Value ontology is like a v where the macroscopic is the top and higgs boson is at base, but below that is value ontology. It is like a seed [O] [in its underpinning philosophy] at base to the whole person at top, and so supersedes existence [V], hence eternal recurrence.
Trouble is that the ‘O’ doesn’t exist, because the ‘V’ also doesn’t exist. One can look at a thing e.g. A person and reduce it down to parts, then keep going until you get to the root particle [= the V] ~ so forming the shape. However, what is actually occurring is that the universal set of bases and levels/scales of existence [sub/atomic, macroscopic] are all in motion, from the quantum flux upwards. The shape of VO then is a singular perspective view of the world, which fails to recognize the universal motion from the quantum flux upwards.
Or in short; there is only change, therefore there are only variables.
0 can be looked , understood, differently. Where 0 is proximal and static. This paradox may be explained, and not being a physicist, can only form this as a reasonable assumption, that the 0 vibrates so in distinctly, that it can even be a substratum to the wave/particle test. Here, assumptions of imputing microscopic intelligence need not apply, for minute vibration approaches zero.
Well, Jacob, I do not gather that I could explain it any better, only by seeing
the correlation, as other than conventional definitions of understanding, that absolute
limits of both qualitative, and quantitative interpretation can even make sense.
But seeing it as a dance, underneath knowledge would be an interesting way to look at it. A sort of cosmic dance.
What does that mean; that “the 0 vibrates so in distinctly, that it can even be a substratum to the wave/particle test.”…
We are then speaking in terms of a substratum less formed than the wave-particle duality and QM variation!? This is why it is probably impossible to give such things a value ~ a particular distinction/peculiarity, let alone a whole ‘value ontology’ whereby something of the whole is in that as its ‘seed’.
The ‘zero’ is infinity/eternity and surely does not itself have movement. I would then go to infinite sets and that can then reasonably resolve into injectives, then we then get a denumerable amount of quantum places or positions ~ the quantum matrix/universe. Otherwise we are imagining something of a pyramid with nothing outside of it, and cannot resolve first cause paradox with that model.
There’s a long way between 0 and 1. I don’t think we should confuse smallness as imagined again, after existence has measurably become more fluid than objects with values. We have logically and reasonably already gone beyond finiteness.
I do think there is some manner of pulsing or tick-tocking of realities clock, but to me its more like a law or principle, than something physical actually ticking and tocking. or at most to do with the obscure faculties of observation [mirroring] at base perhaps.