Contextual Equivocation; Identity as Relative Tautologies

[eodnhoj7]

Update

Contextual Equivocation; Identity as Relative Tautologies

1. There is identity.

2. Identity as equivocable, A=A, is tautological.

3. Identity as relational, A ↔ B, is conditional.

4. Equivocable identity is relational by degree of equivocation contrasting to non-equivocation. (A=A)<->(A=/=-A)

5. Relational Identity is equivocable by degree of relation containing the Identity as itself. (A<->B)=(A<->B)

6. Fundamentally Identity is reducible to operation as

(A=A)<->(A=/=-A) reduces to

(=)<->(=/=)

And

(A<->B)=(A<->B) reduces to (<->)=(<->)

7. As emergent by nature of operation identity, as equivocable, identity contains itself:

A= (A1=A1)

A=A

((A1=A1)=(A1=A1))

A1 = (A1.1 = A1.1)

A1=A1

((A1.1=A1.1)=(A1.1=A1.1))

A1.1 = (A = (A=A))

8. As emergent by nature of operational identity, as relational, identity contains other identity

(A<->B)<->C

A<->B

(C<->D)

D<->(A<->B)

(A<->B)<->(C<->D)

A<->(B,C,D), B<->(A,C,D), C<->(A,B,D),

D<->(A,B,C)

9. The equivocation of relationships is the contrast the the relationship

(A<->B)=(A<->B)

(A<->B) =/= (-A<->-B)

Thus the relationship requires contrasting equivocations

((A<->B)=(A<->B))=/=(-A<->-B)=(-A<->-B)

and the operation of equivocation is not equal to itself

((A<->B)=(A<->B))=/=(-A<->-B)=(-A<->-B)

((<->)=(<->))=/=((<->)=(<->))

(=)x =/= (=)y

10. The relations of the equivocations are the containment of the equivocations:

A<->B

(A=A)<->(B=B)

Thus the equivalence requires contained relationships:

(A<->B)=(A<->B)

((A=A)<->(B=B))=((A=A)<->(B=B))

And the operation of relation is equivalent to itself:

((A=A)<->(B=B))=((A=A)<->(B=B))

((=)<->(=))=((=)<->(=))

(<->)x = (<->)x

11. Identity is process, this process is relative equivocation where equivocation occurs by contexts emergent from relations where said context allows equivocable identity to be emergent while dually allowing contrast of what equates by degree of the relational dynamic necessitating a difference of what equates.

12. Identity is relational tautolologies, the regress of tautological relationships is nullified as the tautological process of equivalence being a fixed point, the circularity of tautological relationships is nullified as the relational process of contrast results in emergent tautologie.

1. The Nature of identity as process results in relation, <->, as the foundational primitive however the equivocation that inversely emerges from relationship is but an inverse side of the same relationship applied to itself for the relation of relations is the equivocation of relations through relation thus only context as variable remains:

((<->)<->(<->)) = ((<->)<->(<->))

(<->)=(<->)

((<->)=(<->))

((<->)=(<->)) ↔ ((<->)=(<->))

(=)<->(=)

(=,<->)

( )

2. Context is the foundational nature of relational and equivocable identity as the identity itself results in an empty context.

3. The empty context is indistinct on its own terms and distinct, as an identity, upon relation or equivocation to further contexts

( )a = ( )a

( )a ↔ ( )b

However given the nature of equivocation and relation are inverse sides of context itself what remains is context nesting as identity:

( )

( )( )

(( )( ))

( )

This nesting of context is not only the scale invariance of the context but also the recursion and emergence of scale invariances to new scale invariances:

( )

( )( )

(( )( ))

( ) = (( )( ))

(( )( )) =

((( )( ))(( )( )))=

( )( )( )( )( )( )( )=

( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )=

(( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( ))=

( )

( ), ( )( ), ( )( )( ) ↔ (( )( ))

( ) ↔ ( )( )

( )( ) ↔ ( ), ( )( )( )

( )( )( ) ↔ ( ), ( )( )

( ) ↔ ( )

( )

( )

( )( ) = {( ),( )}

( )( )( )= {( ),( ),( ), (( )( ),( ))}

( )

(( )( ))

(( )( ))( ), (( )( ))(( )( ))

(( )( ))( )

(( )( ))( )( ), (( )( ))(( )( ))(( )( ))

(( )( ))(( )( ))

(( )( ))(( )( ))( ),

(( )( ))(( )( ))(( )( ))(( )( ))

( )

****Relative to identity being reducible to process the standard nature of formalisms do not apply as the operations are equivalent to variable identities, in this respect the argued formalism is transendentally formal (transcendental by degree of containing and occuring beyond standard formal rules).

[niallm]

. = 1000
START:
MOV #CURBUF,R0
MOV #NEXTBUF,R1
MOV #1024,R2
LOOP:
CLR R3
MOVB (R0),R4
ADD -33.(R0),R3
ADD -32.(R0),R3
ADD -31.(R0),R3
ADD -1.(R0),R3
ADD 1.(R0),R3
ADD 31.(R0),R3
ADD 32.(R0),R3
ADD 33.(R0),R3
TST R4
BEQ BIRTH
CMP R3,#2
BEQ SURVIVE
CMP R3,#3
BEQ SURVIVE
BR DIE
BIRTH:
CMP R3,#3
BEQ SURVIVE
DIE:
MOVB #0,(R1)
BR NEXT
SURVIVE:
MOVB #1,(R1)
NEXT:
INC R0
INC R1
DEC R2
BNE LOOP
SWAP:
MOV #NEXTBUF,R0
MOV #CURBUF,R1
MOV #1024,R2
COPY:
MOVB (R0)+,(R1)+
DEC R2
BNE COPY
JMP START
. = 2000
CURBUF:
.BLKW 1024
. = 3000
NEXTBUF:
.BLKW 1024
.END START

---

Looks like life, but it is life that always needs an initial injection of actual life to begin the cycle.

In an infinite triadic sea, there are no absolutes. There is just Be, Do, End, or Potential, Release, Expression. It’s how an artist paints a picture, how a gymnast balances on a beam. There is no “past”, and certainly no “future”, just the current configuration of the field. Bounded regions of coherence. We are such a region, as a species, as a society, and as an individual.

The speed of light becomes a limit to the propagation of coherence. “Spacetime” shows its absurdity. The universe does not wear a watch, it always knows exactly what time it is, and that’s the only time it ever exists in. Spatiality becomes just one way coherence can express itself, but hardly the only way.

I rarely even consider what the word “tautological” means. What I believe is what I can see, hear and feel. Numbers become arbitrary increments, relations all that truly matter. The hunt for the “smallest unit of everything” becomes a ridiculous pursuit.

We are surrounded by, and part of flow. Attractors, low-energy basins, endless recursion in every direction. Infinity has no “centre”. I am the absolute centre of the universe I perceive, but hey, so is everyone else. Everything else.

[eodnhoj7]

And what is your point?

[eodnhoj7]

Updated****“”“”^^^^

Contextual Equivocation; Identity as Relative Tautologies

1. There is identity.

2. Identity as equivocable, A=A, is tautological.

3. Identity as relational, A ↔ B, is conditional.

4. Equivocable identity is relational by degree of equivocation contrasting to non-equivocation. (A=A)<->(A=/=-A)

5. Relational Identity is equivocable by degree of relation containing the Identity as itself. (A<->B)=(A<->B)

6. Fundamentally Identity is reducible to operation as

(A=A)<->(A=/=-A) reduces to

(=)<->(=/=)

And

(A<->B)=(A<->B) reduces to (<->)=(<->)

7. As emergent by nature of operation identity, as equivocable, identity contains itself:

A= (A1=A1)

A=A

((A1=A1)=(A1=A1))

A1 = (A1.1 = A1.1)

A1=A1

((A1.1=A1.1)=(A1.1=A1.1))

A1.1 = (A = (A=A))

8. As emergent by nature of operational identity, as relational, identity contains other identity

(A<->B)<->C

A<->B

(C<->D)

D<->(A<->B)

(A<->B)<->(C<->D)

A<->(B,C,D), B<->(A,C,D), C<->(A,B,D),

D<->(A,B,C)

9. The equivocation of relationships is the contrast the the relationship

(A<->B)=(A<->B)

(A<->B) =/= (-A<->-B)

Thus the relationship requires contrasting equivocations

((A<->B)=(A<->B))=/=(-A<->-B)=(-A<->-B)

and the operation of equivocation is not equal to itself

((A<->B)=(A<->B))=/=(-A<->-B)=(-A<->-B)

((<->)=(<->))=/=((<->)=(<->))

(=)x =/= (=)y

10. The relations of the equivocations are the containment of the equivocations:

A<->B

(A=A)<->(B=B)

Thus the equivalence requires contained relationships:

(A<->B)=(A<->B)

((A=A)<->(B=B))=((A=A)<->(B=B))

And the operation of relation is equivalent to itself:

((A=A)<->(B=B))=((A=A)<->(B=B))

((=)<->(=))=((=)<->(=))

(<->)x = (<->)x

11. Identity is process, this process is relative equivocation where equivocation occurs by contexts emergent from relations where said context allows equivocable identity to be emergent while dually allowing contrast of what equates by degree of the relational dynamic necessitating a difference of what equates.

12. Identity is relational tautolologies, the regress of tautological relationships is nullified as the tautological process of equivalence being a fixed point, the circularity of tautological relationships is nullified as the relational process of contrast results in emergent tautologie.

1. The Nature of identity as process results in relation, <->, as the foundational primitive however the equivocation that inversely emerges from relationship is but an inverse side of the same relationship applied to itself for the relation of relations is the equivocation of relations through relation thus only context as variable remains:

((<->)<->(<->)) = ((<->)<->(<->))

(<->)=(<->)

((<->)=(<->))

((<->)=(<->)) ↔ ((<->)=(<->))

(=)<->(=)

(=,<->)

( )

2. Context is the foundational nature of relational and equivocable identity as the identity itself results in an empty context.

3. The empty context is indistinct on its own terms and distinct, as an identity, upon relation or equivocation to further contexts

( )a = ( )a

( )a ↔ ( )b

However given the nature of equivocation and relation are inverse sides of context itself what remains is context nesting as identity:

( )

( )( )

(( )( ))

( )

This nesting of context is not only the scale invariance of the context but also the recursion and emergence of scale invariances to new scale invariances:

( )

( )( )

(( )( ))

( ) = (( )( ))

(( )( )) =

((( )( ))(( )( )))=

( )( )( )( )( )( )( )=

( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )=

(( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( ))=

( )= ( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )

(( )( ))=( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )

( )=( )

(( )( ))=(( )( ))

( )n = ( )n

(n = n)=(( )=( ))

n = ( )

(( ) = ( )) = (( ) = ( ))

((=)=(=))

(=)

( )

( )<->( )

(( )( ))<->(( )( ))

( )a ↔ ( )b

(a<->b)=(( )<->( ))

a,b ↔ ( )

(( ) ↔ ( )) ↔ (a<->b)

((<->)=(<->))

(<->)

( )

( ), ( )( ), ( )( )( ) ↔ (( )( ))

( ) ↔ ( )( )

( )( ) ↔ ( ), ( )( )( )

( )( )( ) ↔ ( ), ( )( )

( ) ↔ ( )

( )

( )=(=,<->)

( )<->(=,<->)

(=,<->)

( )

( )

( )( ) = {( ),( )}

( )( )( )= {( ),( ),( ), (( )( ),( ))}

( )

(( )( ))

(( )( ))( ), (( )( ))(( )( ))

(( )( ))( )

(( )( ))( )( ), (( )( ))(( )( ))(( )( ))

(( )( ))(( )( ))

(( )( ))(( )( ))( ),

(( )( ))(( )( ))(( )( ))(( )( ))

( )

4. The emergence of context is the emergence of derivation as contextualization is derivation thus the derivation of a context, from a context necessitates the emergence of a new context and the dissolution of another

( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( ) →

(( )( )( ))

->

(( )( )( ))(( )( )( ))(( )( )( ))(( )( )( ))(( )( )( ))

->

( )( )( )( )( )

->

(( )( )( )( )( ))

->

(( )( )( )( )( )) =

((( )( )( ))(( )( )( ))(( )( )( ))(( )( )( ))(( )( )( )))

=

( )

The derivation of context is the contextualization of one context, or contexts, through another context(s) by which context effectively is a self-embedding boundary, transformation is but a shift in observable limits where the change of limits is the maintenance of limits. Context is limit. Limit is distinction.

For a single context to occur results in its indistinction:

( )

For the context to be distinct it must self contrast:

( )( )

and by said self contrast there is a containment of context as a context:

(( )( ))

What remains is context with the indistinct context reverted back to indistinct:

( )

However this indistinct context contains infinite contexts, potentially, while the infinite contexts are a single distinct context

( )<->( )x

or a set of finite simultaneous contexts:

( ) ↔ (( )l,( )m,( )n)

Regardless of what is potentially there the nature of the context transforming to another context is relative to the context applied to it:

( )( )n → ( )y

( )( )m → ( )z

Thus the derived context is the relation of the prior.

An infinite indistinct context is distinct by recursion:

( )x

( )x( )x

This recursion collapses the infinite context into a finite context of infinite contexts as the infinities maintain being infinite but effectively are finite by relation:

(( )x( )x)y

Thus each context is effectively a scale of infinite contexts:

(( )x( )x)y

(( )x( )x( )x)z

And in these respects a context is a scaling of the context by which it is derived. However each scale is a scale of infinite contexts thus derivation is a continuous process and the application of context is the application of transformation thus equating the context to a process by degree of the continuity it contains.

This continuity is the continuum of contexts made finite by degree of the limits of the infinities being distinct.

What remains is a scale invariant tautology.

As scale increases so do fixed points:

( )( )

(( )( ))(( )( ))…

( )( )( )

(( )( )( ))(( )( )( ))…

Which the fixed point across scales the fixed point context becomes the distinction that allows ratios within the scale, as a sequence, to occur. In these respects contextualization is derivation and the proof of a thing is the unfolding process that reveals as the thing. Context is thus form as process where traditional expression of form as operand, and process, as operator, are collapsed within the limits of the emergence itself.

However the single context contrasts itself across scale thus with dimensional scaling, a dimension being a sequence, the single context self contrasts as both the emergence of scale and the emergence of scales to scales.

What remains is a context embedding itself across scale as a new scale thus resulting in identity being embedding tautologies at multiple levels As the tautologies manifest infinitely so do the fixed points thus resulting in a perpetual state of continuous finiteness.

What remains is a single context that reveals only as recursive embedding within recursive embedding which allows the context to be distinct. In these respect the single context is the limit of contexts as the derivation of them. Derivation, at the meta-level, is recursion as sequence, sequence as pattern, thus what constitutes the existence of a phenomen is the contextualization of it as the limits of it.

What remains is embedded tautologies, as a new tautologies, thus resulting in embedding of tautologies itself being a tautologie and only pattern as context remains.

Empty context, ( ), is the grounds of distinct contexts by degree of recursion where context in and of itself is a tautology and loop as recursion. The emptiness of context is the point of change of one context into another as the empty context is but the potentiality of contexts made distinct by the recursion of said potentiality as the distinction of said potentiality contained within it.

In these respects and empty context results in further contexts which eventually saturate to a single context again with this process itself being the simple recursion of contexts, ( )( ), as a context ( ) thus the context contains itself (( )( )).

Context is thus the process of derivation and derivation it a tautological process of derivation derives further derivation thus resulting in a fixed point being equivalent to a process of change by which scale emerges.

The question of why distinction from indistinction, something from nothing, presence from absence, being from void is answered in the question itself:

Indistinction is distinct as indistinction,

Nothing is something as nothing,

Absence is the presence of absence,

Void ‘is’ void.

The answer is the tautology of the distinctions themselves as distinct thus the identification of a negation is the presence of identification and “what is not” is but the assertion of “what is” by degree of the claim “what is not” occuring.

Identification of nothing is the identification of identification emerging from nothing as nothing is but the identification of nothing thus the emergence of identification as identification leaving only tautology.

****Relative to identity being reducible to process the standard nature of formalisms do not apply as the operations are equivalent to variable identities, in this respect the argued formalism is transendentally formal (transcendental by degree of containing and occuring beyond standard formal rules).

[huphuphup123]

Do you know the solution to my post here? How does time pass without it all happening instantly at once?

[eodnhoj7]

Based of the title; solution:

Time is the act of distinction itself, through change. Without change, without time, there is no distinction, at there are no limits which emerge and dissolve, thus everything happening all at once would be all times as but indistinct as themselves being but one.

If everything happened instantaneously there would be no change that allows things to be distinct.

Time can speed up, but instantaneous moments would be distinct from other instantaneous moments and time will still occur.

I am sure you have more answers…the question has multiple answers.

The passing of time is the emergence and dissolution of distinctions.

These distinctions form a ratio to other distinctions as new ratio.

Time is a ratio of distinctions and as such a block universe reveals only geometric structure as minimum.

An instantaneous moment is an absence of distinctions, an absence of limit, akin to a single 0d point.

[eodnhoj7]

<<<<Updated****“”“”^^^^

&&&&&

Contextual Equivocation; Identity as Relative Tautologies

1. There is identity.

2. Identity as equivocable, A=A, is tautological.

3. Identity as relational, A ↔ B, is conditional.

4. Equivocable identity is relational by degree of equivocation contrasting to non-equivocation. (A=A)<->(A=/=-A)

5. Relational Identity is equivocable by degree of relation containing the Identity as itself. (A<->B)=(A<->B)

6. Fundamentally Identity is reducible to operation as

(A=A)<->(A=/=-A) reduces to

(=)<->(=/=)

And

(A<->B)=(A<->B) reduces to (<->)=(<->)

7. As emergent by nature of operation identity, as equivocable, identity contains itself:

A= (A1=A1)

A=A

((A1=A1)=(A1=A1))

A1 = (A1.1 = A1.1)

A1=A1

((A1.1=A1.1)=(A1.1=A1.1))

A1.1 = (A = (A=A))

8. As emergent by nature of operational identity, as relational, identity contains other identity

(A<->B)<->C

A<->B

(C<->D)

D<->(A<->B)

(A<->B)<->(C<->D)

A<->(B,C,D), B<->(A,C,D), C<->(A,B,D),

D<->(A,B,C)

9. The equivocation of relationships is the contrast the the relationship

(A<->B)=(A<->B)

(A<->B) =/= (-A<->-B)

Thus the relationship requires contrasting equivocations

((A<->B)=(A<->B))=/=(-A<->-B)=(-A<->-B)

and the operation of equivocation is not equal to itself

((A<->B)=(A<->B))=/=(-A<->-B)=(-A<->-B)

((<->)=(<->))=/=((<->)=(<->))

(=)x =/= (=)y

10. The relations of the equivocations are the containment of the equivocations:

A<->B

(A=A)<->(B=B)

Thus the equivalence requires contained relationships:

(A<->B)=(A<->B)

((A=A)<->(B=B))=((A=A)<->(B=B))

And the operation of relation is equivalent to itself:

((A=A)<->(B=B))=((A=A)<->(B=B))

((=)<->(=))=((=)<->(=))

(<->)x = (<->)x

11. Identity is process, this process is relative equivocation where equivocation occurs by contexts emergent from relations where said context allows equivocable identity to be emergent while dually allowing contrast of what equates by degree of the relational dynamic necessitating a difference of what equates.

12. Identity is relational tautolologies, the regress of tautological relationships is nullified as the tautological process of equivalence being a fixed point, the circularity of tautological relationships is nullified as the relational process of contrast results in emergent tautologie.

1. The Nature of identity as process results in relation, <->, as the foundational primitive however the equivocation that inversely emerges from relationship is but an inverse side of the same relationship applied to itself for the relation of relations is the equivocation of relations through relation thus only context as variable remains:

((<->)<->(<->)) = ((<->)<->(<->))

(<->)=(<->)

((<->)=(<->))

((<->)=(<->)) ↔ ((<->)=(<->))

(=)<->(=)

(=,<->)

( )

2. Context is the foundational nature of relational and equivocable identity as the identity itself results in an empty context.

3. The empty context is indistinct on its own terms and distinct, as an identity, upon relation or equivocation to further contexts

( )a = ( )a

( )a ↔ ( )b

However given the nature of equivocation and relation are inverse sides of context itself what remains is context nesting as identity:

( )

( )( )

(( )( ))

( )

This nesting of context is not only the scale invariance of the context but also the recursion and emergence of scale invariances to new scale invariances:

( )

( )( )

(( )( ))

( ) = (( )( ))

(( )( )) =

((( )( ))(( )( )))=

( )( )( )( )( )( )( )=

( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )=

(( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( ))=

( )= ( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )

(( )( ))=( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )

( )=( )

(( )( ))=(( )( ))

( )n = ( )n

(n = n)=(( )=( ))

n = ( )

(( ) = ( )) = (( ) = ( ))

((=)=(=))

(=)

( )

( )<->( )

(( )( ))<->(( )( ))

( )a ↔ ( )b

(a<->b)=(( )<->( ))

a,b ↔ ( )

(( ) ↔ ( )) ↔ (a<->b)

((<->)=(<->))

(<->)

( )

( ), ( )( ), ( )( )( ) ↔ (( )( ))

( ) ↔ ( )( )

( )( ) ↔ ( ), ( )( )( )

( )( )( ) ↔ ( ), ( )( )

( ) ↔ ( )

( )

( )=(=,<->)

( )<->(=,<->)

(=,<->)

( )

( )

( )( ) = {( ),( )}

( )( )( )= {( ),( ),( ), (( )( ),( ))}

( )

(( )( ))

(( )( ))( ), (( )( ))(( )( ))

(( )( ))( )

(( )( ))( )( ), (( )( ))(( )( ))(( )( ))

(( )( ))(( )( ))

(( )( ))(( )( ))( ),

(( )( ))(( )( ))(( )( ))(( )( ))

( )

4. The emergence of context is the emergence of derivation as contextualization is derivation thus the derivation of a context, from a context necessitates the emergence of a new context and the dissolution of another

( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( ) →

(( )( )( ))

->

(( )( )( ))(( )( )( ))(( )( )( ))(( )( )( ))(( )( )( ))

->

( )( )( )( )( )

->

(( )( )( )( )( ))

->

(( )( )( )( )( )) =

((( )( )( ))(( )( )( ))(( )( )( ))(( )( )( ))(( )( )( )))

=

( )

The derivation of context is the contextualization of one context, or contexts, through another context(s) by which context effectively is a self-embedding boundary, transformation is but a shift in observable limits where the change of limits is the maintenance of limits. Context is limit. Limit is distinction.

For a single context to occur results in its indistinction:

( )

For the context to be distinct it must self contrast:

( )( )

and by said self contrast there is a containment of context as a context:

(( )( ))

What remains is context with the indistinct context reverted back to indistinct:

( )

However this indistinct context contains infinite contexts, potentially, while the infinite contexts are a single distinct context

( )<->( )x

or a set of finite simultaneous contexts:

( ) ↔ (( )l,( )m,( )n)

Regardless of what is potentially there the nature of the context transforming to another context is relative to the context applied to it:

( )( )n → ( )y

( )( )m → ( )z

Thus the derived context is the relation of the prior.

An infinite indistinct context is distinct by recursion:

( )x

( )x( )x

This recursion collapses the infinite context into a finite context of infinite contexts as the infinities maintain being infinite but effectively are finite by relation:

(( )x( )x)y

Thus each context is effectively a scale of infinite contexts:

(( )x( )x)y

(( )x( )x( )x)z

And in these respects a context is a scaling of the context by which it is derived. However each scale is a scale of infinite contexts thus derivation is a continuous process and the application of context is the application of transformation thus equating the context to a process by degree of the continuity it contains.

This continuity is the continuum of contexts made finite by degree of the limits of the infinities being distinct.

What remains is a scale invariant tautology.

As scale increases so do fixed points:

( )( )

(( )( ))(( )( ))…

( )( )( )

(( )( )( ))(( )( )( ))…

Which the fixed point across scales the fixed point context becomes the distinction that allows ratios within the scale, as a sequence, to occur. In these respects contextualization is derivation and the proof of a thing is the unfolding process that reveals as the thing. Context is thus form as process where traditional expression of form as operand, and process, as operator, are collapsed within the limits of the emergence itself.

However the single context contrasts itself across scale thus with dimensional scaling, a dimension being a sequence, the single context self contrasts as both the emergence of scale and the emergence of scales to scales.

What remains is a context embedding itself across scale as a new scale thus resulting in identity being embedding tautologies at multiple levels As the tautologies manifest infinitely so do the fixed points thus resulting in a perpetual state of continuous finiteness.

What remains is a single context that reveals only as recursive embedding within recursive embedding which allows the context to be distinct. In these respect the single context is the limit of contexts as the derivation of them. Derivation, at the meta-level, is recursion as sequence, sequence as pattern, thus what constitutes the existence of a phenomen is the contextualization of it as the limits of it.

What remains is embedded tautologies, as a new tautologies, thus resulting in embedding of tautologies itself being a tautologie and only pattern as context remains.

Empty context, ( ), is the grounds of distinct contexts by degree of recursion where context in and of itself is a tautology and loop as recursion. The emptiness of context is the point of change of one context into another as the empty context is but the potentiality of contexts made distinct by the recursion of said potentiality as the distinction of said potentiality contained within it.

In these respects and empty context results in further contexts which eventually saturate to a single context again with this process itself being the simple recursion of contexts, ( )( ), as a context ( ) thus the context contains itself (( )( )).

Context is thus the process of derivation and derivation it a tautological process of derivation derives further derivation thus resulting in a fixed point being equivalent to a process of change by which scale emerges.

The question of why distinction from indistinction, something from nothing, presence from absence, being from void is answered in the question itself:

Indistinction is distinct as indistinction,

Nothing is something as nothing,

Absence is the presence of absence,

Void ‘is’ void.

The answer is the tautology of the distinctions themselves as distinct thus the identification of a negation is the presence of identification and “what is not” is but the assertion of “what is” by degree of the claim “what is not” occuring.

Identification of nothing is the identification of identification emerging from nothing as nothing is but the identification of nothing thus the emergence of identification as identification leaving only tautologies.

Given the emergent nature of tautology as a whole, and the corresponding nature of identity as tautological in form and function, what is considered self-evident or axiomatic is but the emergence of an identity, that is not reduced any further, as a foundation to derive a recursive chain of assertions where the base axiom is represented across scale and different degrees as the argument or formulation itself.

What is considered axiomatic identity is but an emergence of one context from many that in turn is used as a pivotal point for further contexts/identities to transform through said axiom. In these respects basic linear reasoning is holographic expressions of axioms through their surrounding contexts as the axiom maintains itself across the assertions themselves.

In these respects and axiom is the derivation of contexts as a recursive fixed point across contexts. By degree of the recursion of a fixed point, as a new scale, resulting in a further fixed point, there are effectively infinite axioms by which to derive conclusions and the axioms of any system are merely the system as a projection of specific context by degree of the system being a holographic expression of the axiom itself.

This can be expressed under the following where “( )” is an axiom and ● is operation as point of change.

( )x

( )x ● ( )y

(( )x ●( )y)( )x.1

( )x ● ( )z

(( )x ● ( )z)( )x.2

( )x ● ( )x.n

(( )x ● ( )x.n)( )x●x

( )x●x

( )x ● ( )x

( )●( )

(( )●( ))

(●)

(●)(●)

((●)(●))

((●)(●))●

(●●)●

(●●)●●

(●●)(●●)●

…

( ) = ●

( ) ↔ ●

(<->,=,●)

( )

●●

●

****Relative to identity being reducible to process the standard nature of formalisms do not apply as the operations are equivalent to variable identities, in this respect the argued formalism is transendentally formal (transcendental by degree of containing and occuring beyond standard formal rules).

[huphuphup123]

i understand that change works from distinction.

but even then are you saying it is like the liars paradox where it keeps negating itself? becaue i can’t get my head around how you can imagine something in your head whilst on that same frame the thing you are imagining shoudn’t be there

[eodnhoj7]

Real simple.

Mobius strip.

[huphuphup123]

@eodnhoj7

Mobius strip.

I think I get what you are trying to get at but still don’t understand. i tried asking AI but I don’t understand it.

Are you saying like the oroboros or some optical illusion where you cant say it is there nor can you say it is not there?

could you explain it?

[eodnhoj7]

A mobius strip is both sides on the same side, the inner side is on the outer side and the outside in on the inner side…simultaneously.

So using a basic proto-logical symbolism.

One symbol will be used: “-” representing “negation, absence, negative, lack” as “x”.

1. - as x.
2. - - as -x
3. - - - as x
4. - - - - as -x

and the sequence can continue indefinitely, as most sequence do.

The fourth sequence contains all three, sequences and both values simultaneously:

- - - - contains:

- - - as x

- - as -x

- as x

Thus the sequence contains both values of x and -x simultaneously. They both appear without contradiction because of the embedding of them as layers which present themselves all at once.

- contains itself across scale.

- - contains itself across scale.

both scales occur simultaneously as the whole scale.

I am assuming you have more questions.

[huphuphup123]

Wait so how does this relate to how time doesn’t pass all at once? Are you saying like this shows that things can be in existence and not in existence at the same time?

Or that existence and not in existence at the same time but in different places - so like it is existent in one place and non existence in the other?

Even then though, where is the passage of time, they just stay still like that

But isn’t - - x the exact same as x? how does it mean both x and not-x? unless you mean like this:

i think i know the kind of thing you are saying where like for someone to say “something being in existence and not in existence at the same time does NOT happen” still means the thing being in existence and not in existence at the same time has to happen for it to be negated, because you are negating that thing happening.

[eodnhoj7]

Time is embedded within time.

You have a flow of events.

Change the scale and the flow appears differently.

The flow is itself a scale.

Time is a scale.

This scale is what actual and potential simultaneously. To observe a bird is to observe what is actual and what is not actual-potential, simultaneously.

A single distinct thing is effectively a mobius strip of “is” and “is not”.

So fundamentally time is grounded in distinction. It is the act of distinction.

If everything occur instantaneously there would be no distinction…no distinction, no time.

The present is but a holographic expression of the past, one set of distinctions that occur on another scale as the present. The present is but a holographic expression of the present, the distinctions of the present unfolding at a new scale.

If everything happens all at once there is no distinction.

However there is an instantaneous element to time, the act of change. One thing changes into another. The change occur instantaneously as the present. The future and past are but instantaneous present moments that create a scale as the distinction itself.

[huphuphup123]

So I understand what you mean by seeing what a bird is doing, and what it is not doing.

so things are there and not there.

And I understand that the present and past are also like the mobius strip, you are seeing what is happening and seeing what is not happening

Are you saying like the things present and that which is not present both exist together like the mobius strip and just like switching back and forth? like the yin yang?

also I don’t understand to begin with what you mean by time is embedded within time and the scale.

When you say scale I am imagining a weighing scale, or should I imagine like a scale where there is 0 in the middle and it goes to two extremes or something?

[eodnhoj7]

Are you saying like the things present and that which is not present both exist together like the mobius strip and just like switching back and forth? like the yin yang?

Both. All scales of observation have a mobius strip nature in regards to presence and absence occuring simultaneously (ie the simple bird example). Change the scale and the mobius strip remains the same (experience or observation of X simultaneously shows not X).

But this is where is gets unsettling.

Each M (wmill use M to represent the mobius strip nature for all distinctions ranging from an experience, an observation…any emergent distinction) contains within it and is part of further M’s. Take for example the bird. There is the bird and what is not the bird, an M. Now the bird has two wings. There is the two wings and the absence of the two wings…this can be called Mx. Now within a wing there is specific feather that is present in accords to its absence elsewhere…Mxy. And this continues. It also happens inversely. The bird…M. The tree the bird is in…xM. The field the tree is in xyM. All of these are M’s embedded within M’s. M is always present at scale, and the scale may change, but M remains holographically: same fixed point structure (presence/absence) but different scale.

also I don’t understand to begin with what you mean by time is embedded within time and the scale.

There is a segment of time called A. Within A there is the segments of time B and C. B contains segments D and E, C contains F and G…so on and so forth. Each segment of time, a time zone, contains and is part of other time zones. Example. A particle vibrates at X rotations. The car travels at 10yX. The car is a distinct time zone. A child runs at 2yX. The child running is a distinct time zone. Each time zone is X occuring at a holographic scale.

When you say scale I am imagining a weighing scale, or should I imagine like a scale where there is 0 in the middle and it goes to two extremes or something?

Yes…that would be more accurate. Think of a line segment particularly. There is a single line segment but the line segment has further line segments embedded within it while dually being embedding in further line segments beyond it. What I am arguing can be visualized purely as a geometric line segment as a basic visual. Just line segments within line segments and each line segment is a relative scale of time in itself, in relation to others as a new segment, and as a whole line segment. Think of the simple line segment as linear lattice, a lattice that is compressed into a linear state.