### Semantics

This system is quite interesting if we allow ourselves to talk about the qualities of infinite sets as if we can know their character completely. The problem is, any discussion of an infinite set includes their definition which MAY NOT be the same as any characterisation which they may actually have.

Also, and more importantly, interiority as well as exteriority are accessible without the use of this system. These ‘Hyperreals’ are an ontological approach to epistemology via characteristics/properties we cannot really know. There can be no both true and verifiable validity claim in this system.

## Knowledge Representation – Holographic Heart Torus

Holographic Heart Torus by Ryan Cameron on YouTube

## Knowledge Representation – Fractal Torus 1

Fractal Torus 1 by Ryan Cameron on YouTube

## “How much knowledge does the understanding in words contain?”

Words are symbolic indications and/or conveyors of meaning and are not that meaning in themselves.

Meaning is found, stored, and manipulated in our minds. This is why different languages are capable, in varying degrees of usefulness, to convey meaning which is very similar to that found via the symbols of any other.

It It is also the reason why there are words indicating meaning that are not found in other languages; or, if found in a different language, the other language requires more of its own structure, dynamics, and resonance to convey the same meaning.

For example: the words ‘déjà vu’ in French are found in German ‘schon gesehen’ and in English ‘already seen’, but these phrases do not convey the full meaning found in the French version. To counter this deficit, their meaning in other languages must be ‘constructed’ out of or ‘fortified’ by the careful use of longer strings of symbols. This additional construction and/or fortification may even fail at times. This is often where the word phrase from a different language is simply added to the language in which the concept is missing.

This same situation is found in the literature of many languages. The words used to convey meaning are condensed and may contain more meaning than is usually the case. In this regard, even the person reading/hearing the words may not possess the competence necessary to catch this condensed meaning in its fullness.

Mathematical expressions, albeit more precise, are also indications of meaning. They are more robust in their formulation, but at ever-increasing depth or scope, even they may fail to reliably or conveniently convey meaning.

Our understanding of what words mean is not always accurate, but where our mutual understanding of the meaning of words overlaps, and the degree to which they overlap, is where their meaning can be shared.

Our own personal understanding of words is measured by our ability to apply their meaning in our lives.

There is also a false meme, which I would like to clarify.

“Knowledge is Power!”

It is wrongly said that ‘Knowledge is power’. The truth is another: Knowledge is the measure of usefulness of what we understand and is the only true expression of its ‘power’.

The value of Knowledge is found in its usefulness and not in its possession.

## Lateral Numbers – How ‘Imaginary Numbers’ May Be Understood

First, allow me to rename theses numbers during the remainder of this post to lateral numbers, in accordance to the naming convention as was recommended by Gauss. I have a special reason for using this naming convention. It will later become apparent why I’ve done this.

If we examine lateral numbers algebraically, a pattern emerges:

### $i^8 = i^4 \cdot i^4 = (1)(1) = 1$

When we raise lateral numbers to higher powers, the answers do not get higher and higher in value like other numbers do. Instead, a pattern emerges after every 4th multiplication. This pattern never ceases.

All other numbers, besides laterals, have a place on what currently is called the ‘Real number line’.

I qualify the naming of the Real Numbers, because even their conceptualisation has come into question by some very incisive modern mathematicians. That is a very ‘volatile’ subject for conventional mathematicians and would take us off on a different tangent, so I’ll leave that idea for a different post.

If we look for laterals on any conventional Real number line, we will never ‘locate’ them. They are found there, but we need to look at numbers differently in order to ‘see’ them.

Lateral numbers solve one problem in particular: to find a number, which when multiplied by itself, yields another negative number.
Lateral numbers unify the number line with the algebraic pattern shown above.

2 is positive and, when multiplied by itself, yields a positive number. It maintains direction on the number line.

When one of the numbers (leaving squaring briefly) being multiplied is negative, the multiplication yields a negative number. The direction ‘flips’ 180° into the opposite direction.

Multiplying -2 by -2 brings us back to the positive direction, because of the change resulting in multiplying by a negative number, which always flips our direction on the number line.

So, it appears as if there’s no way of landing on a negative number, right? We need a number that only rotates 90°, instead of the 180° when using negative numbers. This is where lateral numbers come into play.

If we place another lateral axis perpendicular to our ‘Real’ number line, we obtain the desired fit of geometry with our algebra.

When we multiply our ‘Real’ number 1 by i, we get i algebraically, which geometrically corresponds to a 90° rotation from 1 to i.

Now, multiplying by i again results in i squared, which is -1. This additional 90° rotation equals the customary 180° rotation when multiplying by -1 (above).

We may even look at this point as if we were viewing it down a perpendicular axis of the origin itself (moving in towards the origin from our vantage point, through the origin, and then out the back of our screen).

###### [If we allow this interpretation, we can identify the ‘spin’ of a point around the axis of its own origin! The amount of spin is determined by how much the point moves laterally in terms of i. We may even determine in which direction the rotation is made. I’ll add how this is done to this post soon.]

Each time we increase our rotation by multiplying by a factor of i, we increase our rotation another 90°, as seen here:

and,

The cycle repeats itself on every 4th power of i.

We could even add additional lateral numbers to any arbitrary point. This is what I do in my knowledge representations of holons. For example a point at say 5 may be expressed as any number of laterals i, j, k,… simply by adding or subtracting some amount of i, j, k,…:

5 + i + j +k +…

Or better as:

[5, i, j, k,…]

Seeing numbers in this fashion makes a point n-dimensional.

## Strictly Speaking Can’t! Natural Language Won’t?

Physics is only complex, because it’s in someone’s interest to have it that way. The way to understanding, even if you don’t understand science, was paved with words. Even if those words led only to a symbolic form of understanding.

Common ordinary language is quite capable of explaining physics. Mathematics is simply more precise than common language. Modern Mathematics pays the price for that precision by being overly complex and subservient to causal and compositional relations. These are limitations that metaphysics and philosophy do not have.

Words in language have a structure that mathematics alone will never see as it looks for their structure and dynamics in the wrong places and in the wrong ways. Modern pure mathematics lacks an underlying expression of inherent purpose in its ‘tool set’.

With natural language we are even able to cross the ‘event horizon’ into interiority (where unity makes its journey through the non-dual into the causal realm). It is a place where mathematics may also ‘visit’ and investigate, but only with some metaphysical foundation to navigate with. The ‘landscape’ is very different there… where even time and space ‘behave’ (manifest) differently. Yet common language can take us there! Why? It’s made of the ‘right stuff’!

The mono-logical gaze with its incipient ontological foundation, as found in (modern) pure mathematics, is too myopic. That’s why languages such as Category Theory, although subtle and general in nature, even lose their way. They can tell us how we got there, but none can tell us why we wanted to get there in the first place!

It’s easy to expose modern corporate science’s (mainstream) limitations with this limited tool set – you need simply ask questions like: “What in my methodology inherently expresses why am I looking in here?” (what purpose) or “What assumptions am I making that I’m not even aware of?” or “Why does it choose to do that? and you’re already there where ontology falls flat on its face.

Even questions like these are met with disdain, intolerance and ridicule (the shadow knows it can’t see them and wills to banish what it cannot)! And that’s where science begins to resemble religion (psyence).

Those are also some of the reasons why philosophers and philosophy have almost disappeared from the mainstream. I’ll give you a few philosophical hints to pique your interest.

Why do they call it Chaos Theory and not Cosmos Theory?
Why coincidence and not synchronicity?
Why entropy and not centropy?

Why particle and not field?
(many more examples…)

## Are sets, in an abstract sense, one of the most fundamental objects in contemporary mathematics?

Yes and no.

The equivalence relation lies deeper within the knowledge representation and it’s foundation.

There are other knowledge prerequisites which lie even deeper within the knowledge substrate than the equivalence relation.

The concepts of a boundary, of quantity, membership, reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, and relation are some examples.

http://bit.ly/2wPV7RN

## Limits of Category Theory and Semiotics

They are wonderful tools to explain much of our world, but lack ‘The Right Stuff’ to handle the metaphysical underpinnings of anything near a Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Language , or a Philosophy of Learning.

This is, because Category Theory specialises on roughly half of the Noosphere. It does a wonderful job on exteriority, but cannot sufficiently describe nor comprehensively access interiority.

Therefore, as is the case with Semiotics, has limited metaphysical value with respect to philosophy in general.

For example: philosophies of mind, language, or learning are not possible using only category theoretical tools and/or semiotics.

Here is an example of one attempt which fails in this regard: http://nickrossiter.org.uk/proce…

(and here: VisualizationFoundationsIEEE)

Here are two problems (of many) in the paper:

4.4.2 Knowledge is the Terminal Object of Visualisation states:

“The ultimate purpose of the visualisation process is to gain Knowledge of the original System. When this succeeds (when the diagram commutes) then the result is a ‘truth’ relationship between the Knowledge and the System. When this process breaks down and we fail to deduce correct conclusions then the diagram does not commute.”

I want to also comment on Figure 3 (which also exposes missing or false premises in the paper), but I will wait until I have discussed the assertions in the quote above which the authors of this paper reference, accept, and wish to justify/confirm.

1) The purpose of a representation is NOT to gain knowledge; rather, to express knowledge. Also, truth has nothing to do with knowledge except when that value is imposed upon it for some purpose. Truth value is a value that knowledge may or not ‘attend’ (participate in).

1a) The ‘truth value’ of the System (‘system’ is a false paradigm [later, perhaps] and a term that I also vehemently disagree with) does not always enter into the ‘dialogue’ between any knowledge that is represented and the observer interpreting that knowledge.

2) The interpretation of a representation is not to “deduce correct conclusions”; rather, to understand the meaning (semantics and epistemology) of what is represented. ‘Correct’ understanding is not exclusive to understanding nor is it necessary or sufficient for understanding a representation, because that understanding finds expression in the observer.

2a) ‘Correct’, as used in this paragraph, is coming from the outside (via the choice of which data [see Fig. 3] is represented to the observer) and may have no correspondence (hence may never ever commute) whatever to what that term means for the observer.

The authors are only talking about ontologies. That is a contrived and provincial look at the subject they are supposing to examine.

There may (and usually are) artefacts inherent in any collection and collation of data. The observer is forced to make ‘right’ (‘correct’) conclusions from that data which those who collected it have ‘seeded’ (tainted) with their own volition.

‘System’ (systematising) anything is Reductionism. This disqualifies the procedure at its outset.

They are proving essentially that manipulation leads to a ‘correct’ (their chosen version) representation of a ‘truth’ value.

I could tie my shoelaces into some kind of knot and think it were a ‘correct’ way to do so if the arrows indicate this. This is why paying too much attention to a navigation system can have one finding themselves at the bottom of a river!

The paper contains assumptions that are overlooked and terms that are never adequately defined! How can you name variables without defining their meaning? They then serve no purpose and must be removed from domain of discourse.

Categorical structures are highly portable, but they can describe/express only part of what is there. There are structure, dynamics, and resonance that ontology and functionalism completely turns a blind eye to.

The qualities of Truth, Goodness, Beauty, Clarity,… (even Falsehood, Badness, Ugliness, Obscurity,…) can be defined and identified within a knowledge representation if the representation is not restricted to ontology alone.

In order to express these qualities in semiotics and category theory, they must first be ontologised funtionally (reduced). Trying to grasp them with tools restricted to semiotics and category theory is like grasping into thin air.

That is actually the point I’m trying to make. Category Theory, and even Semiotics, each have their utility, but they are no match for the challenge of a complete representation of knowledge.

## Universal Constants, Variations, and Identities #19 (Inverse Awareness)

Universal Constants, Variations, and Identities
#19 The Inverse Awareness Relation

The Inverse Awareness Relation establishes a fundamental relationship in our universe:

## Is Real World Knowledge More Valuable Than Fictional Knowledge?

No.

Here an excerpt from a short summary of a paper I am writing that provides some context to answer this question:

What Knowledge is not:

Knowledge is not very well understood so I’ll briefly point out some of the reasons why we’ve been unable to precisely define what knowledge is thus far. Humanity has made numerous attempts at defining knowledge. Plato taught that justified truth and belief are required for something to be considered knowledge.

Throughout the history of the theory of knowledge (epistemology), others have done their best to add to Plato’s work or create new or more comprehensive definitions in their attempts to ‘contain’ the meaning of meaning (knowledge). All of these efforts have failed for one reason or another.

Using truth value and ‘justification’ as a basis for knowledge or introducing broader definitions or finer classifications can only fail.

I will now provide a small set of examples of why this is so.

Truth value is only a value that knowledge may attend.

Knowledge can be true or false, justified or unjustified, because

knowledge is the meaning of meaning

What about false or fictitious knowledge? [Here’s the reason why I say no.]

Their perfectly valid structure and dynamics are ignored by classifying them as something else than what they are. Differences in culture or language even make no difference, because the objects being referred to have meaning that transcends language barriers.

Another problem is that knowledge is often thought to be primarily semantics or even ontology based. Both of these cannot be true for many reasons. In the first case (semantics):

There already exists knowledge structure and dynamics for objects we cannot or will not yet know.

The same is true for objects to which meaning has not yet been assigned, such as ideas, connections and perspectives that we’re not yet aware of or have forgotten. Their meaning is never clear until we’ve become aware of or remember them.

In the second case (ontology): collations that are fed ontological framing are necessarily bound to memory, initial conditions of some kind and/or association in terms of space, time, order, context, relation,… We build whole catalogues, dictionaries and theories about them: Triads, diads, quints, ontology charts, neural networks, semiotics and even the current research in linguistics are examples.

Even if an ontology or set of them attempts to represent intrinsic meaning, it can only do so in a descriptive ‘extrinsic’ way. An ontology, no matter how sophisticated, is incapable of generating the purpose of even its own inception, not to mention the purpose of the objects to which it corresponds.

The knowledge is not coming from the data itself, it is always coming from the observer of the data, even if that observer is an algorithm.

Therefore ontology-based semantic analysis can only produce the artefacts of knowledge, such as search results, association to other objects, ‘knowledge graphs’ like Cayley,…

Real knowledge precedes, transcends and includes our conceptions, cognitive processes, perception, communication, reasoning and is more than simply related to our capacity of acknowledgement.

In fact knowledge cannot even be completely systematised; it can only be interacted with using ever increasing precision.

[For those interested, my summary is found at: A Precise Definition of Knowledge – Knowledge Representation as a Means to Define the Meaning of Meaning Precisely: http://bit.ly/2pA8Y8Y

## Does Knowledge Become More Accurate Over Time?

Change lies deeper in the knowledge substrate than time.

Knowledge is not necessarily coupled with time, but it can be influenced by it. It can be influenced by change of any kind: not only time.

Knowledge may exist in a moment and vanish. The incipient perspective(s) it contains may change. Or the perspective(s) that it comprises may resist change.

Also, knowledge changes with reality and vice versa.

Time requires events to influence this relationship between knowledge and reality.

Knowledge cannot be relied upon to be a more accurate expression of reality, whether time is involved or not, because the relationship between knowledge and reality is not necessarily dependent upon time, nor is there necessarily a coupling of the relationship between knowledge and reality. The relationships of ‘more’ and ‘accurate’ are also not necessarily coupled with time.

Example: Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth long before Copernicus published. The ‘common knowledge’ of the time (Copernicus knew about Eratosthenes, but the culture did not) was that the Earth was flat.

## Universal Constants, Variations, and Identities #18 (Dimension)

Universal Constants, Variations, and Identities (Dimension)
#18 Dimension is a spectrum or domain of awareness: they essentially build an additional point of view or perspective.

We live in a universe of potentially infinite dimension. Also, there are more spatial dimensions than three and more temporal dimensions than time (the only one science seems to recognize). Yes, I’m aware of what temporal means; Temporal is a derived attribute of a much more fundamental concept: Change. One important caveat: please bear in mind that my little essay here is not a complete one. The complete version will come when I publish my work.

The idea of dimension is not at all well understood. The fact is, science doesn’t really know what dimension is; rather, only how they may be used! Science and technology ‘consume’ their utility without understanding their richness. Otherwise they would have clarified them for us by now.

Those who may have clarified what they are get ignored and/or ridiculed, because understanding them requires a larger mental ‘vocabulary’ than Physicalism, Reductionism, and Ontology can provide.

Our present science and technology is so entrenched in dogma, collectivism, and special interest, that they no longer function as they once did. The globalist parasites running our science and technology try their best to keep us ‘on the farm’ by restricting dimension, like everything else, to the purely physical. It’s all they can imagine.

That’s why many of us feel an irritation without being able to place our finger on it when we get introduced to dimension. We seem to ‘know’ that something just doesn’t ‘rhyme’ with their version.

Time and space may be assigned dimensionality, in a purely physical sense if necessary, but there are always underlying entities much deeper in meaning involved that are overlooked and/or remain unknown which provide those properties with their meaning. This is why the more sensitive among us sense something is wrong or that something’s missing.

Let us temporarily divorce ourselves from the standard ‘spatial’ and ‘temporal’ kinds of ‚dimension’ for a time and observe dimension in its essence.

Definitions are made from them: in fact, dimensions function for definitions just as organs do for the body. In turn, dimension has its own set of ‘organs’ as well! I will talk about those ‘organs’ below.

Dimension may appear different to us depending upon our own state of mind, level of development, kind of reasoning we choose, orientation we prefer, expectations we may have,… but down deep…

Everything, even attributes of all kinds, involve dimension. We must also not forget partial dimension such as fractals over complex domains and other metaphysical entities like mind and awareness which may or may not occupy dimension. Qualia (water is ‘wet’, angry feels like ‘this’, the burden is ‘heavy’) are also dimensional.

Dimensions are ‘compasses’ for navigating conceptual landscapes. We already think in multiple dimension without even being aware of it! Here’s is an example of how that is:
[BTW: This is simply an example to show how dimension can be ‘stacked’ or accrued. The items below were chosen arbitrarily and could be replaced by any other aspects.]

♦ Imagine a point in space (we are already at 3d [x,y,z]) – actually at this level there are even more dimensions involved, but I will keep this simple for now.
♦ it moves in space and occupies a specific place in time (now 4d) 3d + 1 time dimension
♦ say it changes colour at any particular time or place (5d)
♦ let it now grow and shrink in diameter (6d)
♦ if it accelerates or slows its movement (7d)
♦ if it is rotating (8d)
♦ if it is broadcasting a frequency (9d)
♦ what if it is aware of other objects or not (10d)
♦ say it is actively seeking contact (connection) with other objects around it (11d)
♦ … (the list may go on and on)

As you can see above, dimensions function like aspects to any object of thought.

Dimensionality becomes much clearer when we free ourselves from the yoke of all that Physicalism, Reductionism, and Ontology.

Let’s now look at some of their ‘organs’ as mentioned above as well as other properties they have in common:

• They precede all entities except awareness.
• Awareness congeals into them.
• They form a first distinction.
• They have extent.
• They are integrally distributed.
• They have an axial component.
• They spin.
• They vibrate.
• They oscillate.
• They resonate.
• They may appear as scalar fields.
• Their references form fibrations.
• They are ‘aware’ of self/other.
• Their structural/dynamic/harmonic signature is unique.
• They provide reference which awareness uses to create perspective meaning.
• Holons are built from them.

http://mathesis-universalis.com

Sacred Geometry 29 by Endre @ RedBubble:
http://www.redbubble.com/people/endre/works/6920405-sacred-geometry-29?p=poster

## Universal Constants, Variations, and Identities – #17 (Representation)

#17 Interiority and Exteriority arise together. (Representation)

For every interior representation there is always an exterior representation that compliments it. For every exterior representation there is always a corresponding interior one.

## A New Kind of Knowledge Representation Is Coming to Be!

The project is now coming to conclusion (finally). In this video I show an example knowledge molecule being ‘examined’ by the knowledge representation.

I’ve hidden the other actors in this demonstration and have simplified the instrumentation to preserve my priority on my work.

Be patient! It won’t be long now… I have the theoretical underpinnings already behind me. Now it’s only about the representation of that work.

## Obfuscation In A ‘Nut’ Shell

Obfuscation In A ‘Nut’ Shell
Distinctions that are no differences, are incomplete, or are in discord.

In knowledge representation these ‘impurities’ (artificiality) and their influence are made easy to see.

In groks you will see them as obfuscation fields. That means darkening and/or inversion dynamics. The term refers to the visual representation of an obfuscated field, and can also be represented as dark and/or inverted movements of a field or group. I concentrate more on the dark versions here and will consider the inversions (examples of lying) in a future post.

They bring dynamics that are manipulative, artificial, or non-relevant into the knowledge representation. Their dynamic signatures make them stand out out like a sore thumb.

Cymatic images reveal these dynamics too. There are multiple vortexes, each with their own semantic contribution to the overall meaning to a knowledge molecule or group.

Here is an example of a snow flake (seen below) https://www.flickr.com/photos/13084997@N03/12642300973/in/album-72157625678493236/
From Linden Gledhill.

Note that not all vortexes are continuous through the ‘bodies’ of the molecules they participate in. Also, in order to correctly visualize what I’m saying, one must realize that the cymatic images are split expressions. That means to see the relationship, you must add the missing elements which are hinted at by the image.

Every cymatic image is a cut through the dynamics it represents.
We are in effect seeing portions of something whole. Whole parts are dissected necessarily, because the surface of expression is limited to a ‘slice’ through the complete molecule.

(Only the two images marked ‘heurist.com’ are my own! The other images are only meant as approximations to aid in the understanding of my work.)

## Maritime Admiralty Law in 10 Minutes

The Real Laws Of The Land

Maritime Admiralty Law in 10 Minutes
You are ‘owned’ just by acquiescing to that ‘ownership’.

## Men And Their Semantics – Turning Meaning into Legos

Semantically speaking: Does meaning structure unite languages?

This work is a dead end waiting to happen. Of course it will attract much interest, money, and perhaps even yield new insights into the commonality of language, but there’s better ways to get there.

What’s even more sad is that they, who should know better, will see my intentions in making this clear as destructive criticism instead of a siren warning regarding research governed/originating through a false paradigm. These people cannot see or overlook the costs humanity pays for the misunderstandings research like this causes and is based upon.

It’s even worse in the field of genetic engineering with their chimera research. The people wasting public money funding this research need to be gotten under control again.

I don’t want to criticize the researcher’s intentions. It’s their framing and methodology that I see as primitive, naive, and incomplete.

I’m not judging who they are nor their ends; rather, their means of getting there.

“Quantification” is exactly the wrong way to ‘measure/compare semantics; not to mention “partitioning” them!

1) The value in this investigation that they propose is to extrapolate and interpolate ontology. Semantics are more than ontology. They possess a complete metaphysics which includes their epistemology.

2) You cannot quantify qualities, because you reduce the investigation to measurement; which itself imposes meaning upon the meaning you wish to measure. Semantics, in their true form, are relations and are non-physical and non-reducible.

3) Notice also, partitioning is imposed upon the semantics (to make them ‘measurable/comparable’). If you compare semantics in such a way then you only get answers in terms of your investigation/ontology.

4) The better way is to leave the semantics as they are! Don’t classify them! Learn how they are related. Then you will know how they are compared.

There’s more to say, but I think you get the idea… ask me if you want clarification…

## Nobel Prize For Stating The Obvious

Nobel Prize For Stating The Obvious
You can get a Nobel for anything these days: Obama for peace(!) and Merkel soon for treason, for example.

You need only be ‘connected’ or have something to say or do that our controllers value.

In this one we have 3 points:
1) ‘Huh’ and its variants appear in 31 languages
2) People stop for clarification in conversation once every 90 seconds
3) People share the burden of fixing misunderstanding in conversation.

Now if you didn’t know this already, then celebrate!

## Typical Knowledge Acquisitions Node

Knowledge Representation

A typical knowledge acquisition node showing two layers of abstraction. Note how some of the acquisition field detection moves with the observer’s perspective. You can tell, due to the varying visual aspects of the fields and their conjunctions that it has already been primed and in use.

This node may be one of thousands/millions/billions which form when acquiring the semantics of any particular signal set.

Their purpose is to encode a waveform of meaning.

Basically it is these ‘guys’ which do the work of ‘digesting’ the knowledge contained within any given signal; sort of like what enzymes do in our cells.

The size, colour (although not here represented), orientation, quantity, sequence, and other attributes of the constituent field representations all contribute to a unique representation of those semantics the given node has encountered along its travel through any particular set of signal. The knowledge representation (not seen here) is comprised of the results of what these nodes do.

This node represents a unique cumulative ‘imprint’ or signature derived from the group of knowledge molecules it has processed during its life time in the collation similar to what a checksum does in a more or less primitive fashion for numerical values in IT applications.

I have randomized/obfuscated a bit here (in a few different ways), as usual, so that I can protect my work and release it in a prescribed and measured way over time.

In April I will be entering the 7th year of working on this phase of my work. I didn’t intentionally plan it this way, but the number 7 does seem to be a ‘number of completion’ for me as well.

The shape of the model was not intended in itself. It ‘acquired’ this shape during the course of its work. It could have just as well been of a different type (which I’m going to show here soon).

Important is the ‘complementarity’ of the two shapes as they are capable of encoding differing levels of abstraction. The inner model is more influenced by the observer than the outer one, for example. The outer shape contains a sort of ‘summary’ of what the inner shape has processed.

## Ontology: Compelling and ‘Rich’

Ontologies are surfaces… even if ‘rich’. (link)

Ontology: Compelling and ‘Rich’
They are only surfaces, but they seem to provide you with depth.

This exquisite video shows how the representation of knowledge is ripe for a revolution. I’ve written about this in depth in other places so I won’t bore you with the details here unless you ask me in the comments below.

Stay tuned! I’m behind in my schedule (work load), but I’m getting very close just the same. I will publish here and elsewhere.
I’m going to use this video (and others like it) to explain why ontologies are not sufficient to represent knowledge.

Soon everyone will acknowledge this fact and claim they’ve been saying it all along! (In spite of the many thousands of papers and books obsessively claiming the opposite!!!) They do not know that how dangerous that claim is going to be. Our future will be equipped with the ability to determine if such claims are true or not. That’s some of the reason I do what I do.

## Universal Constants and Variances

Universal Constants and Variances
#1 Awareness is primary and fundamental. (Substrate)
#2 All awareness is non-dual unless it is dual. (Duality)
#3 There is no inside without an outside nor outside without an inside. (Interiority/Exteriority)
#4 Duality is bounded, non-duality is boundless. (Boundary)
#5 Boundaries arise in a spectrum from diffuse to concise. (Crossing)

[More are coming soon in a new post…]

A few of those who have followed my posts have been asking for more information about my work. Towards that end, I’m going to start publishing my growing list of universal constants and variances. It is these constants and variances that form the foundation of my work.

There are about as many of them as there are stars in our universe (if you count the primary and derived together), so I don’t think I’ll run out of them! Most of them are self-explanatory, but if you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask in the appropriate thread. The numerical ordering is not yet important, as I’m still collecting and collating them as I discover them.

I have no tolerance for trolling or people who abuse others in my threads; especially on these threads about the constants and variances! So if you plan to wreak havoc here, you’ll get bumped real fast. I don’t mind criticism or skeptical opinions at all, but please be civil with everyone (including me).

## Strictly Speaking Can’t! Natural Language Won’t?

Physics is only complex, because it’s in someone’s interest to have it that way.  The way to understanding, even if you don’t understand science, was paved with words. Even if those words led only to a symbolic form of understanding.

I’m a mathematician and can tell you that common ordinary language is quite capable of explaining physics. Mathematics is simply more precise than common language. It pays the price for that precision by being subservient to the causal and compositional relations. These are limitations that metaphysics and philosophy do not have.

Words in language have a structure that mathematics alone will never see as it looks for their structure and dynamics in the wrong places and in the wrong ways. Pure mathematics lacks an underlying expression of inherent purpose in its ‘tool set’.

With natural language we are even able to cross the ‘event horizon’ into interiority (where unity makes its journey through the non-dual into the causal realm). It is a place where mathematics may also ‘visit’ and investigate, but only with some metaphysical foundation to navigate with. The ‘landscape’ is very different there… where even time and space ‘behave’ (manifest) differently. Yet common language can take us there! Why? It’s made of the ‘right stuff’!

The monological gaze with its incipient ontological foundation, as found in pure mathematics, is too myopic. That’s why languages such as category theory, although subtle and general in nature, even lose their way. They can tell us how we got there, but none can tell us why we wanted to get there in the first place!

It’s easy to expose modern corporate science’s (mainstream) limitations with this limited tool set – you need simply ask questions like: “What in my methodology inherently expresses why am I looking in here?” (what purpose) or “What assumptions am I making that I’m not even aware of?” or “Why does it choose to do that? and you’re already there where ontology falls flat on its face.

Even questions like these are met with disdain, intolerance and ridicule (the shadow knows it can’t see and wills to banish what it cannot)! And that’s where science begins to resemble religion (psyence).

Those are also some of the reasons why philosophers and philosophy have almost disappeared from the mainstream. I’ll give you a few philosophical hints to pique your interest.

Why do they call it Chaos Theory and not Cosmos Theory?
Why coincidence and not synchronicity?
Why entropy and not centropy?

Why particle and not field?
(many more examples…)

## Wonderful Graphics To Save a Disastrous Script

The ‘Science’ behind the movie ‘Lucy’ cannot hold a candle to the graphics that ‘sell’ that script!

## ‘Something Has To Give!’ – Speaking By Doing…

‘Something Has To Give!’
Speaking by doing…

I appreciate the technology (as long as it isn’t weaponized) and even admire what has been accomplished thus far. Just I know that to get to the ‘promised land’, they’re going to need to transcend and include the ontologically-based methodologies as are shown in the video!

One trip to Google translate reveals this to be mere hype at present. Hidden Markov models aren’t going to do it, people! That’s like trying to do a radar scan of the ocean and only seeing things you’ve been told to see beforehand. Their example involves capital cities and the meta-framing necessary to differentiate them. Essentially they are building structures (like fingerprints) of ideas and trying to do an ‘algebra’ with them.

The AI paradigm must be ‘fortified’ by epistemologically-based perspectives and methodologies, before we can even think of cognition. Clearly they are already involved in the recognition process, but these missing elements in in artificial intelligence is originating from those doing the work in the video (through their intentions, desires, success criterion,…) without their even noticing it! (Or if they do, they don’t make that clear to the viewer.)

Also, they believe in the mysticism that we need only create the necessary initial conditions (like a soup) and then, through emergence (which they cannot define precisely), intelligence (like life) will pop out!
ヽ(•́o•̀)ノ

They will most certainly manage to get the technology to a point that it will become useful (after they’ve shelled out huge sums of money to get there), but they will never reach cognition this way. They will have to part with one of their most sacred dogmas first: the mind is the brain.

The brain is only a part of what we call mind. Our whole bodies are involved with the dialog of mind – from our brains right down to our digestive tracts and even cells (and their constituents).