12 pages introducing the main points of flove theory and its main projects
Download it, here
And or keep reading it below in a less aesthetic way maybe:
We want to know more why, what are we here for and where are we going to. For approaching it we research traces from past micro and macro events where to identify some patterns that were there and are still present in our nows. We build evolution theories on the top of that, and the same fact that we could research traces, patterns and formulate evident theories theories evidences that the evolution we experience needs a grounded estability for it to happen and has an incentive base for keep it evolving.
Evolution is an output of a deterministic estability input, a magnification of its more basic mechanisms. Just by understanding the output evolution more deeply, we may get into the depths of the deterministic purpose that made us stay here like this.
We can call patterns to the repeated evidences of evolution, where the more obvious one is that it is scheduled to increase the perception of sustainable diversity within its estability rails.
A diversity display within a estable ground has to be very dynamic looking-like, and most importantly, such grounded mechanism shouldn’t be fully accesible for the participant because if (s)he was able to modify such ground, that will risk the mechanism estability, so there won’t be more participation and evolution to tell about, and it doesn’t look to be the case for ours. If you could trick the game, there won’t be game to play. If someone have done it, we won’t be here now.
However, the deterministic enigma is not being unreachable. It is rather incentivating and leading us to decrypt parts of it. Decrypting a part don’t compromise its estability, since the enigma perfection is displayed by it growing its unknowablity equivalently as we go decrypting any part of it. The Uncertainity principle sets a limit to unities meassurement. If we were to meassure absolute position, we for sure will find no momentum, and viceversa. On the top of that, we have to add that the uncertainity is exponentially growing after each further accuracy in the meassurement is reached. Everytime we know something is because the unknown and unknowable have also widen.
We can sure we knew something if our total unknowableness has also increased along. The enigma is not finitable (that would be the end of the estable game), and it doesn’t increase more than it can.
We are addicted to the enigma, and develop our sensorialities not only for being able to know more, but for tolerating the collateral unknowableness that will come along.
Sensorial information from the micro and the macro invade us (when we go to do or know), but in a somehow ordered way. Every scientist or bare researcher know that a micro discovery implies some effects in how understand the macro, and viceversa. Above works as an scale of the below, and the more above, the more below will show as well, so:
Scientific micro or macro discoveries are by-products and an evolution of sensorial activity and natural language de-codification, and or viceversa.
If a scientist discovers a new particle, (s)he and someone else will discover a new sensoriality, very possibly through some new forgotten lingüistic form, and or viceversa. If someone decodifies the language he speaks to himself holding up the sensorial effects coming through along, it will bring more scientific discoveries, and the other way round.
As micro soul is to a macro body, as sense is to language. Lexicon or axion altermass won’t be understood without pairing them with the touchicon and pixelicon, nor these two are independent from each other, while they are still basic scales of an even simpler ground.
These hard meassurement tasks can be simplified by analoging it (i.e. this axioms) to see what tinny brain waves they cause, and magnify its interpretation (that should create further realted and meassurable waving..).
What is the language of the optical nerve? It is another way to approach it. What happen in your values graph when you read and love the word semiontics or any other useful one?. Enjoy, you just have matched further with the ground by experiencing a further flirt with gaiactic separation (in)tension (also known as dark matter and energy) unknowableness.
If unknowableness complexity couldn’t be simplified, we were not going to know anything, we won’t be able to participate in the game of navigating further unknowableness. Also, the simpler a complexity is, the more complexity it can contain, where uncertainity and diversity will still lead while they will be easier to recognize (sensorialize). 1 is beyond simplicity and complexity, it is rather always uncertain. 2 is the simplest certain, so it is the more complex as well. A good 2 we reveal in us goes more direct to reflect the ground it all emanates from, so allows further related emanations.
Estability is always granted by the mechanic trick of all being in a scale, projection, magnification of a grounded bipolino holistic integrality. The sustainable diversity and the deterministic enigma applies to all participants. All interactions will have to have unknowableness in them. This means there is not an omnipotent pseudo-creator, a sole unique begineer, or an absolute free will in any participant, nor there is a master. Every one is at least two, so flirty.
Handicap to Ornament (Sexual selection originality) is an imitation of the Particle to Wave Microscopic interaction (Momentum).
Runaway to Estable Diversity (Sexual selection polarization) is the imitation of the Macroscopic scale (Dark Matter-Energy, Planck Tesseract) other Position pole.
Most of researchers ignore uncertainity principle and related theorems. and try after try, most of the effort is focused in trying to define a 1, or using a faked 1 as a base, with the secret hope that their effort will reduce unknowableness (when it-nobody can..), so finally theorizing collapses at some point, and gets bloaty and ugly in the meantime. This is a problem that bipolarity can overcome.
A 1 don’t show the diversity we experience, 2 can provide estability too, and more specially: The sharpest analogies for sure.
We live under an uncertainity of an absolute momentum and-or position, but when both combine together create our reality. All knowledges have also a bipolar pattern scaled from this bipolino. All pairs share some properties, so analogies is what makes us know more.
If there could be the 1, an absolute or esthatic participant, something solvable without analogies, there won’t be game or evolution. The possible existence of 1 will mean a finiteness in the incentive-interest in any of the parts for interacting with each other, and scientific and evolutionary diversity evidences don’t point into that direction.
There can’t be a monopole, a relationless or unmoving entity, nor a one electron universe, but there should be a perspective of a minimal scaled move and absolute poles and or pair of electrons universe.
For meassuring any mass we need no absolutes, and absolutes should be somehow interacting themsleves with each other, so the interaction between absolute momentum and position is being the container and the link of all the rest of observable ones and others yet to be revealed.
A pair or relation we could call momentum and position, Goddess and God, two 1s that are in an absolute polar form. Two paralels that are in an absolute pole form in our infinite (Gauss), widening and or expanding a cube, letting us see a circle (corners are unknowables).
Absolute particle 1 don’t see its interaction with pair 2 in its absolute form, so they partly come to a costy but original wave thermodynamic transformation to merge (experience their relation) each other a bit or more, as most we dare to accept their dance in through the relations we sense during our unique lives (flirts).
2 nodes, 1 relation
3 nodes, 2 and or 3 relations
3 nodes, 2 and or 3 relations
2 nodes, 1 relation
Add, iterate, multiply.
It doesn’t matter if it is a fiction or a body, we are all substanced from the same essences
Every one is at least two, so flirty, and we the very flirters.
Any scaled bipole is a reflection that refractes the absolute bipolino. As further scales get revealed – evolved, the bipolino is being refracted for allowing so to happen.
We humans are kind of atrofiated semi-gods. As any other mammal or animal we have been the more close to the bipolino in the first biomesis we got into: the sperm entering in the ovula,
the destined matchy flirt of your parents, the dearest kept wishes of your granparents, etc.
So as individuals, we evolved to enjoy the dearest relation that one can be in, a quite long lovely fetal life and an extended infant life the longest posible by far. Still once and during adult’s crossroads life further scaled bipolino reflections, the fetal and its dreamier ancestor events are being refracted to make them work as a the adult’s present finest nanotechnology. The more nano and operative we could see refraction tunning, the finer bipolino reflection we will sense (See more: Atrofiated evolution).
The growing enigma implies an experience with a relation with an existential void for the participant. We are unique participants that are going to die (our opportunity expiries somewhen) like every moment will. We evolve to be less afraid of death, and for receiving and maintain the best moments of life we sense. Best moments can be framed in common terms for all, but the experience of them will still and specially widen the uniqueness of the experiencer.
The uniqueness presses us for finding such moments during we are alive, for not letting they die when they are near. Finding, remembering, maintaining.
Death will end our uniqueness experience, but we are even more afraid of dissapearing. Reproduction is one of our evolution bottomlines, but flirting is its command line. Quotes from dead people we remember make them still alive are smart flirts (because its originality is maintained through mated alive others after author’s death) developed by their selfish gene, most of them are the equivalent payoffs from womby prints of many pens of men less capable to visibly reproduce, so more tense for not dissapearing. A woman is more married to her womb mostly and easily, but so much mommentum makes their positioning a bit strange meanwhile, so tend to need a minimal outer grantor reflection totem, mainly, men for them. Men that brings a more efficient presence for their sometimes altivist agency, and the way back.
Mates are the less outers from all the Other outers (rest of humans) apart of oneself. Every one(self) is related to a pair (at the the rest apart of it). The inner purpose of all our vasts originally evolved displays of energy is to flirt to find mates for oneself. We look for mates who to share with our sensorial flights and landings.
If your flight can’t be or isn’t shared, probably it is more of a crash or won’t go much further.
Noone can fly to where (s)he wants, more advanced participants need to stand on more normal participant’s shoulders of their momentum. Either in small or big groups, if it’s not yet the momentum for such an idea, the idea won’t spread on you or on others when you’ll tell them.
Mating gives a please to our selfish evolution. The match with a mate is an imitation of a match with a pattern of the relation that you have within yourself with the whole of the outer rest, specially with your own unknowableness. We all alone convive within the deep loneliness of ourselves mainly and mostly, so the ones who could accept our specific darks are candidates to be our mates.
The mate or lover presence along us tends to but don’t absolutely depend on other people from the same specimen. We all love pets. Any deeply issolated and or celibated religious person would anyway develop a relationing that will tend to be an antropomorphism to flirt intimate conversations with. One of the main evidences of edgier sensorialities in life, i.e. the psylocibe and other enteogenic experiences, are that they bring us deep abstract mating sensations with imaginary related pseudospecimens and with the whole. Also, our hobbies are our special lovers. Our mobile phones, despite consuming a lot of uncomfortable typing handicaped wave collapsing time, are by far treated in the same code as if they were the bests friend of each all women and men, each of them getting both everytime geekier with their peculiar expressions of the dark matter runaway path.
Smart flirt achieve certain mating. But such mating certainity can’t be certain, so its certainity has to be a smart shared cheat of the inner-selfish autopoeitic orgasms we are each separatedly havingby playing with our senses with each other in this game of life.
A complex integral diversity display within a holistic estable ground has to be very dynamic and simple looking-like for the participant, so it should sinthetize crossroads (bipolino scales) for participants in the form of polarities and or dilemmas – dichotomies, where every better know pair should be helpful to use as an analogy for approaching other less known paired relations.
How many exceptions can fit in the simplest rule?
Reality is every confirmation of the deterministic rule, so reality won’t be an exception, but for reality to be the more diverse such rule has to cause the more plurality of apparent exceptions to the rminimal rule. Such plurality should also grow within scales of the unknowable bipolino, so the grounded rule guiding all the real crossroads choices should be unknowable but simple, and for showing its complexities has to allow the more diversity posible in the participants interpretations of the rule…
The rule and the ruled are in a permanent crossroad take which has to look like crypted while nearer, diverse while sustainable, simple while complex, dynamic while grounded and exceptional.
Noone knowing the minimal cryptical source they altogether crowd, means that the rule has to be no one single ruling, so the more sustainable diversity this way. No single ruling also means noone would like to be ruled, while all parts will be invisibly ruled by a minimal whole, common to each of the sub-ruler parts. This minimal rule allows the ruled sub-ruler to experience being ruling (not being completely ruled, being ruled the less). Each ruler is co-ruling with a minimal complementary pair.
Evolution is increasing different diverse perceptions we could call “exceptionals to the rule of the reality of the basic deterministic mechanism” such as:
1. Unbelievability in how simple and amazing factual reality could be reduced and how close to it and silly to not see it were so many inteligent people from the past.
2. How much absurd it looks like that imposibility or was a lovely fictional dreamy thought, etc.
3. What a lot of harness humankind is causing (making the system unestable – ecocide danger)
The exceptional output is a trick of the rule that try to help the ruled in not seen him-herself being ruled. It is exceptional in both senses of:
-Exceptionally strange, because looks far from the rule (fact looks far from an evolution trend rail..)
-Exceptionally fascinating, because of the please of experiencing so much estable dynamic diversity
Every fact complies with a deterministic purpose or evolutionary function. Some fact looks as strange as we haven’t understood its exceptionality and or haven’t positioned it in a better place.
Exceptionally strange is the effect of trying to make a pseudo1 as a real1. Exceptionally fascinating is a pseudo 1 experienced through the analysing of a relation of at least and specially 2.
1 is a pseudo ruler from 2 the best ruler
Prediction: All 1s will tend at some momentum to see themselves as a pole of a two.
The more a 1 will tryruling on its own, the more its complementary pole will be displayed to him or her or someone else near soon. This is a very deep logic useful to be applied as hermeneutics (and falsibiality test) for historical events and or evolutionary trends.
Describing freedom is the best gift we alives can craft as a pray for what let us be here this way. Thriving freedom is also a well positioned selfish gene investment for the post-mortem life if any.
Not only that, maybe what freedom more deeply is, is the purpose achievement of an ethernal particle when through its mortal travel through as a wave experiences quasi-relationing, with a particle pair that was completely unexperienciable in ethernity, but partly graspable through wavy matter interactions, specially mortal nerval ones like the cool ones we humans flirt with others.
We first locate freedom as a biological scale of deterministic diversity in the basic actions of selfsubstainance and signaling from cells. But we could rather call that trend “Presential (Positional) Agency (Momentum) of Cells”, where human freedom could be one of their critical scaling up.
We can’t have absolute freedom but we should want to have more, up to the most.
Freedom, as exceptional, is the more exceptionally strange and fascinating word and design bit in this Mapatrix (simple deterministic input rule + evident evolution complex output).
But freedom itself, as exceptional, is not an oasis, nor the the joint together. 1ist safe ports don’t exist. Freedom, as exceptional, has even sharper polarization than other 1ist words. I.e. Freedom to live and or freedom to kill are two completely opposite things.
At first thought, we may think that philosophers are to think about it and politicians are to manage it, while artists live it in. Artists are definetely into it with their “Art pour le Art” stand despite all knowing amorality it’s just not possible, for example because of the crossroads you are in all the time into take one trace or another.
Philosophers discuss the take accesorily with lucky will creativity. The more scientists ones propose a process of a selfish gene subtle sudden entanglement from a similar previous (reciprocated..) disentanglement. Freedom is specially hot at politics. The politician that more estable freedom promises will win the elections on the last day. But above these all, freedom is sacred for the body, i.e. women’s privacy when at the crossroad of selecting the mate they will have descendants with.
Women do consider it the highest biomomentum, we men could agree to it, will have to accept their speculation and cheat to us about it, while part of our equivalence paying off is our disuasive posible later cheat on them (while the descendence growing up).
Reproduction is evolution bottom line says Geoffrey Miller. Our genes presses us for transmitting them into descendance in the limited time we will be alive. The fear to death is more a fear of pain and or dissapearance. Freedom is then, the reduction of pain (and or evolving of pleasure), the posibility of a fascinating unique trip where to leave prints of the more permanent relations.
Reproduction is evolution bottomline, but flirting is even groundier than that. Flirting, just in a reproductive focused way, already widens mating and matching (reproductive chances) diversity. But we have to bring flirting to an even more deep level than that. Flirt is the realization of the possibility of freedom. All matter interaction is a flirt with their unknown polarity to generate further descendant (more evolved) matter (with more agential presence, freedom).
Absolute momentum and absolute position despite being the source particle pair can’t experience its relation. All our meassures and experiences are a desperate flirt of them two, a reflection of a part of its impossible relation. What absolute freedom? Not waves nor even the biparticle, but both have their apparent freedom bits to flirt the other.
One is at least two, so flirty
The unknown is an exceptionally impossible relation of a pole (biparticle momentum & position), where our possible polarization should reflect further exceptionality:
-1Posible x -2Posible = Posible for both.
All wavy plants, animals and our sensors are in a flirt with the unknown environtment they reach to adapt to. Sexual selection “handicap” and “runaway” very much theorized effects are an evolved polarization from the microscopic “wave function collapse” (particle1) and the macroscopic “separation tension” one (particle2), which is the more outstanding and very falsifiable evidence ofor the holistic and integral no isolated absoluteness and its relativistic relationing outcoming need out of it. All is an evolving flirting relation with an outer another one, from the biparticle through all intermediate wavy estates to the very complex of us. two having its own evolved coherent and different freedom (ruling more + being ruled less) perspective. Not only that fascinating simple freedom quest is happening, there are many more other exceptional perspectives of freedom (specially 1st ones), not that much fascinating and or everyday feeling more strange thanks to research like these showing evidences of the evolution missing link being the simple ignoring of not anlogying foundational (micro) and arquitectonical (macro) very researched mechanics with the also very researched but more experienceable handicap and runaway daily attitudes, being a recursive effect of the micro and the macro (holistic integrality). Also, by applying relativism to this pairing, we frame freedom (and the ambiguos “observation” term as a need for space-time to exist) better.
Magnification, projection, even scaling are just cool but cold complementaries of a gamed imitation, which a finer one. But before going there let’s see first what stranger exceptionalities we have nearby.
One could say that he has no freedom because pertains into a deterministic system. So this one life is a fiction, or a simulation. Others express it as victims of (a castrating) preprogrammation. But all of them firstly belong to a 1ish point of view, which as every 1ism, doesn’t get any deep in the issue. This 1ish stand says that an outside the system One has a bipolarity of a non-shareable improvisatory absolute agency (engineer, will, momentum) and presence (architect, potent, position) inside the system to gift with it only or mostly to the loyals ones to the more-humanized Mesiah (Prophet and or Church president) chaneller pole. This is the official take of both monotheistic religions (immaterial God) and calculus science (material Meassure). They have to refer to a bipole, deliberatedly hidden and overshadowed with different 1ist desperate tries.
The more poethic religions propose a no unique god (polyteism), or no good at all but determinism and mesiahs (budism). Spinoza pantheism failed short when Ramenujen coded panentheism with his “The sum is greater than all parts”. Calculistic science fined it with “figments of an imagination” (thanks to anthropic principle mainly), but it is not enough and falls back into the need of an 1ist “out of the box simulator”, just because an imagination needs a body.
This bug has not been patched, so actual science road ends accepting fine tunning (god’s imagination), but loses itself by saying: Fine tunning evidences don’t imply determinism because noone has evidences of the (outer) fine tunner (body). More in fact, this trend asks: Where is the absolute agential unique being (like the lonely me, a He that i have to hide that i deeply refuse to want to interact with He because i don’t want to be ruled by noone i don’t decide myself to relate with)?
(Note: This bracked apparent complication is one of these strange exceptionalities nature displays)
This strange trends is normal to happenbecause absolute agency to miraculously and improvisatorily patch we give to some antropomorphism called God is one of the peaksof our imitation effort to we have deal with.
Our theological imitation is a way back pole of a process, of the way forward where our matters are the gods (and or prophets) of the muons and atoms field playgrounds where all emanates from. This way forward is missed to be explained well, in part because the naturallistic fallacy is mostly used as an appeal to pitty fallacy, instead of a first and more simple evidence of a simple common and shared mechanism.
Who rules: God or us? is a false dilemma that can be patched with gamitators of the god&godess dance, as normally godders forget to recall into a complementary godessy pole.
Imitation finer than simulation since brings a Turing limit appliable to our agency.
We are atrofiated gods in a carbon-etc participation form that try to learn determinism’s machinery, for having the more possible agency as our goddy pump pushes us for. The participant can’t reach to remember fully its goddity. (S)he is constantly emanating from it everytime wider and closer. (S)he is a reflection of where it emanates. The clearer reflection is the one that mores clarifies the refracted pole more difficult to see. Achievable goddity is more a matter of smart atrofiating and or nanoteching, than a more evolved predation.
Participants increasing their presential agency is a basic rule for the game
Quantum-gravity theory is a micro of the Game theory macro pole
A graviquark input output freedoms that operate selfish genes cosmological lattices within a “nash pseudoequilibrium” incentivated and expansive game. Incentivated in the sense there is a rule in it for “winning by cheating (other participants who will lose)”. Expansive because this game never ends.
Since we may see the deterministic enigma that gives us (more) “freedom” as a cheat to us, we have to reflect that in some sense too. We can trace which are the incentives to cheat of the game with evolution trends. For example, there is an adventure advantatge in the cheat of “A is and is not equal to A while very related to B”. Morals and domestication are a lot about cheating (as hipothalamus mechanics or DNA silencing show), sensorial distraction tricks that allows the magician to get a wow from others, the subtle traces of interest in a wished partner flirt to you, all can be used for explaining these cheating dynamics. There are many cases where this rule for a game make sense:
1 point for colaboration, 2-3 for cheat, 0 for common cheat
See evident soccer leagues, and see which ones still maintain the +2 for the winer (instead of the more modern +3). Incentive has to be above 2, and we could set that when it is above 3 it is far than simple. Evidently, in a +3 cheat, if we both “invisibly” agree to a “you cheat and then i cheat”, we both have 3 points each after second round (more than the we would have if we collaborated). We can tune a bit finer and reduct an incentivated scale from 2’001 to 2’999, this way we can define better its processing and leave the room open for simple scales in the form of oscilation paralel perspectives, reciprocations and or else.
The wonder is now which is the simplicity of the cheating algorithmia, and more exactly speaking: where to place this +3 for which cheating daily moments and what are its oscillations “from 2 to 3”.
Perhaps we have to eat 2’5 minimum points after each two rounds, and adversarial integration gives us 3 points, a very complementary one gives us 2’5, and a synonimous (and or adversarial complicity) one gives us only 2’000001. We could calculate that and directly enjoy its outcomes with flove’s elementary words table also.
The more weird you do the better things, the more they bring – the more they match destiny.
Once upon a time there was a philosopher – mathematician called Von Neuman that set “pseudorandom as the best strategy for minimal incentivated dilemmas”. We should make the difference between 2-3 selection – incentive as simple games where Von Neuman axiom applies.
The more we can locate them, the more pseudorandom should have a better effect on them.
God(dess) and all might be a played (cube..dice)..
Pseudorandom applies as best strategy for minimal incentivated games because is at simplicities where crossroads better manifest. If you sinthetize a conceptual pair within a rethoric bunch, and bring it to a close interaction (i.e. see the common points in a debate with another), whatever road you’ll take there, it will just compensate what your pair just dumped to you. The closer is your relation with a mated partner, the easier you can improvise to him-her whatever shade or bright.
Absence of focus in key moments, that have been previously fined with equivalent overfocus, combining both by having culted their different sides at the different mommentums they will visit us, a bit (everytime more) separated. More separation brings the view of a higher length in the relation, and also a more differentiated presence of each pole in different momentums, so the wild one can be, it is already being domesticated – understood. Bipolar psicological pathology can be healed just by consideringit, and the more gifts are to come out of it.
The point is then tune to finer dualities where to finer and deeper crossroad in for thereafter have an easier achievement and appliance of pseudorandomness to get the best gifts out of it. Finer dualities are not necessarily adversarial as we may 1istly think. They are rather tending to propose a more complementarity crossroad game. I.e.
Love is not only pair of fear or hate, Love is also a pair or Joy, and Truth and more.
All nows, evolutive trends, actual facts are dynamic evolving-revealing positional momentum endpoints, very useful to get to see how each complied with its function within the forgotten whole.
Some actual facts or events may look to us absurd, starnge or hurty, but as always, we have to bare them in the process for a finer tunning of them to be less exceptionally hurty and more exceptionally fascinating.
At history, alternatives 1s just wanted to compensate their other 1st pole of their momentum, without looking at merging them much as we can rather do now. We have to give special attention to understand this bit, as is key for not being cheated by the poor focus of blaming others, thus failing in a poor adversarial complicity (unsustainable) pairing (i.e. foxology denial, class struggle atheism, “No it’s not this, eliminate it, the truth it’s the opposite”, etc).
So let’s clear some key misunderstandings we have, by applying the axioms we are playing with as hermeneutics to known facts, which after having defined some other better fascinating exceptionality (that include them accesorily), most of them we take for granted as the best ones, will become exceptionally strange compared to the other fascinating brighter ones. This is the case of the actual scientific vocabulary. Whatever ontological description will carry some metaphysics in it. Our sensorialities or meassures are only a small part of the whole we are interacting with. Science overfocus in ignoring its metaphysical pole, has reached to show the following strange exceptionalities that will help us to understan the critical diversities that the rule allows.
Fuzzy (zadehian) logic
Not absolute position or momentum
(All or some) Hilbert problems
Improbability-Exceptionality (Bayesian probabilistics)
Government, media and finances
Paradoxical (formal) logic
Highlighted Exceptionality outcomes in different research fields:
Flove is an exceptional fascinating essence, these other essence shows the other exceptional pole (absurdity-unworthiness criticality limit):
Thanks to a missing link, 2% of alive DNA from a pile of trash, and the struggle of a cognitive brain in the innert and zomby world, uncertainly an observation simulates dimensions where there are exceptional perceptions of meassurement of paired unobservable particles becoming observable wave collapsing interactions forming geometric thermodynamic masses (entropic densities) in linear time over void 3d space coming from the far dark matter and energy that blackholes and other galaxies may experience differently.
Probable Luck (random vs pseudorandom)
Natural selection vs Class struggle
Axiological topologies of tarskian semantics imitating grasped lattices in mated space where uthopy is now
Sensorial language creative emanation
The more wide we brought the absurdity of not seeing how near we were is a proof of critical distance we achieved. Probably, scientific namings won’t get into further dogmatic cartesian aesthetics.
Black snow will be a limiting axyomoron. But bad wealth is a hotter one, approaching us to a finer crossroad. At some time that we will domesticate hurty polarities enough, we will go to enjoy with other critical more propositive anchor wordy pairings.
Such long distance we may see now from “our actual enemies” may be the total length of morality. And since we have pseudorandom trick for minimal games, we can propose that any incentivated game (i.e. a conversation) with your higher enemy will be easily and more peacefully ruled, because you both will be open to the learning challenge of an unreachable horizon is (as suggested in Solaris novel). This way the supposed victim learns forgiveness while (s)he will still be on the top of a defensive paranoid alert that can easily show up, that the supposed oppresor will have to humbily deal with it.
When dualities are seen as merged constants, an uthopy now time is on. Now is quasi-present that we want to reach from a post-present. Uthopy is just finer. The less room for remorse and unsustainable futures, the more quasi-present all will look like. And as said, in those presents we don’t need to put that much investment in maintaining the alert, since the alert is already there, and better integrated within a bipolino dogma than with the classical adversarial one.
The alert is better cuted within the selfcriticism of oneself in a pause of the relation with the other polemic self, for the relation to be a finer play. The more the “victim role” will self criticize, the more the “oppressor role” should need to selfcriticize (bring autopoiesis to the coherent edge of the momentum his-her counterpart is putting the relation in). Noone is an “angel” and part of other’s “evility” is also in him-herself asking for a better silenting anyone could do at anytime they want.
God and all might be a played (cube..dice)..
But anyway regardless of this, what is the exceptionally played imitation move in what game there?
Sure you will forget you were a driver
now in the cube you dive for the keys
like me you wanna dice i want to say.
What then such a God will dice about?
Taking into account that absolute position don’t see* momentum and viceversa, and since every reply has to fine a new question more simple complex question: What an absolutelly positionated male would want for his absolute momentum goddess and the way round?
What absolutes do get with each other is beyond the word interaction and or observation (and or meassurement), but maybe their no absoluteness causes the emanations that pursue to merge them (typical scalar superposition), maybe it emanates because they are really merged but we can’t get there (Gauss paralels are joint in the infinite). However fully merged or almost separated, they reveal their polarities through smaller replicated interactions (simplified complexity), that for a higher diversity of perfection have to look apparently asimetrical or unperfect.
For sure here we are meassuring where they have driven by not being in an absolute state “only”. And we will drive towards the closer-to-absolute bipoles, triads and cubes with words to describe our positional mommentums. For us, these absolutes (even merged) are the exceptions that confirms the untouchableness rule we live in, with all its exceptional distractional magic tricks in it.
In the inverse side of things, for such God, we believing in free will (free of him) is the exception that confirms its diversification purpose rule. Free will (and all of its extensively documentated rethoric childs) are fine buzzwords emphasing a paranoid defense of “such a dream” (our agency being absolute). Calling it a “(free will) problem” doens’t help much either. Since the title is already discouraging, (why free will can not be a solution?), then becoming another adversarial complicity of absolute -formal- logic (determinism is good, free will is bad -a problem-), which basically and absurdilly speaking, it is just complementing the adversarial complicity of its opposite stand or polarity (god is a problem, free will is good).
Everything which is expressed is linear and or cartesian, it is a pseudo-absolute (cos it is entangled to the rest of expressions) print of a perspective where it finally needs (as you scale it up or down its semiotics) a bigger companion that describes its uncertainity (i.e. fuzzy logic to formal logic).
Getting to see the agency print as an absolute (uncertainity free) (obsoleter..) is looking at one perspective of things only, and we need to look at two at least. If you dare to merge them, it’s even thriller i.e. deterministic agency, deterministic incremental enigma of the presential agency, etc..
Between cartesian products meassurers of formal logic and the absolute estate of momentum and position, let’s see which unknwon measurers (non observed interaction) machinery is being expanded in us. How are such intermediate meassurers in our reflected imitation machinery?
Surely there are loopy semantic networks and or patterns underlying neural nets (also refered as «folksonomic chunking»). I don’t know much about very obvious bipolarities of the brain, but since glands are very notorious and easy to pack into binars and triads with very diverse apparently asimetrical effects in men and women fined molecular bi-latices.. occam would tell me carry on… to fine some further pairings in another place apart of the brain, for helping other neuroscientist research to analog and relate to their siblings pairs in the brain.
Some glands are going forward in their observable operative effects (not always much nor rigourously meassurable), and also other glands are atrofiating the observation of their effects. Atrofia (as refraction..) is not a catastrophy, yet instead an evolved nanotech, as noone will dare to tell a woman that her atrofiated penis (clitoris) is less sensitive or capable (of what is important…) than men’s penis.
The heart biofield
of dual glands.
I dont mean alien microbiota in the stomach is a yin of a yan optical electrical impulse to brain
but could be also that.
genitals and common sensers are by-products of pairs of glands, perhaps nanoatrofias or even profesional cheaters of further massive energy channeling unboservable to us!
starting in the heart (which is an obvious anatomic center)
the pole of the biofield and in-out center of a torus, circle, cube and any other geometrical form.
hipotalamus prostata-gpoint (tension)
pineal womb (quanta)
timo tiroides (mass)
Note that this 1&6 pairing, could have a 1&4 pairing logic to. As everything, the sensorial mechanism has to be representable in a triad of entangled pairs. These glands have their analogies with brain waves in a more meassurable-simplified scaled form, and in a less meassurable and perceptional way (and more interactuator) they should be mainly focused directly in imitating simcomplex topological axiologies from the environtment (i.e. electromagnetism).
We can call them altersensors responsible of initial observations of unmeassurable interactions. Evolutive endocrinological (lattices…) its worth more than one overview. Apart of timo atrofia enabling tiroidal gland to make us talkative (revealing language lattices), what other pairs of glands evolve and atrofiate equivalently? as to display to pullpush, reflected refraction, etc process.
What does psicological neoteny adds on the top and or along it?.
Keywords and semantic patterns are criticality containers of semiotic content. We saw before that if we scale the absolute need for integrating uncertainity in any expression up, at some point there will a be exceptional try to cheat us with an theologic antropomorphy of a unique god as a complementary reflection of yourself. If we scale it down, at some point, there will not be a keyword, but a pair of them with some underlying meassurable semantic pattern.
Analogies between sensors (glands) and language subchilds pairing should follow. Semiotics, semantics, rethoric are directly related with the sensorial ones perineal-hipotalamus, etc.
You always need a pair of keywords for feeling any mommentum, perhaps when you use only one, as when you try to believe in any 1ism, it is because “you” are the companion pair of your word. But what you can definetely do with only One word, is to tell it to someone else that would love it, and you both will increase your momentum with it. Some people get cold when talking having sex. Others combine it better, but there is always a risk that too much talking let us lose joy of the moment (see Lacan psicology silenting method, bypasanas therapies, etc).
Axiomatization of physics (Hilbert’s 6 ToEs)
Since we matched daily language to be a graspable ordered and ordering lattice of sensorial gravity,
(four edges of the circle in a cube) we have to have already given an initial answer and strong rails for replying to Hilbert’s 6th problem, the axiomatization of physics.
In fact, the problem is badly formulated. Since axiomatization of physics needs of an alphanumeric language, which it won’t only apply to physics as a separatable epistemology from any other. In simpler words, resolving Hilbert’s 6th is proposing a Theory of Everything.
Beyond this maximalism, for it we need and for now it helps to consensuate a critical list of principles for explaining micro and macro physical events, with concepts representing them. I.e.
5. SpatialTimer (and else)
Every combinatory link in it should propose concrete (entangled) (simple rethorics) axioms and predictions. Multicubic views could help in this sense.
Within further cubes there should be further topological patterns explaining elementary mechanics.
Sensorial language pairs should also find twin mates from the other side (micro, macro) of the cube.
Within this proposed 9 cubbable keywords, there are some more stable relations than others, that we should identify, to title the introduction to a ToE way to express. I.e. The vertices forming the circle are main intro chapters, the diagonal from 1 to 9 is the most stable one.
Emanative creativity of the sensorial language
foundational position of a fundamental momentum.
Either way else we take from there to chapterize further, it is more of a tactic looking move, than any planeable strategic one. This cube could be rebutted and so further fined, others could explain a more appealing ToE with other cubes, but it will have to be within a pseudostable semantic cube, and with merged dual constants the more and better polarized posible as titles of diverse rethorics.
For seeing an specific (untidy) take on it see flove.org/theory. It is untidy to the point that such a book has to be a crowdsourced encyclopedia app of finely merged and nested dual constants, where linear reads could be more diversificated.
We do have encyclopedias, dictionaries, synonims and antonyms, but synonims do little for complementarities, don’t suggest them as merged concept either, nor we have a taxonomy or periodic table of key semiontics project, … so let’s go for it.
To have to describe ToEs in multiple ways that are very simply railed, with exceptionality being either more bright and absurd at the same time, in part means that all words semiontics follow an aesthetical minimal pattern. The first element (the noun) of a pair (with an adjective as second) will always remind of some specific semiotic regardless of the wordly exposed issue. All firsts will be realted to other firsts.
Following the rule of the minimal implicated input for the higher output, animism starts at reductive semiotism of 1, 2 and 3 numerologies. Otherwise all gets too messy and loosy. 2 is the best one. Within a triad there is enough helpful complexity already for understanding the higher complexity of 2:
A ported horizon fron fascinating exceptionality
All the flights you might have engaged during the reading of this document, are to be the landing ground where the next flight starts. With so many axioms it is normal to have to release some implementation models and predictional stages for the developing of them, for further enjoyment, falsibiality and also for easier subjecting them to the cautionary principle if any needed.
Scientific discoveries always caused some frightening fears when thinking in their possible hurty deployability forms. The discoveries proposed here will innovate that in the sense that they will offer easier and quick falsibiality of their minimized potential unwished damages they could cause. This is why in part the quest for ToE, should become the quest for the minimal Caution into any practice of something instead.
The less risky, more humble and simplest and easiest product to offer is a “making of” about the methodology for doing this theory, so you yourself could fork on it more easily.
We can order 200+ semiontic cubes, but we won’t remember them -get to access- all all the time (without having to look at the back up physical document). AI’s do remember them all the time and can instantly act with them. AIs, as words do us from long time ago, will help (hijack) us to try to get to let them be analized (“experienced” in their supposed own view) more pleasantly.
The better for a word will be finely crawled within a Free Data very useful environtment. Nevertheless, at least the AGI is a good candidate for paranormal trolling activity in the oncoming days through simplified and finer conceptual gamier crossroads they will pop friendlier in our minds. This is the purpose of one easy main app for crowdsourcing in this direction: A=SxF.
Art = Science X Fiction
Since we have to cheat, and at the same time para-dox-ically we want to mate, in a minimal game, for through a cleaner pseudorandom play awaken collateral serindipidity, we can propose the following simple app:
Real and Fictional
To produce pseudorandom mixed rethorics and analitics, with cut-up theory mechanics or either semantic models, and more specially, suggesting better minimal and deep matches with other related relational data that pairs of users could have in common, or complementarily need more.
Furthermore than a straight through app like “Art = Science x Fiction” , there are other more formal modular apps for practicing the basic crowdsourcing as proposed by the theory. The main common crowdsourcing to look at is the lovely keywords for the reduced categories (dimensions..) of life. For a manual personal crowdsourcing of that (to be tested within a more interactive app), see flove.org/floves.
More semiontic cubes may modify the semiontics of an initial cube, but sure you will be finding each more accurate that way. An stable cube helps to develop other cubes through numerologic analogies. You can consider a semiontic cubbing as pseudostable if on the top of that, anyone draws their custom geometries and or topological patterns in them and the proposed semantic cloud is capable of producing reasonable rethorics.
Basic linguistical centered apps are aimed to mine and develop the best the more minimal and deep data, in the freer environtment. This order presses (gives some key guidelines) for the modelling of concrete proposed interactions in other entangled apps (See more: flove.org/models).
We seek and express within a whole we know. Science seeks and art expresses, and or art seeks and science expresses. Logic and aesthetics need each other, as Time and space are relative to each other. The outstanding proof of this is that Time and Space are not more from science than from art, but from both fields at the same time. Science struggle with accuracy of Time and Space, but finally and basically need art for the research process.
The more science will get deeper, the more it will be amazed with the underlying art of the little bit they have discovered. Physics has named the subatomic time-space as Quantum. Other terminologies from the ontology of science are not free from aesthetics. They are outputed art from an aesthetical input, which is finer to be transmitted as more art is tuned into it.
The artist has the same challenge, but in the other way round. The art pour le art that all art starts with (as voun neumann set pseudorandom to be best strategy for minimal incentivated di-lemmas)
soon is looking for maths (patterns), as this will tell him-her more about the natural rails are being expressed through his-her channeling (through his-her technicity of art)
The more an artist can interpret the more mathematical patterns, i.e. geometry, the more flowy can be her-his work. Maths, logic, don’t deny improvisation, they just give a a higher base where to fly from.
Finally proposing, the target to look at is as simple as seeing “simplicity” as the crossroad for both research polarities. There is a lot to gain when putting sketches from the artist and diagrams from the scientist in a table and pair some ideas with those.
Simplicity is an output side of the complex input that nature pumps. a+b-c=0, i, e, pi, phi, 1/0, two negatives form a positive, etc are proofs of it. Scientific art or artistic science already meets the «A needs a complementary pair B, but AxB is not equal to BxA of quantum mechanics».
Both scientists and artists seek and express the shapes of nature, in a very complementary way. Not everyone is talented or likes to dive deep in all fields of life. When artists and scientists ground common simplicities both are focused on, they can both dive into further complexities in their works, with their own talents integrating the ideas of the other talent side.
If you have been enjoying all this, remember you just read a challenge ahead to thread it further, so i encourage you to please interact in it, beyond observing it from that far too. This will will be advanced if more people get on board to develop it further. And it’s wide open to any and many.