Is no bias at odds with relativity and difference both being true?

Your presupposition that "relativity is a state of error," the remaining statements are moot.

Can you just clarify that connection?

It's because relativity is a theory.

I just mean relative; being identical to something else.
If symmetry and its absence are both true, is bias required?

Most people don't value symmetry or its absence unless it's observable.

But relative to the source, encompassing life.
The source can be X, and reality Y and G. Y and G are symmetry, but X needs - Y and G as well as Y and G; can Y and G be both inversion and distinction without bias?

But Y and G are already based on bias.

I can see the logic of what you mean, but can you just demonstrate the bias?

Sure. Whether it's Y or G, the people who are aware of the issue (or what ever that provides a choice) will pick one or the other. They are based on one's perception of what he deems a better choice. Some people like vodka, and others like whiskey. Some even like both (like me). As a first choice, one must pick one or the other. It's Y or G, and Y and G. But Y and G must come in sequence.

You could mix the vodka with the Whiskey... and you could do it at the same time pouring the vodka with one hand while simultaneously pouring the whiskey with the other so that neither is first. There could even be some absinthe in the glass first. And the glass could be marked with a picture of a canary and placed on a red table in a living room with a bay window.

Why is this silly thread tagged as "Science"?

With my unsteady hands and poor sight, I'll get it all wrong!

I agree with your rationale.
Y and G need to have no order in order to allow the freedom to pick. However, the natural mystery that arises from this is that if selection is because of equality, how is it justified if the outcome of selection is dependent on difference?

The difference is based on the observer, not the Y or G.

The observer is Y and G. At least it is relative to the source.
The relativity of observer and observed is separate from God, yet God as meant to be exempt from the paradigm of relativity is nevertheless reflected.

You need to define what they are observing, and what their conclusions are.

G = Y
Y = G

Y = (G = Y)
G = (G = Y)

To know of relativity requires bias. To know that Y is itself being G means that Y and G can't exist by the same amount, relative to God.

I think what I'm trying to understand is if God needs to be biased in order for equality to be true.

When you bring god into the equation, it's already a lost cause, because you can't prove your god exists. 0=0.

Erase God, and instead just Y = (G = Y).
The same problem occurs. The knowledge of equality literally requires imbalance - can this pattern ever be overruled?

G + Y = (G = Y) fails to represent equality, as it leaves the uncertain knowledge that the equality would persist were one of the constituents to vanish.
G = Y = (G = Y) is just absolute disparity.

I'm not sure you're using the correct word. "Overruled" sounds political rather than sociological.

Equality will never be achieved. There may be an appearance of equality, but that's because of laws against discrimination in developed countries. If you understand that blacks are treated differently in this country based on their skin color, you will begin to understand why equality will never happen.
You have heard of 'white supremacist' and the kKK, haven't you? They still exist even though our country has laws against discrimination.

We see too often a white policeman shooting a black man without cause.
http://mappingpoliceviolence.org/unarmed/