On the impossibility of knowing a true tenseless fact without omnitemporality

I think we need to stop thinking of every dot as standing on its own. There’s no such thing as a dot in isolation. You can never think of any less than three dots. Even when you’re thinking of one dot, you’re thinking of everything around it that sets it apart as a dot. So there is everything and there is the around it which contains everything and the dot. That’s three. But on a line there is the dot and there is the dot after it and there is the dot before it. That’s all you need to make a line. You can’t just have two dots because there’s no before (a priori, ontologically prior) or after (possible). You have to have before, herenow, and after. HereNow involves all three. And every point is Alpha Omega. It’s how much access we have that determines how many points we are at, or that are at us (impossible without an unlimited mediator, for beings subject to time).

The whole timeline, the moments composing it, the function demonstrated/expressed.

Going back-and-forth with Copilot on ambiguous language, or “Why it is so hard to articulate C theory.”

Copilot Articulates C Theory, Explains Why Triad Is Minimal (Irreducible) Structure, and Disambiguates Two Senses of Essence

(more time convos with Copilot will be posted in the Kripke thread)