The Paradgim I Operate In

This is a snippet from a conversation I had concerning the paradigm I operate in:

My constructs are beautiful because they are elegant, though, it is really just an implementation of abelian fields…

…The basis of my paradigm is a semantic ontology – domains of knowledge and tacit experience. The networks of the semantic ontology have linear transformations and is a differential of intentionality – I can show how experience and intentional objects change along with their corresponding waves and harmonics because it is orthogonally diagonalizable. It’s an abstraction of how concepts exists in a network and it currently compliments models used in neuroscience. It presupposes that these derivatives can act as tensors that transform physical states. Basically, my constructs are just a formalization of a semantic network that is a configuration of a higher-dimensional field. It doesn’t deviate wildly from science in that it just requires you add more dimensions that are supersets of physical ones, and if you do that, you solve the issue of how what’s in the brain gets out of it…

…Since the tensor is integrated by consciousness, it sort of implies a level of arbitrariness. Basically, you can create your own rules – like a game. This makes it so the IIH is no more special than Skyrim. This isn’t to say these things are real; rather, it is just to say that it provides derivatives and vectors for how physical states could be changed, but you do have a concept of magnitude meaning not everyone’s intentions have the same “weight”. Think of it like balls attached to springs of different lengths and properties coiled up. The bounce of the ball is correlated with the properties of the coil. That’s tacitly energy, so what determines the magnitude of that bounce is that “energy”. So my “game” can exert more influence than another’s because of the properties of my psychic field. This implies I can use any symbolic system because I can infuse it with my “power” or “magic”.

To say it simply, my ontologies just are a formalization of consistent structures in psychic fields that interact with things. You’re basically just creating a vector space in a psychic field within a phenomenological domain that can transform physical states. By formalizing them as such, you get modes of resonance which amplify the amplitude of the waves derived from a Laplacian matrix and Laplace equations of the semantic network. Think of it as amplifying the “energy”. It’s pretty because the theory behind it is pretty. You end up getting spherical harmonics and laplacian properties similar to what you see in Quantum Chemistry, so the elegance demonstrates somewhat of a duality.

…Deriving wave equations and spherical harmonics from semantic networks is more of an abstraction of a lot of things you see chemistry than the incorrect concepts you see in the IIH in theory because you get spectral graphs and wave functions. This isn’t to say psychic harmonics emerge from any quantum anything – see me noping out of quantum woo; rather, they resemble each other in form such that it looks more like chemistry. This allows me to work magic – like alchemy; without being cognitively dissonant…

Mathematics has a connection to reality no one quite understands and there are tons of debates about whether or not numbers are even real. See this link:

Are Prime Numbers Made Up?

Math is an inference of empty symbols and their rules – it’s more abstract than reality, which is why it can be used for anything. Math is not about vectors of reality, but it can be used to describe reality and build things. In a sense, it is a form of magic. The brains of people doing math resemble a lot of what you see in transcendtal experiences…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

ˆ Back To Top