I will emphasize that in my previous entry on the current state of the internet, the internet has become "update" focused, the result being that nearly everything that is not highly complex becomes measured only in a degree of "updatedness" which becomes the only meaningful variable of interactivity. Realistically, there should be more than just updates on what we know to be the internet, or future metaverse, a concept that is increasingly I think prone to ironies as blurring emerges between past and future concepts of media. One path to follow is the path to variablism: mathematics is an underused metaphor for the functionality of the internet. Even without using axial diagrams to represent zones of conceptual space or user interface, there may be ways where quantification (that is, sub-division) of key aspects like update could be meaningful. For example, on a qualia level, there should be automatic integration between images in art and language that are judged to be meaningful. This in turn affects the "active concepts" or meta-terminology associations / interests for a given individual. Thirdly, as a consequence of associations which may be linked to specific websites, representations, or applications, a meta-application may be found which implements a "functionality platform" for all associated keywords. Now we have updates in several realms, which are distinct in their approach to functionality: there is (1) the associative level, which integrates with micro-level media choices, such as daily preferences, there is (2) the conceptual space, including accomplishments and organizational frameworks, reflecting abstract choices and hence systematic relationships with other systems, including AIs, universities, corporations, the government, representatives of interests, etc. and there is (3) the application-of-applications, a free or commercial product which makes the most of micro preferences and abstract relationships to express an outward data-state for the individual; Fourthly, what may be added to this is that there is an "intermediate interface" which expresses the "ideal interactions" of the outward information state with other earlier or emergent forms of data; It is only at this stage where I believe the concept of "update" emerges with clarity; Updates are no longer merely "preferences" (however desirable), "abstract data" (however understood), or "functionality platforms" (however presumably perfected), instead attention is paid to the nitty-gritty aspect of just what constitutes ideal dynamic information; This is a level beyond screening for lude content or conducting surveys on acceptability; Instead, programs or bots by which I mean applications such as the "paradines" mentioned earlier, must pro-actively support a wide variety of specialized interests, each built on the paradigm of serving the individual functionally, informationally, and preferentially.
What this means is that (1) there should be scenario editors for much of the media that is available freely on the internet, (2) these editors should provide free or paid services explicitly on the basis of providing superior content, (3) the functional role of the individual should be integrated with these services in a way that ostensibly serves social interest; if that interest is expressed to be environmental, political, economic, or intellectual, such platforms must themselves integrate with trends in media and personalized applications, (4) these preceding trends raise awareness of a need for ever increasing specialization of the output of media, not on an "as-is" basis, but rather on an "ex-priori" basis---the idea that media-as-function-of-media is the key variable in determining media usefulness, this means media in a broad sense; it is then no longer possible to ignore the popularization of artificially constructed novels, public roles for insignificant people, idealization of pornography, and the marketing of free poetika AI, (5) increasingly, these wasps-nests of applications will be a function not of money, policy, or image, but instead the individuality-function within the nests of information; Even without a full cybernetics interface, young people demand to interact with the internet with a complexity consistently at the level of entertaining computer games; What this implies is the standardization of interface, in bold text; Not just worlds landscaped by a media corporation, but the very connection of similar properties of information across the internet, which the user may determine to be themselves, microscopically, a valid basis for entire worlds of information; The future user should be able to determine where a new "world" may be formed; In the objectivity of information science, these worlds will be incidental influences, which are as important as they are influential upon the foundational elements of media science and "updates". But no longer is an update merely an ad hoc "display" of media; Instead, media is a set of hidden associations which implicate the real desires and intellects of the real influencers; Whether these influencers are dead people who once thought great thoughts, or someone very young who has little more than a motivation for color, media should immediately (or, with need, gradually and laboriously) embrace every figment of an idea, and automatically and cheaply build upon it, with the best parser applications tools, so that finally it is possible for everyone to feel "media magic" not as an "as-is" movie expression, but as an "ex-priori" function of EVERYTHING that is important in the WORLD; This will not come as a crushing blow upon egotism, as science has shown that when emotions are a function of chemistry, chemistry takes precedent in the display of interactions; When people get what they want, it is not a failure of chemistry; And it is not bogged down in sophisticated references; People get--magically, "from the best and highest information"---exactly what they want. That is the future. And the new paradigm in economics, but the way, is that sincere investments are a function of culling the best of actual commitments, so loss or gain, all is profitable; Adding variablism, it looks even better. Even if the future is virtual, we stand to gain from genuine information investments.
The internet as we know it can be reduced to a number of neat typological categories. It helps when these categories involve real things that the internet does, psychologically and cognitively, and not just "ideas" about what the internet is supposed to represent. Instead of using categories like "politics" or even "news" it helps to use words like "updates" and "distractions". These secondary (primary) senses of words integrate the concept of the web with metaphysical categories such as causality, psychology, abstraction, and rarification. In this endeavor I will focus on individual/interface references, with implications for social/political references:
Here is a list of the properties:
2. Game theory
5. "Paradines" (a word I have coined for paradigmatic applications)
6. "Textures" broadly defined
7. Social and ideational orchestration
This is a simplified view, but attempts to encompass much of what it means to use a computer, judging by the recent paradigm that much of computer usage means internet usage. For example, indexes, which are one of the major ideas on the internet, can be reduced to a form of game theory, preferences, updates, textures, or social and ideational orchestration; functionality renders the concept ambiguous. If there is a connection between these concepts and a larger framework, it is that these dimensions may be translated into contexts of application, such as virtual markets, social media, and responsibility.
The major purpose of this list will be to serve as a basis for translating new concepts of internet function in my next blog post, about the future state of the internet.
1. Confucius thought determinism was for fools
2. The West thought everyone could be a fool
3. The West determined that idealism was genius
4. Psychology will determine that thoughts are valuable
5. Systems will determine that psychology is viable
6. What cannot be determined is not reinforced
7. (Unless determinism is for fools)
My intuition is a will that is a function of matter and space; The ascription of a will upon a dynamic surface is merely psychological, a matter of self-identification; Whenever the individual can ascribe a result of individuality, even a subjective feeling, to an object that may be observed, this connotes a certain kind of will; But I will not go on to say that all forms of will are merely a matter of perception; Indeed, science more often than not these days will admit that there is some influence of mind upon matter; The more the interesting aspect of matter is discovered, the more it seems to connote our own innate processes, that is, not always volition, but perhaps volition may be termed a small concept; When it is determined that the will is a small concept, it may also be determined that in a field of psychological influences, the will may be one of them; One had merely determine, for example, that consequence is not an imperative of the active volition; It may be that there is an affirmative volition (an idea whose time has come), that one had merely to find a concept that is desired, implicating passivity or ambition (as validity), OR the presence of a concept of willful continuation of motive in the individual; So in a sense what determinists are claiming is that there is a subjective character of volition in the mind; Therefore, for those that oppose subjectivity, such an argument for determinism will not hold; And claiming that determinism and the will are both meaningless concepts does not resolve the original question; What if subjectivity were more or less real than the determined will?; Or if will could not exist without determinism?; It seems possible that a Darwinian theory could place volition ahead of deterministic development, a theory whose disparagers I cannot fully agree with;
What if determinism is ultimately as specialized a concept as the will? For example, it may be stated that without another influence for comparison, a determined context is merely a context without intelligence; Does this assume that intelligence is willful? Or is it ridiculous not to have gray areas between determinism and the will? For example, isn't it possible that determinism exists in multiple categories, and hence, the assumption of determinism is only the assumption of a single definition? Once it looks like a single definition, isn't it inadequate to say that it applies to all types of matter? Then doesn't it look more likely that there is AT LEAST A SINGLE EXCEPTION? But if this were so, the definitions would be identical, unless free-will also exists in degrees. One solution to this is to accept multiple intermediate categories, at which point the original thesis returns, that free-will and determinism are themselves small categories; Along the lines of the prospect that life or consciousness itself is a rather rare specialization (although one that may be open to many imitations); Does a specialized existence look determined or willful? I find this ambiguous; Free-will may easily be thought of as a specialization of an otherwise determined world; To accept determinism tends to be an acceptance of a smaller number of options; Where free-will accepts two or more categories, becoming a law of variety, determinism accepts only one, a law of meaninglessness; Must determinism be meaningless? Determinists would argue no, but as such they are accepting a meaningless definition; The variety that determinists find is a variety with definition, when factually definitions depend on evolutionary, couched, and preferential meanings (even preferential realities) arguing otherwise runs against evolution;
In one case, it can be argued that libertarianism can be accepted as a thought experiment: for if two equally meaningful options are offered, the decision can be seen as a function that is not contingent; either we accept that the options are not meaningful, or it can be established that there is some system of meaning (in the mind or experience) which allows for the result; When the system of meaning is seen to be arbitrary in value, e.g. when another option is known to be equally viable, the source of the desirable determination for one result over another equal result must be a product of the will; This is more certain when it is determined that some aspects of the mind are themselves contingent, both to the value of the incident, and to the indeterminacy of the incident; To disagree on these extra forms of contingency is to disagree with the complexity of the mind, resulting in a simplistic thesis; Yet what determinists typically argue is not any form of simplicity (and it is not that my argument depends on this), but rather a form of unknown; It by this unknown factor, such as by asking 'why'? that I mean to pose the concept of contingency; But am I questioning that 'determinations' are not a factor of available tools? No, actually available tools have always been a meaningless issue for free will, considered as a spatial and contingent concept of determination; And equally I could argue that tools are a meaningful issue contextually, only because they have bearing on practical considerations; One should not argue therefore that free-will is impossible, only that the powers of will are not always a function of the properties of an 'iron sword' or a 'glass and metal telescope'; The idea that it was so contingent upon objects is really a variety of confabulism, which mistakes the labeling properties of things for the meanings, psychological or otherwise, to which we attribute our motivations;
Determinism has many false theses, which some determinists disagree with:
 Matter is of one kind (false materialism)
 There is no contingency of the true kind (false dimensionism)
 The mind does not exist independent of objects (false coherency)
 Complexity does not entail opposite concepts (false dichotomy or ideation)
Free-will accepts more agreeable versions of the theses:
 Matter varies, it is matter IFF (if and only if) it is matter
 True contingency exists between values and determinations via free-will
 The mind may sometimes exist in a manner that is not a function of objects
 Free-will exists as an opposite concept to arbitrary determination
The compatibilist view of these four thesis opposites would run thus, against some of the tenets of traditional compatibilism:
 Matter is determined, but true determinacy (a more qualified definition) is a function of will
 Free-will is the only contingency in a material world, unless significance is favored
 The mind is a material with differences from other materials
 Free-will is not an opposite concept to determinism, in that more extreme concepts are possible
Madness is extreme in every way
Madness is stupid or intelligent
If madness were stupid, it would be fallible
Madness is not fallible
So the original property of madness is intelligence
Survival is the only form of determinism
Madness is not typically luxurious
Luxury is a form of payment when it is not typical of a given quality
If luxury is the quality of madness, it is not an inherent madness, because it is a form of payment
If madness does not have the original properties of madness, it must seek what it embodies originally
If it seeks what it embodies, even if it is not mad, it seeks the properties of its original embodiment
Luxurious madness seeks intelligence
2. Birds getting shot, etc.
3. Archetype, archetype getting stipulated
4. Passive bullets
5. Birds that explode without being shot (phoenixes)
6. "Phoenix" that doesn't explode
7. Art that cannot refer to phoenixes
8. Suicide gun: gun designed to fire at the shooter: "Typological"
9. Exploding clouds are normal clouds
10. Exploding art is normal art
11. Birds with special messages: if Jesus then post-Jesus
12. Fire as interface
13. People as problems: objects as virtues
14. Object problem in art: abstract virtues
15. Abstract deconstruction, "science"
16. Birds re-emerge without a message
17. Explosions re-emerge with a message
18. Bullets re-emerge with an ambiguous message
19. Explosions aren't bullets, and pragmatic messages
20. Art has popular messages, value of pop psychology
21. Art as murder, neurosis, and vengeance
22. Paradoxical morals
23. License-to-art, aesthetic messages
24. Corporate art, art that has been embraced
25. Original art, art that is "New"
26. Avant-garde, translation art
27. Human message art
28. Religious message art
29. Philosophical message art
30. Post-language art
31. Post-audience art
32. Post-human art
33. Post-aesthetic art
34. Boring art
35. Military art
36. Scientific message art
37. Advanced moralistic art
38. Rhetorical art
39. Divine art
40. Post-apocalyptic, deranged, disillusioned, and capitalist art
41. Found art
42. Meaningless art
44. Meaningful art
45. Dynamic message art
46. Trick or Optic art
47. Humorous problem art
48. Privileged aesthetic art
49. Form-of-beauty art
50. Classical aesthetic art
51. Universal aesthetic art
52. Specialist art
53. Transductive, vortistic art, morphization
55. Deep aesthetic, disturbing art
56. Ecological art, botany, gardening
57. Architecture, design aesthetic art
58. Metaphysical design, mandalas, scientific determination
59. Zen art, true minimalism, esoteric art
60. Quantitative art
61. Modular design, computer art, applied art
62. Extemporaneous art, judged art, color art
63. Burning art, spiritual art, "high craft" art, fashionable art
64. Demonic art, banned art, fetishes, primitive art
65. Political art, representative message art, "just is" art
66. Doctrine art, "secret" art, "stimulating art"
67. "Forgotten art", "happenstantial" art, "overpowering" art
68. Polished art, cultural art, traditional art
69. Diamonds, temples, and cemetaries
70. Profound art, bidden art, diabolical art
71. Portrait art, "mimetic" art, "uncanny art"
72. Figmentine art, transpositional art, specialty art
73. Heraldric and symbolic art, motifs, emblems, ikons
74. Systemic art, invention, clever art
75. Magic art, mistaken art, imaginative art
1. Blasted art is not art
2. Blasting is not art unless process is art
3. Results of blasting are not art unless they are a part of art, because results of blasting are only art if blasting is art, and art is always a form of completeness, which consists of parts
4. If ultimately art is not art, if blasting is the only exception to art, then art is always incomplete, or consists of process
5. Things that are represented by aesthetics (that is, synthetics), when they are not real are represented by incompleteness or process
1. Philosophy is a system
2. Philosophy overcomes metaphysics or philosophy is metaphysics
3. Philosophy is a system, so philosophy is metaphysics if metaphysics is a system
4. Either metaphysics isn't a system, or real philosophy is a real system, or there isn't a philosophy
5. When metaphysics isn't a system is when philosophy succeeds without a system
6. A successful philosophy that is a system is not a metaphysics that succeeds without a system
7. Systems may be more important than philosophy
This is probably how the cover for the Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit will appear, for those that plan on purchasing the book. It will be available at Barnes & Noble and Amazon sometime around February or March of next year.
This chart shows the kinds of binary categorical relationships that lead up to the use of both a context and a subject; although here context and subject are potentially identical, in most cases categories are used with subjects and contexts being axiometrically distinct; That is, the subject is a context for the context, and the context is a context for the subject; In this way, the relationship forms an irredicible exclusive relationship on the variety of encompassed definitions, at any scale of complexity; In this sense, the chart above is inordinately dualistic, rather than contextual (although it may be noted that an opposition is a context of some kind)::
What if the world is made on a cursed scroll of perfect paper? Dots would be stars, the evidence of the first dimension;
What if there is the rule that only labyrinths are machines? Real people would be stuck in a zoo dominated by artificial beings owing their allegiance to flawless archetypes;
What if all failures are a product of an obsession with one idea, such as linearity, sacrifice, or sex? This idea might be considered biological illegitimately because it predated ideas-that-we-call-ideas;
What if there were a telephone that when accessed would grant all that one desired in that instant, and only what one desired; Would one's life become characteristic of desire?
Some would say I am restricted from this realm, since I am not mathematically at the calculus level, however I think there is strong promise for alternate types of intuition; While these intuitions may not be formalized, they may not also suffer the narrow assumptions which may be latent in formal methods (that is, the specificity of the system, once fixed rules are adopted); For example, there is a strong difference between mathematical calculus, and a geometric system used to produce logical relations of qualities as shown in the Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit (2013).
Consider my first intuition that Krishna is one of five "major entities"; Perhaps this is a conjecture based on my observation once of a diagram that depicted Jesus, the Buddha, and Krishna with a relatively obscure yogi or terrifier (in my imagination); It may be that this diagram is the only reason for my belief, and I am merely incrementing the process as a way of feeling more sophisticated;
What about in a dimensional framework? It is simple-minded to think that a god relates to one of a given number of dimensions exclusively, although in the Cabbalistic tradition the one-god is sometimes referred to as the first dimension (this does not help much with hypercubes, I have even seen one video which laments the interpretation of a higher-dimensional god, but obviously this is just a symptom of human folly, or perhaps more ridiculously, the actual limitation of an actual god, as though to say that computers got ahead of the game);
According to tradition various of the Eastern gods relate to infinite dimensions, with incarnations that terrify the boundary of known manifestation (one had merely need to look at the Bhagavad-Gita, of Krishna's "many, heads, all-turning" etc); So it seems imperative that one accept there are many arrays of dimensions which are subject to a real god, when real; So what about five dimensions? This then seems like a natural choice, because it is the next step beyond four-dimensional reality; There might be a convention that a god eclipses an available reality by one dimension of significance; Say, as a way of showing patient efficiency;
So that is the first assumption, that Krishna, like other gods, is the fifth dimension to the four-dimensional beings we aspire to be; What then of a second intuition? I could suspect next that Krishna has 7 or 11 dimensions; What does the difference entail? I am hypothesizing that the fourth dimension grows by three dimensions, as though to say that it cannot be negated; Also, by saying 11 dimensions I am saying that he has dimensional advantage upon the decimal system; Does it have to be this sparse?; 11 dimensions could also represent a value of 6 upon 5, or a kind of first degree total mastery of time;
Comparing the two "interests" of the 5th to the 7th or 11th, a pattern emerges (first) that modularity defines the extensivity of the equation, in a similar manner to Pascal's Triangle, and secondly that forms of diminishment represent conservative processes which are subtle when balanced (as in 6 and 5 to make 11) and more axiometric when large and small numbers are used together (as in combining the 10th and 1st dimension to equal 11);
What is the diabolical calculus in this example?; It is the ability to "intuit" intelligent properties without reaching their ostensible level of complexity;
So what are we saying about the existence of 5 gods for five dimensions? Maybe it makes typological sense after all---! But equally, the modulus of dimensionality seems to extend into subtle properties which are as much eternal as they are simple; And they are not simple in their higher dimensionality;
Sometimes I have wondered about the origin of geometry and numbers, and found that perhaps the fourth-dimension in the first is more expressive of nature than either dimension by itself; It seems possible that mathematicians are overlooking the real nature of properties, by gathering them into formal constructs; What god would not find exception to geometry?::
Applying this to philosophy is yet another thing. My intuition is it relates to architecture. The major problem is if low-dimensional entity chemistry isn't developed, or if architectonic exceptions are not found. Perhaps my forthcoming book could help someone with the knowledge components of such a system.
Compare the earlier example of an animated hypercube with the example of dynamics evoked in a 2-d surface: here patterns amongst lines may give a hint about how to extend a hypercube into a dynamic four-dimensional realm (that is, a world of objects); To a conventionalist viewpoint, some of the effect may seem like magic; Or am I hallucinating?
If you have trouble, try imagining a cube suspended within that space; Ostensibly dramatic 4-dimensional effects could be created in 2 dimensions within some specialized cases; See for example, my art which depicts a dynamic drawer: Dynamic Art Example. It really seems to click and slide.
Another example, outside of graphics is the phrase "there is no wall in my eyes that keeps me from swallowing the voices of birds": it evokes birdsong in the mind.
In philosophy, the hypercube or tesseract represents the inherent complexity of a two-dimensional surface, and the dynamic, structuralized potential of the fourth dimension; According to one theory, time is interpretable as the nth dimension in an nth-dimensional context; acquiring additional dimensions merely requires more complex exceptions, and a more complex set of working instructions;
In the second and third dimensions, a hypercube is an extension of the basic properties of geometry, continuing to affect an inflective relationship between opposite surfaces; In other words, a hypercubic figure (even an animated one) does not oppose axiometry; instead, it promotes complex rules of correspondence; More on this I think in the future::
Some have argued that there is no objective form of ignorance; If they do not argue this openly, they will sometimes cater to a viewpoint such as subjectivity, ersatzism, or egoism;
Subjectivity, although a category of metaphysics which is differentiated between philosophical solipsists and psychological individuationists, has the common theme of believing that reality is defined by the mind, or pessimistically by some sort of manipulative god; Clearly these could be symptoms of ignorance;
Ersatzism in the negative light, is something such as that put forth by creationists, in the positive light something such as the philosophy of David K. Lewis, which argues for a scientific outlook on metaphysics;
Egoism is now classified as sophomoric in many minds, at best a kind of intermediate theory that applied more to psychology than to serious philosophy; As an example, some who may have been egoist philosophers have actually turned to environmental philosophy, such as the statement "only rocks are real", this obviously may reflect the theme of ignorance, even if at one degree of remove;
Although I will argue later that ignorance of ignorance is not completely possible, there is an argument for objectivity which can be ignored, although with serious dangers; This is the argument that, contrary to some people's expectations, dish detergent does in fact actually end up in the ocean; Even drinking water from river sources sometimes has bubbles which have been accumulated from dumping dish detergent down the drain; Very few people have adopted ecological controls about this substance in particular;
Thus, the only claim at subjectivity is a form of 'universal subjectivity', that the entire world is somehow built for our individual benefit; Although the rich and famous might feel this way and use their leverage to convince others (even unwittingly), clearly there is a firm argument that any evidence of human folly and frailty is not obviously a world built for one person, unless by some very perverse kind of joke---a joke I will say runs against probability to the point of being impossible;
What then of ignorance of ignorance? Factually, we cannot deny a slightly contrary claim to the above, that each individual is built with a pragmatic imperative which secures a kind of "right to life" within whatever beneficial parameters are available considering contingencies; It is only in this sense, of a practical "law of self" that I am willing to consider that ignorance is possible; For largely, failures of personal duty to the self are failures of society, not failures of individuals;
And failures of society can be delegated partially to failures of politics, which in the microcosmic view are themselves functions of mere ideas; So, some would say, any intellectually minded person has a choice between long-term benefits (political consequence, creating a society which provides for selfish interests) or willful ignorance of the benefits of either thoughtfulness or selfishness;
The two strands of this argument (environmentalism and pragmatism) also relate to my previous argument against time, in which I state that the human dimension in a pejorative (that is, finite) sense is one of the major counter-arguments to the pursuit of longevity::
This may not be as involved as my argument against war, afterall time in the negative sense might be seen as a type of war; In this sense many classifications which are negative suffer from specific arguments when the category is broad; Otherwise, they may be relegated to semantics, under the view that 'time' or some other concept (such as metaphysics, or illusion) is not negative;
So, in one flange of the argument, we are assuming that time is a negative concept; We have defined it as 'death' personified, or the 'cosmic editor'; In some sense these definitions may be embracing an artificial reality in which 'man is only flesh and blood'; If this is the case, the argument against time is against the hypothetical failure of human frailty, or any blameworthiness (as in the Christian tradition) that the flesh embodies our weakness;
Yet, so far as that seems to go, a practical nagging question emerges that perhaps flesh and blood is not the only definition of man, or if it is, it may afterall be a flexible concept; What is the difference to immortal time if the individual lives to fifty versus five-hundred? In this sense, I am indulging the sense of an artificial difference which relegates the problem to one of an assumed scale or assumption of the finite significance of human (or post-human) life;
What then if the significance of human life is, through some means, actually finite of significance? Here what is being assumed is that human life is optimized---that it fits some 'characteristic irony' or 'human dimension' which can be analyzed and understood; However, I see no such necessity to lean on the idea of human dimension as an understanding that is inherently finite; In my view we are only limited by health (that is, we are limited by the limitation of health, or the way in which health IS the human dimension);
So if humans are not characteristically finite, perhaps we are still characteristically optimized; But that is not my belief either; Indeed, the open dimensionism of the human dimension is also the open dimension of optimization; In some sense, we are highly contingent beings; In this sense I don't mean merely that we have mortal toil upon the earth, but preferably instead that the high variability of potential outcomes is informative about an additional variety of potential meanings; When meaning may be variable, the only denying of human existence is the denying of human significance;
What then stands in the way of longer human life in a debate?; Perhaps an inability to produce technical information---! And I can sense that many minds return to this one idea, perhaps if not a lack of process then a lack of intelligence, if not a lack of intelligence then a lack of intuition; And I find this arguing pathetic; Easily some implied group of authorities or representations, such as citizens or government, could set forth one of these ideas: process, intelligence, or intuition if not another; And in fact the breadth of significance for any one of these categories may be nebulous and vague, in the context of the idea that an aphorism may be drawn from a broad array of social contexts and influences;
Who is to say that the influences of the aphorism must be positive? But the causality of human significance is deeper than mere positives and negatives; Health itself is a dimension beyond information, within the scope of human potential; Again it may be seen that someone thinks that we are optimized, or else that we cannot produce technical information; And if not, it is as though to believe that health is not legitimately an extension of human significance, when clearly it could not meaningfully be otherwise; So either aphorisms are dimensional in the capacity of human health and wellness, or aphorisms may be seen as a lack of information, or a manifestation of the "optimum human dimension" under the view that humanity is already perfected;
I am not a supporter of the view that humanity has been perfected, and some would say this is the flaw in my argument; But who would deny that it would be an advantage to extend human life? Those that oppose this view are believers in an already-existing optimum, the view that death is beneficial; When death is not beneficial, arguing for "mere history" is a support of a failure of meaning, or worse, the inconsequence of pessimism;
I hope my readers support some of this argument, and I encourage comments of the philosophical variety::
1. Just as a hill does not hinder an object from rolling in one direction or another upon it, a device using a rolling weight which switches direction is not inhibited by the physical embodiment which allows this altercation to take place; If there is a frictional force, this does not impede an actual device, when the actual device has a principle of motion; It only impedes a device which has no such principle of altercation; For this purpose, it is sufficient to say that the only condition in which the device is hindering is a case in which perpetual motion is impossible; I will not make that assumption;
2. There is no denying that vectors exist, and vectors are not the only principle concept I am using; Because dominoes may be used to reset one of the original dominoes, there is an obvious blurriness even in the use of very simple objects to express vectoring; It is easily possible to imagine, ala Achilles and the Tortoise, that if matter were infinitely divisible, such a reaction as the dominoes would be sufficient for perpetual motion;
3. What the previous statements amount to is the idea that toggling is sometimes very indicative of perpetual energy (since we have shown that vectors are subject to a certain reducibility); Otherwise we are saying that perpetual motion is impossible;
4. From the principle of momentum without velocity = momentum without force (still possible), toggling is not rendered logically impossible, both with friction and with the principle of conservation of energy; Essentially, what is being said is merely that any energy involved in the system goes to counteract friction; The sum total is equivalent to an object at rest; Physics does not deny this; What is being added is merely the statement that motion is still possible, albeit motion with no inherent energy; But because we are considering a situation that physics treats as an object at rest, energy is still possible, following from the statement that an object could be rolling on a hill, and simply not have begun moving; Furthermore, the vectors involved suggest to some minds that the sum total of energy is zero, when instead it incorporates vector toggling::
Causal Equilibrium may be possible in these four cases:
1. The case in which an object has no mass (photons)
A. By product with relatively absolute velocity
B. As a condition of not accelerating
2. The case in which the vector of transfer does not consist of energy
A. Force in a vacuum
B. Force transferred over distances
3. The case in which an object has zero velocity [the secret of relative mass]
A. An object at rest
B. An object reacting to a principle of vector toggling,
with zero sum momentum by terms of
4. The case in which the object has endless energy
A. Finite continuous energy such as "unbreakable
B. Universal or relatively universal causality
In each case a energy may be produced by treating force-vector as a surplus.
[Newton's Laws:  Nothing tends to speed up, slow down, or change direction without applied force  Force = Mass X Acceleration  For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction;]
Applied Laws of Volitional Mechanics:
 Pre-existing forces may be infinite in number, and when pre-existing, may be explained by properties of matter which are not energetic; when they are so explained, it is possible to speed up or slow down, but not change direction, without a NEW force acting on the object; Furthermore, in this context physical incidents may be explained by RATIOS which are not inherently inertial (although they often or usually are);
 When acceleration is constant, all that may be required for force is mass and gravity; Furthermore, when mass, like photons without real mass, have no real velocity (referring to the equation for momentum, momentum = mass * velocity), then no gravity-velocity is required for momentum; If no gravity-velocity is required for momentum, then momentum is not a function of velocity at all; If it is not a function of velocity, it cannot also be a function of acceleration, because acceleration is produced by modifying velocity; In short, when energy is a condition of mass and gravity, if acceleration is a pre-condition, then velocity is a function of mass and not acceleration; If this seems too ideal (divisible indefinitely), it can be argued that sometimes mass possesses momentum without velocity (as in the case of an object tethered on a slope), in which case it is seen that velocity is not a function of mass, so therefore, mass does not equal momentum / velocity; Instead, what is symbolized is a mass-force, which equals zero in the case of a tethered object, justifying that the velocity is equal to any number, but the momentum is zero; This stands in for a more sophisticated equation, in which it is determined that consistent velocity (perpetual motion) is a function of momentum without velocity; In other words, to depict that velocity could be any number is fallacious; In fact, velocity is arbitrary when it is not constant; The major conclusion is that force = mass * acceleration is not a constant depiction of acceleration; Indeed, only perpetual motion would concede that it is so; So, within a picture of many physical events occurring, Newton's equation provides no groundwork for determining absolute senses of any of the data; Only a standardized, reproducible acceleration would do so.
 For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction assumes that objects cannot be causal equilibria; If causal equilibria were possible, this law could in some circumstances be struck out;
Combining the applied laws of volitional mechanics:
Physical relationships which act like objects at rest may have properties of perpetual motion in the instance of exhibiting a causal equilibria; Causal equilibria can be demonstrated nearly perfectly by the properties of mass, but not acceleration; However, acceleration has been proven relative, so only a small degree of perfection is necessary in the case of acceleration::
A fibrillator (fluctuating device, such as a reed instrument) involving synesthesia (the overlap of multiple types of sensory input). A continuation of a theme of pseudo-scientific ideas, synesthetic fibrillator can be treated as a kind of archetypal classification similar to the Aolian Harp, the Golden Braid, or Pan's Pipe.
Essentially, quantity overlaps with system and quality variables, producing a kind of synergy in which these types can become "fossilized" in eachother. For example, sensations recorded in systems become music, and quantity recorded in systems becomes classification. Quantity recorded in sensations becomes digital language or codification.
So the fibrillator relates these secondary aspects of its utility, namely codification, classification, and music. These in turn become overlapping categories which establish identities for sensations. Through correspondence---which transpires in synesthesia---codes are musics, classifications are codes, etc.
But what is the imputation of the device? Clearly there is a "vertical" series of centers, such as biological integration, interface interactivity, and social networking that corresponds to sensations and the various languages which may express them. And, like these vertical centers, other horizontal or diagonal centers may exist which also embody a sensory paradigm.
[Note: I think it is understood that some Neo-Platonists don't believe in God, then the term is used to mean a reference to a hierarchy of knowledge that exists in reality, or simply any major difference of realities that can be transgressed].
I have been musing, as the saying goes, that all Western intellectual accomplishments are similar to footnotes to Plato. Maybe this extends even into nuclear and quantum physics. Maybe, fundamentally, there is a fundamental definens of thought, that runs deeper in Plato than in his followers. Sometimes, it may even run as deep as a psychological insight about the nature of ideas.
A case in point is the nature of black holes. Continually there has been an un-graspableness about them, creating ideas that it might be possible to time-transport through them, or that they embody a different "dimension" of chronology, or even space, that they might be a kind of waiting room or Phantom Tollbooth, but it seems that many of these ideas are incidental compared to the reality of black holes. At least, that is how it would be if black holes were real.
So it returns to Platonism. Either we are idealistically creating ideas that materialize in the world, in some sense judging ourselves according to various religious traditions, or there is a simple matter of not being able to quite observe reality---that something remains much like a distant wall of the cave, which we cannot quite comprehend. What waits or weighs (not, I think, awaits, as though we are moving towards them) behind a black hole? Perhaps some knowledge beyond the realm of knowable and computable physics. Or perhaps, to the idealists, some genuine knowledge, that has eclipsed beyond the realm of things known today to human kind. Otherwise it seems certain that even Plato would not find it upon the surface of a wall.
[Notably, Douglas Adams, in his Hitchhiker series, mentioned a wall of unfathomable scale, a kind of mathematical difficulty, existing in space, as a kind of definition of knowable physics; Perhaps, sometimes, such a wall would not become a black hole, perhaps there will be at some time a Copernican revolution in architecture, or at least this is what Adams seemed to be joking about, or ironically impugning]
Every few months, sometimes longer, I find a new idea for perpetual energy. My recent design is triangular-shaped, and I have yet to work out precisely how the track works, but typical of my designs it uses a single ball-weight which operates a differential principle.
In this case a kind of "bezel-weight" (an ugly but functional name, I know) is used, to counteract a progression along two tracks which are sloped downwards, doubling back. The two tracks are positioned across a fulcrum unevenly, so that the last track leads up to the fulcrum, and the first track mostly follows after the fulcrum. A small more sharply upwards sloping track joins the two segments, and is positioned in opposition to the bezel weight, slightly to the side of the first segment of track. The result is that when the bezel weight is de-activated by low leverage or bearing on the first part of the first track, then the weight is permitted to roll on the first track and apply pressure downwards until the first and second tracks are fully activated. At that point, the bezel weight is activated (not de-activated), but the slope continues downwards on the second track, until the bearing on the track structure is minimal, and the bezel-weight is then de-activated.
Because of the sideways pivot of the entire track structure, disinclusive of the bezel weight (which is mounted seperately), the bezel weight not only allows some (although not 100%) return momentum on the lever activation, but the second portion of track is allowed to be sloped upwards, not downwards, once the bezel weight bears down, by being de-activated.
The result is a kind of swivel device, with slightly less illusive subtlety than the Coquette device. Thanks for reading.
My work on the Dimensional Biologist's Toolkit, and another book that may be about math has lead me to believe that my intelligence is slowly progressing and further progressions and vistas may be available in future times.
Some of this follows after my short stint on economics at Twitter, where I attracted the following of Reuters economists ("@macroscope") for my contributions at project-syndicate.org, on variablist and categorical economics.
As posted on Twitter, which is updated on the bar at left.
["Variablism": using opposite types of currency to benefit the status quo, via a fixed, inverse proportionality. Consider that a context set can be used independent of a subject set.]
In dimensional economics, there is virtual profit on relative concepts
In dimensional economics, opposite categories demonstrate a kind of quantum entanglement
In dimensional economics complexity scales to perfection scales to complexity
In dimensional economics contexts are only profitable by cyclical modality
In dimensional economics, cyclical modality scales to the degree of dimensionism such as the number of opposite variables
In dimensional economics, as in dimensional philosophy, the number of opposite sets = dimensions / 2
I am a philosopher, artist, inventor, and poet (in some capacity), and a member of the International Honor Society for Philosophers. My quotes have appeared in Book Forum, the Hartford Courant, and other independent websites. A comment at The Economist cites my possible influence on the economic policy of India. One of my artworks once sold for $1 million off the street but I ended up returning the money. I have written many books on topics such as perpetual motion machines, philosophy systems, and the occult. I live alone in New Haven, CT.