Extempore Analytics

The basis for a reality, before we begin to work out how reality functions, has to be established.
Given that reality represents the entirety of everything, if not for its own state, what is the premise for a reality?
Some of us might say that the question is syllogic because an alternative to the logical composition of an irrelative entirety, which an all encompassing reality is, is difficult to imagine. A sound argument could be put forth for a premise being the functioning of the entirety itself, but that would not explain, or even intimate the apparent lack of alternativity, or why what we have is not a static, unchanging state of nothingness( a state that cannot host observation of itself ).
The logical structure of the a priori nullification of the choice must be inherently revealable and solvable through observation of the relativizing constituents of the apparently independent, invariated reality. The premise for a reality, as opposed to a non- reality, will come from an optimized understanding of what we think that we are observing.
This line of argument is beyond whether reality is subjective or objective. Founding premise is superior to the collective demonstratus of perspective, which is a category that covers both the so-called subjective and the objective. In reality, whether we deem experience objective or subjective, we cannot place ourselves as the entirety of it, therefore perspective is circumscribed by the real description of the entirety, therefore the question of premise outreaches every formalization of reality that we have devised thus far, because even the so-called objective perspective is inherently flawed in missing the conceptual portion that must be conducted by the " rest of reality", which is like saying that the entirety validates itself, but our perspective only validates itself, except in invalidating itself until reality reveals itself as a complete and logical reduction of perspective to a configuration where the whole validates itself only as a whole and not something under observation or in any form perspectivizable.
All formalizations of reality thus far have been marginalized by the substitution of function for premise, when actually the beginning nullification of alternativity to the beingness, or in progression, or steady-stating is an embarkment superior to what might have started, and what might be controlling the reality that we are observing.
You must allow for the realization that reality is neither being, or not being. Both of these notions are inherently illogical, and are based on fallacies about the quantativity, and the qualitativity of reality.
We hold physicality, as the defining standard of reality, with all the constitutions that we have come to expect, but if we pellucidate our perspective and expectations to see physical circumscription as a subjugate viscerality, disparities will no longer be existencive, the most pertaining being the beginning of physicalities which we cannot find through the insistence that substantivity is independently empirical. However,what we will find is that physicality could not have begun itself, and that there are consisting symmetrical prevariations of the infrastructural thesis that underscores the cosmological universe from which we were taught not to expect any such framework.
Most of you would be familiar with the term relative density. Now, without a relative density to justify the initiation of the reality that we are a part of, the causal property that appears to govern all aspects of it cannot be absolute; unless we are ready to accept an uncausal factor that started the universe, we will never find a solution to the problem of a rational start, or initiation of the big bang, or the spurious appearance of the big bang singularity of energy.
Also, without a relative density we are faced with the impossible task of logically structuring a time, or position where there is no reality, when there was no reality.
If we allow an occurred, or a reality in progress we have to appropriate a second reality, or some outside construct of initiation, which then would lead us to determine the capacity for the relativity itself, which then logically concludes that these two relatives are actually one construct, and then the argument recedes to the beginning again- what would be the necessary relative density of this bilateral reality, and it goes on forever this way.
It is not a matter of reality being incapable of expressing itself in a position, but a matter of it being actually, and characteristically superior to physical and positional expression.
The real argument is not that reality did not occur and thus is not in progress, but that there is an empirical state that causality and its incremental development are circumscribed within. In using this logical format, the natural non- sequiturous predicament that comes with insisting upon an absolutely causal universe begins mitigation, and the temporal mechanics that are used to
describe the causal universe also comes into scrutiny in a way most pellucidating.
Mathematics is fundamental to the understanding of the causal universe. In the description of constituent relativization quantitatively, and qualitatively, numbers are ascribed to increments, and states, in measurement, and in observation.
A number cannot be ascribed to unreal factors. One cannot simply say that there are two objects where there is only a single object; one cannot suppose infinity where the the quantity in question lacks the numeric justification.
The concept of zero, hitherto, attempts to categorize nothingness- the state of no quantity, and no quality, and it has done a very good job, but the description of nothingness invariably subverts the concept of mathematicalization, and causality.
If we are to assess this state a value, that value must be a non-existable value. This is to say that nothingness, logically, cannot be represented conceptually, or we end up with contradictory outcomes such as negative numbers being numerically less that zero, but representive of real portions conceptually, when what it actually represents is less than zero, essentially less than nothing, which is unanimously nonsensical, one of those things you are told not to question( in my opinion negative numbers and decimal numbers are the worst maldevelopments in mathematics, not so much calculation factors, or calculative procedures. The natural numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4....., represent a limit to the numeric concept that we were too philosophically immature at the time to realize). Given that negative numbers were developed long after the concept of zero was introduced to valuate nothingness, this is excusable.
Zero is better approached as an unwitting complexification of singularity, a singularity that attempts to explain itself, but in being a valuent indication, recedes back to the causal predicament- what initiated this value, this state ? In-and-of-itselfness is fallacious because it apposes function being prior to state, therefore a rational reality cannot be fundamentally linked to the causal premisary, but a rational reality can be a causal universe's encapsulating premise.
Negative numbers and decimal numbers are repetitions of singularity. When we place two negative estimates together we say that they are two estimates, because temporally we cannot conceptualize separate effectives for negatives and naturals, and decimals. Singularity, multiplicity, infinitism, cannot be intricated to suit the malconceptivity of negative and decimal numbers. In an absolutely mathematical reality two negative portions would not be termable as multiple factors, nor would two decimal numbers be termable as multiple factors.
The broad, core aspects of mathematical concept are singularity, multiplicity, and infinitism. They are made to cover three disparate nuances conceptually: negatives, and natural numbers, and decimals in exactly the same way. How can 1.6, or -34 be regarded as representative of a singular factor, or a multiple factor, or an infinite factor, in the empirical case.
New mathematics is not going to come from a topical complexification of calculative processes. You are not going to unite gravity and quantum mechanics with an equation that redefines difficult.
However, it will come from first retracting the intrication of natural numbers, and replacing them with appropriate conceptives, that can be relativistic in the same way a line can be relativistic.
Take a look at the numbers in the forward bracket ( 1, 1.9, 2). The factor 1.9 cannot be paralleled. Let me show you what I mean. . If 1, 1.9, 2 represent three lines of length 2 cm, set in a row to form a line 6cm in length, there is the potential of line 1.9 being paralleled in this example by another line. In natural counting, or calculating, there is no conceptuality that can correspond to the line that parallels line 1.9 in the example. It's difficult to even imagine; mathematics cannot allow a representable, calculatable unit for the paralleling line in the example. But to understand the logical structure of reality, that rationally supercedes the causal parameter, that can result in a fluent and united geometric thesis for quantum mechanics and gravity this type of potential has to be unlocked.

When seen from an absolutely causal perspective, Everything observable in the universe, is said to have been condensed in an infinitely minute point of energy fourteen billion years ago. The entirety of reality was a singularity. Focus on the mathematical qualification of singularity. it is very significant, because from this it is adducible that to be existent, at minimum, the numeric valuation of a singularity must be a part of the full description of the existent; empirically, this is the unification state of quantity and quality, meaning that to be real and existent, you have to be numerically describable as one thing, at least, and thus structurally have to be accordant.
Numerics is a fundamental descriptive character of what we determine to be real. From the causality perspective, existence requires specific dimensional structure to separate reality from so-called nothingness. A real construct, for this fundamental requisite, has to be ascribed an inherent numeric fundament, can even go as far as to say quintessence factor , that is beginningly singular even if we determine decimal, or the complexification of singularity that negative numbers are ( and complex numbers, and matrices) because the context for that portion's realness is its singular fact of being exactly what it is as itself, then the whole of which it is a subjective part.
Numeric principle, inseparable from substantive principle, is indicative of specific energetic and dimensional criteria for an existent to be not only deemed existent, but singular or multiple, or infinite
( for clarification : infinity will be treated a structural nuance of the so-called reality structure, that we cannot experience directly but can suppose via experiencing another structural occase- multiplicity. A more complex, operative conceptuality of infinity escapes us at the moment because we cannot conceptualize at what point do many things become infinite things. Is it in space, in time: we just cannot be empirical about it , but the hypothesis will work out this particular aspect further into the discourse, and go on to introduce numeric structures, greater than infinity).
The logic of causality cuts off at the big bang singularity. To access its logically circumscribing structure we have to conceptualize a preceeding numeric value that corresponds to the unequivocality necessary to supercede a causal state. It has to continue where causality cannot, in terms of constructing reality from apparent effects, and so-called historic effects. If to be real a factor has to be termable as fundamentally structuralized in accordance with singularity at least, then the priorness that we have been trying to find for our causal reality can begin to come into focus by conceptualizing a numeric structure that can logically be made to abide such a condition.
The structural superiority is corresponding to the number characteristic of this state; it definates the structure of this state's lack of actual causal expression. This state, this set, is called the Celestine Preposition, or the First Numeric Value.
In our present understanding, existencive realism goes from singularity, to multiplicity, to infinitism, to post infinitism numeric structures. Because we are now logicalizing a numeric value state that precedes causality, numeric states that are capable of representing values that we would term as greater than infinity become natural proponents of the wider latitude of conceptual reference freed from causality as the empirical authority. These structural type are all analogical expressions of the first numeric value, because fundamentally, being structurally as it is, there can be no logical extenuation of consisting force in the way that we have formulated for causality, hence it is termable as neither being, nor not being.
The first numeric value, cannot be broken down into units of quanta because the entirety of the structure is the relation of its numeric qualitative. We cannot determine it to be an existent , or multiple existents, or an infinity of existents, or greater, nor can we determine it made up of composing parts. Objectively we cannot. But to explicate this numeric correlative in terms of an empirical structuralization of reality, temporal concepts, in explanation, will be carefully substituted , then the objective picture will be held up relatively with the temporal picture for an optimal understanding.
When I say quanta, it is in reference to elementariest features of the universe, base substantive representation, pure energy quanticized as a characteristic symmetry, therefore in an original ground state these quanta forms lack any developmental impact, but possess the capacity to relativize and function, which later differentiated into mass, space-time and all other magnitudes of the universe. This is a complex way of looking at the point of infinite energetic density as a complete symmetric base, much like the big bang suggests, and in partial accordance with what this hyposthesis is positing- that ultimately, differentiatation does not occur, because such occurrences prove themselves insufficiently logical.
We do not naturally include the rest of reality in the format of the causal, temporal perspective, which is required for an objective perspective(which would technicalize it as not a perspective). We cannot think with the complete composition of the universe, entropically relate to yes, but we cannot permute those energetic relativizations into appertainingly temporal reference frames. For instance: though we can observe, and imagine double proton capture, we can only temporalize ourselves actively interpreting such an occurrence, rather than supercede perspective and empossess of the whole what only the entirety of reality can energetically determine as itself, which if we could would precure us from structuralizing compositive reality. However, we can logically negate the purely causal perspectivization by facing the physical epitome of causal perspective- the point of infinite energetic density appearing uninitiated fourteen billion years ago.
The fundamental concept behind the Celestine Preposition is the correspondence of existencive form to numeric value, a synergy between quantative and the qualitative structural format, not merely a proposed state that can logically preceed zero, but it has to explain the basis of singularity and multiplicity, and infinity( and structural forms that lie beyond infinity), and show itself to be more than a composite source, because that would allow causality into the equation- it would have to reveal the intra-relation of these structural forms, essentially removing the differentiations that we are assuming from what, and where we are in the real superstructure, experiencing causality.
Objectively seen, the preposition is without operational mechanics, and force, did not develop in parts. There is no classical energetic distributivity objectively characterizable about the Celestine preposition, which is in correlation to its existencive numeric value's structural format. Its extension of analog forms such as singularity, multiplicity, infinity, and greater is an inherency of form, rather than the being of operationality.
Its encapsulation of the causal perspective, must demonstrate for us an empiricization of the universe we observe, meaning that given the causal nature that is determined for the start of the universe, throughout all determinable development and energetic discourse there is an adherence to the beginning error in every determination that have been made from bare observation and mathematical calculation, which is one of the credible reasons why there is such a delay on a grand unifying theory.
Unless we are ready to admit that at a sub-Planck quantum level all physical aspects, to include space, time, matter, energy, the forces, dark matter, dark energy, are represented by a single quanta type, we will have to admit that there is a separation of the consistency of, and the conduction of causality.
It is observed in the universe that many objects of many different types operate causally. From an objective standpoint this bears a fallacy. Differentiations of an object's construct alter how it relates to other objects causally, like a representative home potential built by the force, and the energetic specifications at different times of its consistence. The Object's physical potential at any given time does not appear to alter the consistency of causality- all causative interactions equal exact proportional effects in every case.
This consistency indicates a more logical structural thesis for reality, because we can logically place the consistency at the start of the big bang as indifferent to the effect that a singularity of energy had to have been, governing an order that the big bang has always required to be unquestionably rational. The consistency is conveyed to us through causality, but it itself cannot be causal.
Order is seemingly conducted by physicalities, but the order, or disorder itself is the ultimate character of all that is accurate, inaccurate, real, unreal, existent, non-existent.
Causality does not show it with any variation, any definite, permutable physical attributes, but its relation to the big bang singularity dictates that it must be exacting of an energement that is characteristically different, but relatable to the type of energy that pervades our universe.
The consistency of which I speak is not seemingly carried out directly by the physical extents of the universe, but this order is best protrayed by sequence, how one effect continues is a factor that supercedes direction, dimension, and spacetime, meaning that the consistency imposes a greater universal leverage, which means that the sequency of effect, or the continuation of the consistency across space and time, is the indirect demonstration of a demonstrably separate energetic typology that supercedes time and space and our universe's local substantive slate.
This actual and energetic form can found any type of substantive order, or disorder anywhere in the universe, in any devisable alternate or parallel universe, can foundation a unification of gravity and quantum mechanics, and explain every anomaly, undiscovered, every seemingly discordant feature of the universe.