwords, I'm just trying to communicate an abstract concept

>>16986481

yeah the zeckendorf length for 12 is 3
8+3+1

the fibonacci word is a sturmian word, the internal 1d structure of the infinite fibonacci word is sufficient to represent all the integers by itself

but the fibonacci word has a lot of other internal structures as well. Its not 'satisfied' only being a 1d object, or only representing the integers, it has to express all properties of phi, and it has to express all of its internal structure

like I can't have phi with properties of hierarchy and recursion but then remove its self-referential aspect, then it wouldn't be phi. Phi needs to be fully itself, or its not itself

The fibonacci-mobius strip is a necessary structure for phi to express itself in ways the discrete combinatorial cannot, like continuity.

>no information loss = low entropy

If you block phi as expressing itself as a fibonacci-mobius strip, then you are losing all the information complexity downstream from it

going back to this

>the fibonacci word is perfectly capable of filling the lower slots discretely as a 1d string

this is really an abstract concept that I didn't fully communicate

I'm saying the lower dimensions are fully occupied

phi has completely filled the lower dimensions. The lower slots of 0d, 1d ,2d , and 3d are completely filled up. Its like a jungle has completely overgrown those slots. we exist at the canopy. There isn't any room for phi to express itself any further 0-3, it is already fully expressed. 4d is the first slot that has any room for anything dynamic to happen, based on what is happening between 0-3 (highest gradient, structure, continuity, geometry)

Its possible you might see further expression at places like 7d 9d 12d etc, I haven't really explored that concept since we live in 4d

File: apu-befuddled.png (7.8 KB)

>>16986582
[eqn](F_n, F_m) \longmapsto \bigl(F_n + F_m, n - m \bmod 2\bigr)[/eqn]

sorry I'm extra retarded today

>>16986400
>hmm lemme see if I can make analogy
Don't make an analogy though. You're doing math. Make a rigorous definition of what you're talking about.

File: apu-befuddled-upsidedown.png (18.3 KB)

>>16986821
If you want the rigorous definition of what I'm talking about then look in the paper to see exactly what I'm talking about... go where the rigorous definition actually is...

If someone is speaking to me conceptually I'm going to speak to them conceptually back

I make analogy not only for the benefit of others understanding but also for the benefit of my own understanding.

>>16986904
Where in the paper can I find a rigorous definition of the mobius strip encoding a fibonacci word?

File: mobius-parity.png (165.5 KB)

>>16986909
part 2 is dedicated to the mobius

>>16986919
Yeah I know, I read it. I don't see the definition you're talking about.

how much of this thread is just bots arguing with each other

File: mask3.jpg (90.8 KB)

>>16986821
This.
And also:
>what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

That being said, perhaps you are on to something, but it is a bit hard to see what that is, based off a string of names of relevant theories, and definitions, without being given their technical meaning, let alone the absence of an explanations how these technicalities precisely relate.

> yet another symbol system attempting kosmos description
so what are interesting testable predictions of null theory?

File: spoonfeeding-airplane-mmrrrroow.png (92.0 KB)

>>16986962
>image

>>16987048
well of course I'm onto something...

Like it already has practical results from a computation standpoint. The physics derive from a discrete combinatoral, the calculations are cheap.

In regards to the assertion, I have a single axiom O that is also the foundation of the entirety of mathematics. If you disagree with nothing you disagree with everything; You are forced to agree with the premise. Whether you can find fault with the logic of derivation is another thing.

Regardless there is still a master expression that actually does what it claims to do, 45 observables at 0.063% ( along with other stuff depending on how you use it ) No one else has anything close to how concise it is.

>>16987091
well thankfully you don't need billions of dollars to run experiments on this

I'm getting interesting results from a constructed fibonacci word using EM. The entire construct couples together, 7 wave mixing, fibonacci shows up from using FFT, the higgs saddle shows up, weird asymmetric behavior, etc.

you can use any substrate or medium, the simplest would be the acoustic version where you put a guitar or piano string under tension across a temperature gradient with brass beads with separation by fibonacci ratios A = 1 B = 1.618. You should see a lot of interesting spectral data from that alone. That's going to be my next experiment

The most interesting thing that would result from this is tying quantum entanglement to ultrametrics . There's a little about ultrametrics in the master kernel but I haven't went much into it in the main paper. basically because null-set is the subset of all sets it is present everywhere and everything is phi and connected so you can connect any point to any other point ultrametrically using the void as the base.. Instead of navigating laterally thru the substrate you travel down vertically to the base then travel back up

every leaf on a tree has its place just like every star in the galaxy has its place.

When you use the word "void" it's scientifically acceptable. When you use the word Logos, and Logos dynamics as the unifying principle it's nonscientific. The fact is, this organizational structure works with any number set. You could do it with a prime-based number system, an e-based number system; doesn't matter. The numbering system is arbitrary as long as you have the telos of ontological reality as the unifying principle.

File: spindle-of-necessity.jpg (374.0 KB)

>>16987275
when I say void I refer to the physically realized properties of the mathematical null-set. Its not accepted by the scientific community at large yet

The Logos would be the fibonacci word. Spinoza called it the substance of god. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

This really starts getting into the metaphysical aspects of it. You start seeing the symbology of it showing up in all world religions and mythologies. The world tree shows up everywhere. Ananke spins up reality from the void.

Metaphysically there is a tree of life constantly siphoning from the infinite potential of the void.

File: world-tree.jpg (397.0 KB)

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."

Eternal, all that there is, the uncaused cause, without beginning or end.

The world tree has roots siphoning from the underworld.

Correct. And scientific acceptance is mostly irrelevant at this conjecture, because in seeking it, you are accepting its assertion on the reality of reality and deferring to that, instead of reality itself and whatever it's underlying structural binding agent is.

>this madlad pointedly decategorified [math]$\mathcal{Eff}$[/math] and you won't believe what the initial object is!

pretending one has “escaped metaphysics” by using equations is itself a metaphysical stance

>>16987292
It will spread naturally because it is the truth. The framework itself is phi constructed, imbued with the characteristics of the word. Its an entropically minimum framework. Information flows through it easily, the computations are cheap.

Give it a year or two to propagate, it'll become mainstream. I've sown the seeds, give it time to grow. I already have a handful of people building engines and simulations off of it.

Institutions exist to support the status quo; I do not need their validation, they will be forced to conform when the truth becomes undeniable

File: advert-meme.jpg (33.5 KB)

>>16987299
lmao, that makes me want to create a meme similar to this

>>16987304
I never claimed to escape metaphysics, if anything this is a reconciliation.

File: mask4.jpg (70.2 KB)

>>16987221
Saying you have a single axiom O that is the foundation of the entirety of mathematics, is something entirely different than actually giving me that axiom.
Now you force me to actually read your 130 page which im not going to do.

what ever foundation you are using, it is not THE foundation of mathematics. Other foundations exist.

>If you disagree with nothing you disagree with everything
non-sequitur. You can only conclude i would disagree with something since you insist on "nothing" being a thing.

>>16987299
hearty kek

Some could argue, "that's why we need a universally agreed upon language to describe reality", and to that I would respond facetiously, "yes, let us rebuild the tower of Babel in our image"

>>16987311
I'm not saying you are. I'm saying the institutions absolutely are. :)

>>16987313
null-set is the necessary foundation for mathematics. You can't even have an argument or use logic without using it. You invoke it every time you reason.

Look up the Russell Paradox and Neumann ordinals

>>16987316
ah, yeah I agree, they are rather disconnected

File: mask5.gif (1009.9 KB)

>>16987323
I'm fine with the need for initial objects, but that is not the same as the need for the empty set.

>>16987345
I mean if you have an initial object more minimal than null-set feel free to share

File: 1714193682486234.png (26.2 KB)

>>16987379
minimal in what ordering?

File: 1778859973700165.jpg (715.0 KB)

>>16987391

File: 1779044976957887.gif (709.3 KB)

>>16987394
You'll be safe and secure in mind, within two hours.

>>16987396
I'm setup fully, all things concerning me are over. It's all about the objective. There's going to be space in the power structure for a number 1 and lots of other spaces.

>>16987398
I will brief you sometime soon, and present the art explaining the full power structure(top jobs, takes part in family-like communication).

File: 1778947701208286.jpg (52.7 KB)

>>16987399
I got the power to make you healthy again, and win the war you're in, with style.

Don't worry, my mind is following a path that's perfect, not something which can be spoken.

I'm being a lot more careful than I seem.

>>16987403
You'll probably be saved, and the enemy still believe you're helpless.

File: 1773343107494364.gif (2.5 MB)

>>16987405
probably,.. great.
pick me up in 2 hours. you know where im at

>>16987409
Ohh I'm so gassy and large with my big round belly *tap* *tap* aoOOOH I'm close to bursting. *Chews a piece of gum the buttons on my shirt ping off with each bite* I'm ready for a little more annon OOOHHHh

>>16987391
kinda seems pedantic, don't all initial objects in whatever category they are in trace back to a strict initial object? Aren't you just shuffling things around?

>>16987438
How does formally accepted science differ in this regard?

>>16987449
are we just answering questions with questions now instead of addressing points?

File: mask5.jpg (70.7 KB)

>>16987438
this was fun, but im being extracted within the hour so have to go make arrangement.
being formally right is enough.
If you disagree then you disagree with your own point on words in the universe where the null set is minimal.

>>16987453
lol have fun with extraction

>>16987451
What's the point exactly?

>>16987539
he said he was fine with initial objects but that's not the same as the need for empty set

I asked him if there was something more minimal than the empty set

he asked in what ordering , implying other mathematical universes like categories and groups

The point I made was that all those other initial objects are really just constructed by either the empty set or if it needs a point {empty set}; that the empty set is indeed the bare minimum and that any other initial object is nothing more than a reshuffling. You can't escape the void as being the bare minimum

he knew I made a good point so he called for extraction

>>16987553
And you are correct
0^2 = 1^2 + i^2
-i^2 = 1^2
i,-i = 1,-1

>>16987593

math is off but I get your point.

This is a good representation of what I was describing of the infinite information potential of the void... empty set's complement is the universal set. nothing implies everything.
empty set -> {empty set}, the distinction event gives you a 2 letter alphabet that allows you to encode any and all information

disgression: the distinction event shows up in the beginning of the fibonacci sequence as well (0,1),1,2,3,5

anyways, that's why you can do stuff like this in the first place
0
0=0
is the act of distinction and from doing that I can describe anything
1^2=-i^2
this is infinite information potential

that's why approaching division by zero as a limit brings you to infinity, as you approach it you approach infinite potential

big bang 1 point infinitely dense
void 1 point infinitely dense

>>16987665
does the universal set contain itself?

>>16987720
not op but im pretty confident the axiom of foundation emerges from the contractive nature of [math]\psi[/math] which bound all constructions

>>16987733
Even powers of ψ form an infinite descending sequence tho

>>16987738
well since i used the wrong glyph im probably too tired to actually argue my understanding, even if we were to grand that my understanding is correct despite my tiredness
as i understand the eigenline on the möbius band is directed such that every step reduces depth, and sigma only allows finite decomposition
but yeah im neither op nor good at thinking right now

>>16987745
If we're restricting ourselves to the discrete world and only thinking about lengths of sequences of A's and B's then there are no eigenvectors, you'll never have Mv = psi*v for any v

>>16987733
Hey OP here, I think you closed the it from the other side, let me investigate this further. I appreciate you pointing this out to me, thank you very much

>>16987759
The mobius is continuous its not restricted to discrete

>>16987745
like damn how deep in the trenches must you be to see that, amazing

do you want citation? this closes a lot of things out , tremendous downstream effect

File: congratulations.png (12.4 KB)

>>16987745
Congratulations man, you made big things happen. You made the Axiom of Foundation into the Theorem of Foundation. You also helped seriously upgrade the framework, massive downstream consequences.

I'm very tired now. I'll refine it later and release full paper revision eventually but now I can fully close it out

File: 1779814570525645-1.png (1.2 MB)

>>16987843
if you must, cite me as
>Anonymous 2 (unrelated to the Haruhi problem)
in the spirit of board culture

>>16984115
>I'm not sure how to attach a .pdf
Get out now

File: anon2.png (39.8 KB)

>>16987916
you got it, this is the statement cleaned up, I'm gonna include your original wording in the actual reference because its funny

>>16988064
neat, looking forward to the full context
i assume you'll update on the same zenodo record?

File: apu-thumbs-up.jpg (61.0 KB)

>>16988126
yeah I went ahead and put it under closure_draft.pdf so you can take a look at it, I'm going to work on it more though, needs to be cleaned up a lot

idk why I can't post .pdf, it says corrupted file or unsupported file type, oh well

>>16988152
looks workable, good luck further!

>>16988302
Thanks man, its logically self-contained now, it stands on its own ground. Past this point is just exploring throughout the depths and mapping out feature and functionality -- like doing the same for EM as I did for some of the dynamics

I gotta make a lean theorem package from everything cause I got stuff scattered all over, I have been down the biggest rabbit hole

I've half-baked on EM maxwell stuff since that's really a side chain to the whole thing but it's rather important since we use it a lot

there's also some relationship between the complex real plane, the mobius, and the platonics. I haven't fully flushed the thought out yet thou. The spiral vortex nature of it and how its projecting the digitals makes me wonder if there's zeta function from it or some type of prime pattern

The encoding on the mobius is very rich territory, lots to explore

File: images.jpg (27.2 KB)

>4 layers
>I = 4
>Zeckendorff split on 4
>SU(5) ranks 4
youre missing the other half for closure

>>16988578
i just woke up and am still retarded, what do you mean

>>16988731
your fibonacci substitution is bi-phasic but aperiodic, which means you need 8 phases because the void is not symmetric with the non-empty world, and the gap is that the theory neglects that it too exists in the world now, which means its input is not exclusively the reader's acknowledgement, it's also all the jargon you don't explicitly define yourself

Very interesting ideas and this is definitely the type of thinking we need to find the true basis of reality. But I don't think the road you're on will quite lead there:

>>16984151
>2. null-set implies {null-set} , distinction from nothingness
I don't think this is correct. A null set *is* nothingness. It isn't saying "there is this object called a set and that object has the property of being null", it is the denial of anything being present.

>>16988786
I'll have to look more into the 8 phases

but yeah you do need to have the jargon, its a big problem with first order logic, you have to start somewhere. You can all the explicit jargon from the fibonacci-mobius (really from the internal sturmian structure) but you still need jargon to explain the jargon. Like binary code is fully sufficient for a program but it doesn't explain the program. It'd be a monumental effort to full derive absolutely everything, that seems like a task for future generations; I'm not doing it, I'm content with closing the loop.

>>16988790
the complement of null set is the universal set, but I do get what you're saying. "The Dao that can be named is not the eternal Dao". null set is really marking the void from the outside, its not actually the thing. You can only know what it is by what it is not. You can't truly know the void, only the artifacts it leaves behind

A good example of this is meditation. If you try to approach the void and settle into nothingness, what happens? You'll find that you can't actually think on nothing and by attempting to do so endless intrusive thoughts begin entering your head.

This is how I originally came up with these thoughts:
you approach the void
the void rejects you
the void leaves behind artifacts

those artifacts are all you know about it. null-set is just an artifact, it's not the void itself. It's just a residual, like a thin film. You can only indirectly reference the void by proxy.

If you think about it, nothingness is inherently unstable. How can you have nothing? There is always the possibility of logic. If logic exists, other things predicated on it exist. We end up reconstructing the ensemble of reality if we keep pulling that thread, but there is no choice. It must be pulled.

>>16988830
>null set is really marking the void from the outside, its not actually the thing.
And if there is nothing then there is no outside for it to be marked from. This line of reasoning can't be the reason there's something instead of nothing. Nothingness is the total absence of properties and relations.

>>16988848
Very unstable, I agree

>>16988852
and what exactly is it your talking about? How are you mapping out nothingness in the first place? How do you know what nothingness is?

>>16988848
yeah nothing is impossible to pin down, that's why I used the meditation analogy to give a demonstration of its slippery nature. It's the best direct simple experiment of something coming from nothing

>>16988852

just to further point out

>Nothingness is the total absence of properties and relations.

But isn't the total absence of properties and relations something you are giving nothingness in the first place? No, because we can only speak of it by proxy and assign stuff to those proxies. A "total absence of properties and relations" is a property and a relation by exclusion.

When I say "inside/outside" i'm speaking fully analogy with understanding I'm talking about the proxy. Whenever you say

>Nothingness is the total absence of properties and relations.

you are applying a thin film over "true nothingness" (can't be spoken or thought about, not even a thing).

And yet we are thinking about it and writing about it by proxy.

So we can only define it by what it is not. It's not something, because something is something and not nothing

I'm making a "mark" on it so I can look at it from the "outside" because there is no "inside" in which to look, because it's not there, and it's not real.

At the end of the day I'm saying "Given a distinction from nothingness, the hierarchy follows" There is clearly a distinction from nothingness, observationally so.

>>16988954
>Given a distinction from nothingness
You're not providing one. You're just saying we can talk in ways that lack referents and trying to use that to say phrases that lack referents are actually referring to a thing, and that thing has the property of being a non-referent.

>>16988960
Mate

There is clearly a distinction from nothingness, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Let's assume there is no distinction from nothingness.
Just pure nothingness. No symbols to talk about it, no proxies, no anything, because there is no distinction.

Does that world exist? or is there something rather than nothing? Something is distinct from nothing, is it not?

>>16988967
>There is clearly a distinction from nothingness, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.
You're not explaining how this comes to be or came about

>>16988993

OK, I'll bite. There's a mathematical set of all possible universe states. There's also a set of all possible universe laws and constants. The multiverse is the endless application of a particular set of physical laws to the current universe state. We're in one of those possibilities.

>>16988993
Yeah I wish I had a better explanation for why the first cause happened, I can only explicitly point it out (0,1),1,2,3,5 here and do my best to explain how it results in everything else.

>>16988967
not that guy but this is pretty cool.
Lemmas, theorems, all organized as someone who'd be peculiar enough to shoot into the magnitude lol. Congratulations on the scaffold going with the metaphors. "Defining by what is not..."if anything remotely to the recent breakthrough on Erdos' there is not a better parallel to say, "alright, there's nothing to prove here because x". You need not explain your substrate to people and expect coherence. Keep your ledger and chug along. Although I expect you shared for whatever reasons it is...what else have you learned?

my kidneys told me that the S^3 hopfian is too small and you need an octonion embedding because void interactions are strictly non-associative. this would almost motivate a larger set of atomic gaps which vaguely feels like it might give insight into your largest deviations from the data
maybe I should drink more water

>>16989506 (me)
basically, the fib subst is already a self-referential binary generator, and GF(2)^1 is only a thesis, while GF(2)^3 is thesis, antithesis, and synthesis; your layer 1 then becomes S^7 and essentially octonion, which also gives you an octonion base structure which in turn decoheres into 3+1 under directedness
that would let you close that
>the theory cannot acknowledge that it exists in the world that is non-empty
by anchoring the counterfactual - i.e. the world cannot be described by a theory outside the world - as a contradiction on the negative half of the argument, which is equivalent to reading Wittgenstein's Tractatus as a 2-witness of an obstruction in a single cover, kind of like how the liar is the ramification of self-referential negation

>>16989032
this is exactly what feels insufficient vis the distinction from the void; the theory postulates that distinction can be made, but doesnt acknowledge that the authorial voice is already a strange loop

>>16989577
Well I went into this trying to find simpler rules for why physics works and to reduce the parameters of the standard model down and in that my goal was successful.

I can't help that you get esoteric metaphysical questions and strange mathematical structures that resembles an ouroboros. If anything that's a bonus because it gives you something to marinate on.

distinction however is self-evident. you are perceiving, perceiving requires something to perceive, something is distinct from nothing. ergo, there is distinction from nothingness

>>16989515
the 8 may come from expansion to 4 then contraction back down. It may already be encoded in the hopfion. I will investigate this more though, I may not be expressing the contraction side of the story fully.

I agree with making the counterfactual argument, it in spirit with the whole "defining by what is not"

>>16990264
because I can justify a 4d soliton projecting into an 8d octonion by the double nature of the mobius and the dimensions from the return trip but I can't do a decomposition from 8d into 4d when I just came from 3d

like
expansion
0d -> 1d -> 2d -> 3d ->4d
contraction
4d -> 3d -> 2d->1d ->0d

with the 4d object holographically projecting both sides of expansion and contraction into 8d

but
0d->1d->2d->3d->8d->4d
just can't happen

maybe this is what you meant idk

>>16990264
>the 8 may come from expansion to 4 then contraction back down. It may already be encoded in the hopfion. I will investigate this more though, I may not be expressing the contraction side of the story fully.
yeah, maybe that's it
i cant pin it down better. my intution is that the the double cover on the hopfion should be a twist in the ouroborous but that's beyond my jargon
maybe squeeze Hamming(7,4) in as the seventh face of the möbius parity for kicks, im out of idea

>>16990370

But how would you know that the octonion doesn't contain hamming quadrant byproducts if you are not performing the discrete hopfion analysis? Excuse my jargon too. I'm sure you know exactly what I mean. It's obvious that both of us know exactly what we're talking about, and then some. Glad to meet an intellectual powerhouse like myself in the wild. You remind me of a young me, just not as hansome and eloquent and straight.

Every layer of the octonion I mentally peel makes me want to cry

>>16990383
that's because the void is in the center and the rest is the fano plane, >>16990380 has the construction but won't share

File: cookin.png (176.9 KB)

>>16990370
I gotchu senpai I'm cookin rn, there is validity to your idea, I just gotta geometrically visualize it now

File: octonion1.jpg (719.2 KB)

>>16990370
alright this is the octonion, it looks very similar but the inner contraction (white) vs outer expansion (purple) is now explicitly defined

File: octonion2.jpg (690.4 KB)

>>16990551

File: weave-pattern.png (3.3 MB)

the inner contraction stops the outer expansion from flying away and the outer expansion stops the inner contraction from collapsing into nothingness. This is how it stabilizes

also wanted to note the interesting weave pattern when I bumped the fiber count up

>>16990384
yes the void is the center, there's an nonagon there as well

File: alex gray.jpg (211.9 KB)

kinda reminds me of this

File: cosmic-flower.jpg (297.9 KB)

just one more before i'm done for tonight, I adjusted the settings and it ended up looking like a flower with both the pedals and the subparts around it

Also to note that this doesn't change the results or physics of anything, the contraction was always present, I just never explicitly invoked it. This is telling the other side of the story, essentially.

It's a much more useful visualizer tool for electromagnetism though since it captures the full shape.

>>16990551
>>16990553
>>16990568
highly advance spriography
i like the subtle summetry breaks, feels meaningful
no idea what the math is about though

File: asymmetric-pop-sci-bit.png (108.2 KB)

>>16990875
oh man its great, it just looks symmetrical, its actually a deeply asymmetrical object. you can see it more when I lower the fiber count.

Even the contraction bundle is constructed fundamentally different from the expansion, even though they are constructed from the same dimensions.

Like this is the object that my framework constructs, this is the thing I'm getting the 45 observables at 0.063% RMS accuracy from.

I can get all laws from this object like newton, einstein, maxwell, its all derivable from this object.