The basis of of material logic

When we look at the organic cellular structure we see where the construction of organic objects, unlike the of structure inorganic objects, possess the capacity to progress beyond the level of the molecule.this is significant and underanalayzed . The cell is the defining separation of the animate object from the inanimate object . This capacity must stem from the animate atom systematic operancy.
there are fundamental differences in the animate and the inanimate object’s
atomic operation as a system that allow the upper levels of construct-ability from the cell upwards . The postulation is that atmospheric lightning in a time in the earth’s
development(I speak of abiogenics here) struck the ocean waters and the atoms of these waters were altered in a chain reaction much like how they got the first atomic bomb to finally work after several failed attempts.
Given that the animate atom relates inanimate atomic structures as its structural comparative , along with space and time as what is termed, complete as a reality(the entirety of the cosmos) through temporality , where temporality is a direct result of the animate atomic structure as a systems, given that the comprehensive material facility of observation is the entirety of the human atomic structure we must acknowledge the material systematic context of our socalled thoughts and all resulting academy :we must credit this material systematic basally with all perceived logicality,therefore all synopses of reality correct or incorrect -all aspects of any perceived reality are material conformations to the capacity of the postulated animate atom,and this is where the cosmological nonsequitur begins. The animate atom is not an ultimate structure(the human construct is merely a facet in the universe when it is seen accurately as a subformal facet in overall universal sytem . Observed existence would have to be a correlate of the distinct
elementary infrastructure of the animate atom. Space, matter and time do not present the animate atom materially; it is the animate atom in extension of the temporality that coheres existencia. Existencia in its particular arrangement would have to be prodictive of observation,meaning that there is a denotative flaw in even the perception of humaness, atomness,organic and in organicness indicated by the comparative stance of inanimateness and animateness(the foundation of the temporal capacity ) . What this also means is that there is a realistic actuality in place of which we experience an analogic of. The initiative of a history of existencia ,
with existencia being of a particular
functional capacity and structural parameter that follows from a capacitated beginning to the state of the animate atoms emergence , (during the formation of the early earth)emanates from the animate with fundamental definitives : space , matter , nonspatial time , that can only be sourced to the animate atomic systematic itself , as temporality details it and a said reality.
Modern and classical science in which the comprehensive localization, descriptivity and comparative distinctivity of the animate atom are undiscovered, but are the dictates of the source of temporality as the so-called spatial commencement of existencia(the big bang) where time ,matter and space are inherent and finitely defined features that acted in precise functionality to eventually formalize a said animate atomic systemic. If the animate atom pellucidates itself as existent in matter , space and time, as animacy does explicity in socalled observation, then a non-sequitur unrenders the sequence of logical analysis that is a socalled start and continuation of a so-called cosmologic reality exactly as is observed
The elementary facet of a system , whether singularly or part-cooptively,cannot be of the ability to exibit its own structure in absoluteness and the structure of the overaching mechanistics, but is capable of idiosyncratic perlucidity. for it is the totality inherent in the systematic, emanating from all facets working as a total processivity, which we can see the temporal facet is not, in that which is termed as cosmological reality, that is the constructionalcapacity of a system.
Appertaining to temporal capacity there is not a reductive compartmentalization in effect - temporality is a strict immediate capacity . It is this conduction that is supposed as the lucidator of inanimacy , space and time(reality) as invariable conformation output , but this immediate capacity(the consciousness, that is a material system of atoms when seen basally)exstructuralizing its source as a particular construct invariably invalidates the construct , which in this case the animate atom and its exponentiality of existence: time space matter and the very conducting capacity- said cosmological reality as is classically thought, therefore the entirety of so-called cosmological existence,as presented by the isolated material system known as the consciousness,is an invalidate construct,meaning that thinking that existence “started” with a big bang and evolved over “time” is not only an incorrect perception,but it is also a “systematically accurate” coherence.

Arcades Cinza

very interesting, can you explain it more thouroguhly with symbols and equations…

like crazy symbols …

8

7

By crazy symbols do you mean the ones you might have seen in Hollywood alien movies that look like the footprints of birds stepping in mud?

I like mysterious symbols with unknown meanings, I like X file movies, the Twilight Zone movies and such, I like crazy and unknown, i like aliens and strange things, I like symbols weird uncomprehensible mathematical symbols having deep unknown meanings and such, like the square root of the square root of only the symbol without any operating number or variable underneath it meaning very deep mysterious unknown things … read all of my posts…

8

9
9
9
99
9

4
t3

g
g3j66
486
3e6
wtw
gw
d2q
4e

As someone who tries to think optimally i have to figure out what exactly i am doing when i am under the impression that i am thinking. It is the core of postulation , the projectural ( i use the word projectural instead of the word conjectural to aid in the understanding of what your thoughts really are within the dynamic of causality and how it fits within material evolution, rationally we cant claim our thoughts as if we own them. Every electromagnetic discourse of the earth, including the purest physicality of neurological processes, directly is a recalibrating effect of gravity as we continue to spin on axis and around the sun, and our traveling through the cosmos at 66,000 mph- this fact never changes . The complete exclusion of the metaphysical connotations in the defining of thought is foundational for absolute thinking.
We should always keep this basic description of the thought in mind. This will keep us on the right side of the tensal divide, meaning that if we observe ourselves expressing thought with pure intent we have distorted our inclusion in the flow of causal material progress–we must understand that we are causal, therefore no thought nor action has ever been out of place or wrong in terms of causal materialization sequency . There is no you nor I per se , no thought per se. We cant rationally claim construction of anything but the absolute totality of reality ,without committing to subjective technicality . we cant logically say that an object is, opposed to another object is what i am saying, for we cannot rationally reduce the reality totality) maintenance of the neurologic specificacy that guides the postulation through the extrapolation of the said occurring neurological specification.
With a layer of subjectivity added it would sound like this : the thought , the idea , that gives you the impression that there is a future accuracy in time, for we do not usually postulate perceived inaccuracy, accuracy that will ease the tension of material incongruity subconsciously perceived by organisms. It is not something that you can feel readily because of how elementary particles are set up scalarly in the atom - we have no conscious representation of how say higgs bosons affect the thought pattern exactly, but they invariably do for they are part of the atom.
To be in reality you have to be intra-relative, meaning that you are a part of the total substantive , therefore as you “experience”(there can be no rational context for experience excepting the actuality of an absolutive reality), reality is invariably experienced as if a lacking state, and will always be approached as if a lacking state. This is materially invariable, therefore you think, you perceive an existence invariably. intelligence is defined always within an acquisitive context for this fact, meaning that intelligence never dislocates what is already known or resulted from knowing because material evolution occurs in time, and from one state to the next can only be rationally defined as extrapolation. All experience is anti-totality, for the fact that a totality cannot have something for a relative, therefore if you are invariably experionical, you and everybody that experience are the only anti-ism there can be rationally, keeping in mind that this is only technical. and as thought itself is you have to see the universe as an incongruous feature of yourself, whether you are conscious of it or not , for the neuroscape is photonic and photonic -reflective ,meaning that our thought arises from photon to photon discourse and how the photon can possibly reflect its discourse with other particles that are not photons .
Knowledge should be defined not as active search equals retention, but as invariable inclusion , equals the maintenance of totality only, meaning that for the fact that you are here ,so-called you could only be rationally defined as a dependent feature therefore we appear to ourselves to be inescapably causal, therefore our perception offers us no actual independence nor independence for itself , but only a directive toward a perceived active synthesis between the universe and oneself, so what we think is the function of knowledge is materially the maintenance of the totality, that we cannot rationally subdivide at any time for any purpose whatsoever , therefore you can never think yourself into an irrational definition of self . As far as totality goes it does not matter what synopsis of reality you might hold as true, it must be a perceived totality, if you are theistic or atheistic you have to construe a totality- your god and the reality he or she created is the totality of what is, for you as a theist. What this means is that if you see yourself as a relative of other objects in reality, you have made yourself incongruous materially; because it is invariable , thought is incongruous. Also for the fact that it inherently conveys requirement-you cannot think without expressing an atomic requirement, or a so-called cognitive requirement.

As someone who tries to think optimally i have to figure out what exactly i am doing when i am under the impression that i am thinking. It is the core of postulation , the projectural ( i use the word projectural instead of the word conjectural to aid in the understanding of what your thoughts really are within the dynamic of causality and how it fits within material evolution, rationally we cant claim our thoughts as if we own them. Every electromagnetic discourse of the earth, including the purest physicality of neurological processes, directly is a recalibrating effect of gravity as we continue to spin on axis and around the sun, and our traveling through the cosmos at 66,000 mph- this fact never changes . The complete exclusion of the metaphysical connotations in the defining of thought is foundational for absolute thinking.
We should always keep this basic description of the thought in mind. This will keep us on the right side of the tensal divide, meaning that if we observe ourselves expressing thought with pure intent we have distorted our inclusion in the flow of causal material progress–we must understand that we are causal, therefore no thought nor action has ever been out of place or wrong in terms of causal materialization sequency . There is no you nor I per se , no thought per se. We cant rationally claim construction of anything but the absolute totality of reality ,without committing to subjective technicality . we cant logically say that an object is, opposed to another object is what i am saying, for we cannot rationally reduce the reality totality) maintenance of the neurologic specificacy that guides the postulation through the extrapolation of the said occurring neurological specification.
With a layer of subjectivity added it would sound like this : the thought , the idea , that gives you the impression that there is a future accuracy in time, for we do not usually postulate perceived inaccuracy, accuracy that will ease the tension of material incongruity subconsciously perceived by organisms. It is not something that you can feel readily because of how elementary particles are set up scalarly in the atom - we have no conscious representation of how say higgs bosons affect the thought pattern exactly, but they invariably do for they are part of the atom.
To be in reality you have to be intra-relative, meaning that you are a part of the total substantive , therefore as you “experience”(there can be no rational context for experience excepting the actuality of an absolutive reality), reality is invariably experienced as if a lacking state, and will always be approached as if a lacking state. This is materially invariable, therefore you think, you perceive an existence invariably. intelligence is defined always within an acquisitive context for this fact, meaning that intelligence never dislocates what is already known or resulted from knowing because material evolution occurs in time, and from one state to the next can only be rationally defined as extrapolation. All experience is anti-totality, for the fact that a totality cannot have something for a relative, therefore if you are invariably experionical, you and everybody that experience are the only anti-ism there can be rationally, keeping in mind that this is only technical. and as thought itself is you have to see the universe as an incongruous feature of yourself, whether you are conscious of it or not , for the neuroscape is photonic and photonic -reflective ,meaning that our thought arises from photon to photon discourse and how the photon can possibly reflect its discourse with other particles that are not photons .
Knowledge should be defined not as active search equals retention, but as invariable inclusion , equals the maintenance of totality only, meaning that for the fact that you are here ,so-called you could only be rationally defined as a dependent feature therefore we appear to ourselves to be inescapably causal, therefore our perception offers us no actual independence nor independence for itself , but only a directive toward a perceived active synthesis between the universe and oneself, so what we think is the function of knowledge is materially the maintenance of the totality, that we cannot rationally subdivide at any time for any purpose whatsoever , therefore you can never think yourself into an irrational definition of self . As far as totality goes it does not matter what synopsis of reality you might hold as true, it must be a perceived totality, if you are theistic or atheistic you have to construe a totality- your god and the reality he or she created is the totality of what is, for you as a theist. What this means is that if you see yourself as a relative of other objects in reality, you have made yourself incongruous materially; because it is invariable , thought is incongruous. Also for the fact that it inherently conveys requirement-you cannot think without expressing an atomic requirement, or a so-called cognitive requirement following the explanation of absolute totality we can only rationally see the universe that we know in analogic , rather than what we term as logic, we cant claim that we have completely apprehended the ultimate logicality unless we are at a piont in our cognitive evolution where we can immediately think pro-state,meaning that we have to get beyond thinking that the energeticism that stands as the basest physical definition of reality is the objective ultimacy. The problem that we are having with the big bang is placing substance prior to time. our causal methodology dictates that the point of infinite energetic density must have had a cause for being in place ,and a cause for being in place to release. we cant accomplish that now ,nor will we ever accomplish that. our nonspatial dilemma, it being a material one invariably, is not an isolated outcome in the so-called universe - it transfers throughout our material inclusion in reality.
Because what we call thinking is a material process , subject to the conservation laws, if we are thinking in a general pattern that says that time must somehow be forced to prior substance, judging with knowledge that a thought is equally as fundamentally quantum mechanic as are the phenomena we easily relate to ourselves as strictly fundamental material discourse , like the triple alpha process , this specific stream of thought, must be impacted by the overall causal sequence of the universe, which rounds off to the statement: in time we are representative of our physical construction especially the limitations of thought, or the perceived limitations of thought, the parameter of our inclusional state.
t this point in history the status on the subject of energy is that it is the prime substance in the universe , and our perception of this primeness correlates to our nonspatial incapacitation invariably. The motivity that is the inherent capacity and consistence of energy is the beginning incorrection. Energy cannot be defined outside of time because of its incapacity - its motivity principle defines existence as being without a static ,non-definitive state of nascence in a real world frame of reference for there are hypothetic mathematical frames of references where energy is heatless and motionless -energy ,for the sake of present scientific platform,must be present and of potential. In this scenario we cannot provide the cause of energy’s description(from where came this inherent potential that now is the prime definer of existence’s “ongoingness”), because that would immediately force modifications to our concepts of causality, for the fact that time is invariably synonymous with the apparently self materializing point of infinite energetic density
energeticism is actually the base formality of our analogic perspective, and this places before us a point of infinite energetic density that has to shatter our principles of logical sequency to exist; the perception of dimension follows the configuration of energeticism, and so does substantive form, these are the main cognitive fallacies that are naturals of the analog , therefore we see where time is implacable physically( time has no physical particulation), but invariably rooted in inherent energetic potential, meaning that time cannot be defined beyond the point of infinite energetic density that released as the big bang.
There is no pre big bang time theoretically possible without changing the principles of time we have configured in post big bang subsequency. This is of course unacceptably paradoxical. Time seems ever present not because it is an ultimate objectivity, but because of how we are set within the totality complex. which is why we cant cognitively place time relative to perceptified substance properly( we are unable to logically put substance ahead of time). there is this a discordance in our thought processes that says that time must come first. We think and we surmise that there must be some intra-continuum that must preface the entrance of energetic substance, but we just cannot put it together logically .
Coming back to free will: given that we do not have it we cant claim being in possession of any type of cognitive or physical capacity, meaning that we are absolutely passive as is indicated by our nonspatial prosistance (the human place in the universe is inseparable from an experience of time), therefore our perception are not ours, for there is no us, you,in an absolute sense, therefore the reason for our perceptions cannot be for what we are said to be perceiving it to be . There is no me wanting a glass of water, because i am perceiving . The overarching totality cannot delegate ultimate premise to internal parts , nor operate, nor function, nor balance - the overarching totality cannot display complexes as those that are perceived as energetic perceptions, ,we cannot simply apply human traits and definitions to the ultimate medium finitely , following the line of reasoning above that states energy without a rational actuation explicability , therefore we cant see the ultimate premise as a directly observable effect as we do the known substantive consistency of the universe.
The big bang start problem is not at all generic . To think is a material discourse , therefore it has cuasative subsequencies within the total system . The same energetic method that orchestrates discourse between atoms is the very same that orchestrates discourse between all atoms and all consistent material features of the universe,therefore there is but a single orchestration stemming from the inherent motivity of energy itself and as we can begin to see here,herein lies our general claim of an analog ,and for an analog , and subsequent to that, there is the limits of our perception of ourselves as real structures, and the rest of the universe as the real supercontruct containing human objects in symmetry, meaning that we see ourselves , and other objects as a specific description that remains true within the context of causality(meaning that what we expect from our observations and actions continuous adherence ad infinitum. Our expectation for an action’s result extend beyond the immediate result , if we cant, cognitively on some level, represent all following results to be accurate to the principles of the universe in which we configure ourselves,then we have become an illogicality, which cannot happen ; because we are underscored as object by energetics, within an uniterfacient totality(of no relative density is what i mean) an energetic system, that we construe as being of governing principles, (scientific description of system energetics) that dictates that every part must be balanced at all time energy is the analogicalization of the ultimate premise , at the very least we must disassociate from our most obvious existencive localization -ourselves as effecting some kind of resistance against causality by thinking with high clarity, or understanding causality merely.
The effection of our being emanates directly from what we perceive as energetic substance, and the most poignant part of this definition being the perception of an inherent motivity to energy, meaning that there is no such thing as static energy perceivable, as any resistance that might do the opposite of what energy is and does.
Now to place this in a nonspatial context , we perceive ourselves as subsequent to energy, and energetic evolution . This is what we perceive invariably ,we cant place ourselves at the big bang except in the form of energy;but looking at what we are now, perceiving a thing that is energy would have to be an analogicalization of an ultimate premise. And we would have to experience the analog as what we term as real, not only real but invariably real.
People would have to be really keen to realize the things that are subliminalized as given, because we do not accept our passivity in the universal sequence of causality . We experience reality at an unimmaginably intense co-spativity, meaning that the relativity of objects and the dynamic of causality never yield to error(keep in mind the inexplicable appearance of the point of energetic density), and that errorlessness cannot be a result , but inherent fact ,something presuppository of energetics and where we can place its introduction in time because causality enters at the big bang; and the point of infinite energetic density, as perceived, has to be prior in some form that has the possibility, the potential of variablity .
This errorlessness is not attributable to causality . what this is showing us is that a pre-big bang scenario is fact, absolutely necessary, and excedent of our present scope of scientific, and philosophic explanation.