The Diabolical Calculus

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?::

Dimensions 1 through 6

on Youtube: 6th Dimensional Hypercubes

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.

4-d in 2-d Without Formal Structure

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.

Animated Hypercube

Video of an animated hypercube.

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::

Concerning Human Ignorance

https://hypercubics.blogspot.com/2025/09/subject-work.html

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::

Argument Against Time

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::

Precepts of Irrationalism

Precepts posted at Twitter recently:

Is irrational rationalism possible? Yes, because not choosing an opposite entails a contradiction

Should irrational rationalism be chosen? In minimalism, yes: so long as an explanation entails complexity;

Someone really is a fool: a small point to a rationalist;

Someone really isn't a fool: a small point to an irrationalist;

Deconstruction: a major point to a rationalist;

Coherency: a major point to an irrationalist;

Impossible things may be true, because of theories about unreal things: bogarts have dimension in thought;

There are answers that do not answer;

There are problems that are not problematic;

Answering problems is a problematic answer;

Knowledge of problems is not knowledge of solutions;

Take your pick, they don't conflict;

On Vector Toggling

Principles

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::

On Causal Equilibria

RIGHT HER BRAINCHILD WHICH SHE KEPT WITH HER IN HER HEAVEN ON EARTH BECAUSO

I BECAME THE PIGON AND THE BLAME LIKE BIG GAME WAITING ON THE AWNING

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
          acceleration limit
4. The case in which the object has endless energy
     A. Finite continuous energy such as "unbreakable
          objects"
     B. Universal or relatively universal causality

In each case a energy may be produced by treating force-vector as a surplus.

Newton's Laws in the Context of Perpetual Motion

Reacting to Newton's Laws:

[Newton's Laws: [1] Nothing tends to speed up, slow down, or change direction without applied force [2] Force = Mass X Acceleration [3] For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction;]

Applied Laws of Volitional Mechanics:
[1] 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);
[2] 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.
[3] 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::

Synesthetic Fibrillator

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.

Black Holes Mean a Return to Platonism?

[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]

Signs of long-term intelligence

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.

Some of this seems exciting to me.

Precepts of Dimensional 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

Empirical Consolation

Continuing the subject of what I call pseudoscience;

A class text discusses the development of empiricism from Locke, to Berkeley, and Hume, (and the Logical Positivists, who I will ignore for now); Evidently according to the text, Kant's morality is the only major rebuttal to what are otherwise sound arguments; For example, Hume's fork (the choice between synthetic and analytic statements, or else nonsense) has been used to deconstruct the concept of god into a hypothetical condition that is at best neither real nor unreal without evidence (Catholics argue that the world itself is evidence, whereas others respond that the world is not proof evidence of what the Catholics claim; and what is evidence without proof? It is not evidence at all);

Nonetheless, to an irrationalist such as myself, who believes that some very exceptional truths influence truth-statements, and even that no exceptional reason is ordinary, the empirical claim does not look like consolation, it just looks like a way of being lazy; What are scientists doing engaging in science without very unusual hypotheses organized in sets and rows to compensate for the mundanity of testing procedures? Some would say that the excitement of science has only begun, or that it has always been present; And as a result, I have been persuaded to attempt writings about biology and psychology, which I plan to eventually self-publish.

What is the conventional consolation of empiricism? Perhaps there isn't one; Old writings are full of stories of how dark and cold or behaviorist science is or has become; So we can scarcely say that, from that plateau, the new trend is 'futurism'? Can we? What is advanced except an idea? So at what point do scientific ideas become concrete? From an onlookers vantage point it may appear that only the most advanced developments have intellectual cachet, and even so, only ephemerally; What does this say about the consolation of empiricism?; Is the value merely a scientific routine?