Philosophy is created by belief!

[Sculptor]

Agree.

If I can elaborate on the "extra-planar connections" using basic math:

1+1 = 2

2 = 1+1, -1+3, -2+4, etc.

All circularity allows for then maintainance of a set of axioms while allowing for progressive variation.

Cycles always are connected to other cycles, and a circular argument thus not necessitate contradiction.

Now as to the ones you do not believe have connections?

This is all good, and circular. As far as concepts go the statements are correct in an absolute sense.
In real life they can be used to represent observable facts, but only approximately.
There are no integers in nature, and no two things can be absolutely identical since no two things can be exact in dimension, time, and space.
5 oranges added to 5 oranges are 10 oranges.
But 1 orange is not equal to another orange.
There is also a lack of straight lines, perfect circles and other shapes. So whilst maths talks about perfect spheres and so forth, no perfection of the sort can be found in nature. Maths even in its own terms creates a series of incommensurable values such as PI, SquR of -1, perhaps because we live in an analogue reality but are trying to squeeze our digital system of integers.

I want to agree.

And I mean I actually want to.

Actually nature is grounded in points, lines and circles strictly because of its atomic nature.

1. All phenomenon from a distance are always point particles in the context of the space in which they are observed. Upon closer inspection the phenomenon is composed of point particles (jagged edges, etc.)

Conversely all places that look smooth and straight by the eye, when looked upon closely are lumpy uneven and jagged. SO for the everyday mundane world of the human metric. Engineers , carpenters and architechs go to strenuous efforts to create mathematical percection but are thwarted by nature

2. All particles in nature moving from a point A position to Point B position do so in a straight line. Even a simple curves, in a wave, requires the Crest of the wave to go up and down. The curves, as a particle, always requires a particle to move from point A to point B. A curve is composed of a less than infinite number of angles.

Only in theory. One atom supposedly moves theoretically in a straight line towards another. Yet where is this integer or quantum? The atom? The electron, the Neutron? But what then of the multitude of subatomic particles whose discovery seems to have no bounds? When do we stop and ask if the universe is really particular? Waves seem to exist! And if a body falls in a straight line where and how does the gravitron (or whatever quantum of gravity is supposed to exist) act? Is it emitted from the large body to the smaller; the other way round? How? IS the line straight? Or is it only approximately straight, since it is by defintion simultaneously and at the speed of light attracted to every other body in the universe. There can be no stright line, here even by theoretical standards.

This is evidences strictly because a particle, when dividing/multiplying, always does so in a linear direction.

According only to the model. Reality has a way of interceding. The genetic code for a oak leaf is the same for every leaf on a particular tree. But I challenge you to find a single oak leaf exactly the same as any other in a million leaves.

3. The repetition of events in nature, such as the repetition of a particle, is always a cycling of a variation of the same thing. Upon first glance a point projected to another point appears as a linear trajectory, but if the point is repeating itself it fundamentally is maintaining itself through a cycle. All repetition is a cycle. For example, A clock turned on its side would observe a simple point go back and forth causing it to repeat it's original position.

No object on earth can ever return to the same position in space. The universe is expanding and the solar system is hurtling through space at an astounding speed. Not just terran rotation, or our passage round the sun, but also the entire system is moving.

Quantity and quality are inseperable.

I don't think this serves your position.
Since no 2 oranges are exactly the same. 1+1=2 does not work in that case.

1) 1 point manifesting into two points observes the creation of distance, as a quality, by a change in quantity. 1 point inverting to 2 points observes quantity begets "quality" through distance.

2) A single line between any two points is always composed of infinite points between the two points as the progression of one point to another requires position A then position B then C, etc.

Distance as a quality is dually a quantity of one set of infinities, evidenced by the line. All quantities are actually infinities. The line takes on an actual distance when it is divided into further lines, thus necessitating individuation.

This is just a repetition of idiomatic assumptions of maths. Exactly the moot point I was challenging.
In and of itself it all makes perfect logical sense.

One line individuates into two lines. This is the first understanding of measurable distance using a grounding standard (ie the 1 infinite line). The 1 line as two lines observes simulateous multiplication and division.

Multiplication as two lines, each a replication of the original where anyone standing alone (as infinite) is the same as another.

Division where each line is 1/2 of the original line that exist as a set.

Quality thus begets quantity, considering quality begins with a continuum (the line as infinite points).

3. Quantity and quality alternate through eachother through a cycle. Either one can be taken first only if assumed as such.

This is just a repetition of idiomatic assumptions of maths. Exactly the moot point I was challenging.
In and of itself it all makes perfect logical sense; circular but not empirical.

[commonsense]

If I can elaborate on the "extra-planar connections" using basic math:

1+1 = 2

2 = 1+1, -1+3, -2+4, etc.

All circularity allows for then maintainance of a set of axioms while allowing for progressive variation.

Cycles always are connected to other cycles, and a circular argument thus not necessitate contradiction.

Yes.

Now as to the ones you do not believe have connections?

As you pointed out, beliefs are dynamic and are related to other beliefs. With this I agree. I cannot conceive of beliefs that do not have connections to other beliefs.

I was referring to circular beliefs that have extra-planar connections and those that have only planar connections.

Agreed to above.

Elaborate your position about "planar connections", I am not completely familiar with how you use the term...specifically "planar".

I suppose I could have substituted uni-planar for planar to convey my thoughts more clearly.

I think more than one belief can occupy a single plane. Their connections could exist within that single plane (or uni-plane, if you will), or across many planes.

However, speaking metaphorically instead of mathematically, a belief could exist on a plane of its own. From the metaphorical viewpoint, all beliefs, circular or not, would have extra-planar connections only.

But hadn’t you said earlier that beliefs are at least three-dimensional?

[Skepdick]

If all believes are dynamic, as in they project from one beleif to another, than all belief is grounded in a constant linear form.

Duh!

A -> B
f(A) = B
Process.
Black box

The "linearity" you are observing is the arrow of time. Causality.

And at some point you are going to bump into the Universal Turing Machine.

It's so Universal that it can simulate ANY process/function. Including itself.

[Eodnhoj7]

This is all good, and circular. As far as concepts go the statements are correct in an absolute sense.
In real life they can be used to represent observable facts, but only approximately.
There are no integers in nature, and no two things can be absolutely identical since no two things can be exact in dimension, time, and space.
5 oranges added to 5 oranges are 10 oranges.
But 1 orange is not equal to another orange.
There is also a lack of straight lines, perfect circles and other shapes. So whilst maths talks about perfect spheres and so forth, no perfection of the sort can be found in nature. Maths even in its own terms creates a series of incommensurable values such as PI, SquR of -1, perhaps because we live in an analogue reality but are trying to squeeze our digital system of integers.

I want to agree.

And I mean I actually want to.

Actually nature is grounded in points, lines and circles strictly because of its atomic nature.

1. All phenomenon from a distance are always point particles in the context of the space in which they are observed. Upon closer inspection the phenomenon is composed of point particles (jagged edges, etc.)

Conversely all places that look smooth and straight by the eye, when looked upon closely are lumpy uneven and jagged. SO for the everyday mundane world of the human metric. Engineers , carpenters and architechs go to strenuous efforts to create mathematical percection but are thwarted by nature

jaggedness requires angles, angles require straight lines. The branching patterns of nature obverse this.



2. All particles in nature moving from a point A position to Point B position do so in a straight line. Even a simple curves, in a wave, requires the Crest of the wave to go up and down. The curves, as a particle, always requires a particle to move from point A to point B. A curve is composed of a less than infinite number of angles.

Only in theory. One atom supposedly moves theoretically in a straight line towards another. Yet where is this integer or quantum? The atom? The electron, the Neutron? But what then of the multitude of subatomic particles whose discovery seems to have no bounds? When do we stop and ask if the universe is really particular? Waves seem to exist! And if a body falls in a straight line where and how does the gravitron (or whatever quantum of gravity is supposed to exist) act? Is it emitted from the large body to the smaller; the other way round? How? IS the line straight? Or is it only approximately straight, since it is by defintion simultaneously and at the speed of light attracted to every other body in the universe. There can be no stright line, here even by theoretical standards.

All empirical phenomenon exist as point particles relative to a specific distance in space. Distance determines the movement of phenomenon, thus all phenomenon take an atomic nature as "part" of a larger context. Any approximately straight line is still composed of angles, thus is composed of straight lines.

A simple example of all phenomenon exist as straight lines is a simple movement from point A to B where the phenomenon effectively replicates by assuming a newer position and canceling the older position, all movement is recursion in these respects and is grounded in a linear state.

This is evidences strictly because a particle, when dividing/multiplying, always does so in a linear direction.

According only to the model. Reality has a way of interceding. The genetic code for a oak leaf is the same for every leaf on a particular tree. But I challenge you to find a single oak leaf exactly the same as any other in a million leaves.

Paradox of one and many. A single phenomenon always replicates in infinite variation. I challenge you to take as many oak leaves as you want and not find repeating patterns of color, branching, shape, etc.

3. The repetition of events in nature, such as the repetition of a particle, is always a cycling of a variation of the same thing. Upon first glance a point projected to another point appears as a linear trajectory, but if the point is repeating itself it fundamentally is maintaining itself through a cycle. All repetition is a cycle. For example, A clock turned on its side would observe a simple point go back and forth causing it to repeat it's original position.

No object on earth can ever return to the same position in space. The universe is expanding and the solar system is hurtling through space at an astounding speed. Not just terran rotation, or our passage round the sun, but also the entire system is moving.

All expansion is followed by a simultaneous contraction as observed by the laws of nature and implied under the condensed state of the universe in the big bang.

Simultaneously all objects are positions in space, considering they are composed of spatial limits...as such each object relative to itself is a position. The expansion of space is the replication of positions....recursion is universal.

Quantity and quality are inseperable.

I don't think this serves your position.
Since no 2 oranges are exactly the same. 1+1=2 does not work in that case.

Oranges are the replication of qualities.


1) 1 point manifesting into two points observes the creation of distance, as a quality, by a change in quantity. 1 point inverting to 2 points observes quantity begets "quality" through distance.

2) A single line between any two points is always composed of infinite points between the two points as the progression of one point to another requires position A then position B then C, etc.

Distance as a quality is dually a quantity of one set of infinities, evidenced by the line. All quantities are actually infinities. The line takes on an actual distance when it is divided into further lines, thus necessitating individuation.

This is just a repetition of idiomatic assumptions of maths. Exactly the moot point I was challenging.
In and of itself it all makes perfect logical sense.

And one of the proofs of math is its grounding in empirical reality. From the perspective of matter as the premise of reality ( which is assumed under the division of abstraction and empiricality) all mathematical phenomenon result from the progression of matter
(Ie our thoughts are composed of matter. This is an assumption as abstractness can be observed as a starting point as well.

This either/or dichotomy can be solved if space is viewed as both abstract and empirical. This is evidenced by the simple point.

One line individuates into two lines. This is the first understanding of measurable distance using a grounding standard (ie the 1 infinite line). The 1 line as two lines observes simulateous multiplication and division.

Multiplication as two lines, each a replication of the original where anyone standing alone (as infinite) is the same as another.

Division where each line is 1/2 of the original line that exist as a set.

Quality thus begets quantity, considering quality begins with a continuum (the line as infinite points).

3. Quantity and quality alternate through eachother through a cycle. Either one can be taken first only if assumed as such.

This is just a repetition of idiomatic assumptions of maths. Exactly the moot point I was challenging.
In and of itself it all makes perfect logical sense; circular but not empirical.

Nature exists through the cycling of phenomenon, to say that no two things are exactly the same is to ignore basic repeating qualities and forms.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes.



As you pointed out, beliefs are dynamic and are related to other beliefs. With this I agree. I cannot conceive of beliefs that do not have connections to other beliefs.

I was referring to circular beliefs that have extra-planar connections and those that have only planar connections.

Agreed to above.

Elaborate your position about "planar connections", I am not completely familiar with how you use the term...specifically "planar".

I suppose I could have substituted uni-planar for planar to convey my thoughts more clearly.

I think more than one belief can occupy a single plane. Their connections could exist within that single plane (or uni-plane, if you will), or across many planes.

However, speaking metaphorically instead of mathematically, a belief could exist on a plane of its own. From the metaphorical viewpoint, all beliefs, circular or not, would have extra-planar connections only.

But hadn’t you said earlier that beliefs are at least three-dimensional?

I see where you are going, at least I am assuming it from my angle of awareness...and yes we are on the same page.

Yes I argue that all beliefs, grounded in assumption, are triadic in nature. However this triad exists as 1 as well, which reflects the pythagorean stance of 3 as 1 and a variety of other religions specifically Roman and Orthodox Christianity.

Reality can be one dimensional, as in not even flat, if we observe depth (as the relation of extremes in an abstract sense or horizon and vertice in empirical sense) as a process of continual synthesis or the renewal of a 2d phenomenon as one perpetually changing entity.

The "all is shallow" or "all is flat" thread (I can not remember the name) argues this point.

Reality is both 3 dimensional and 1 dimensional, but in simpler terms "yes" I agree with your stance.

[Eodnhoj7]

If all believes are dynamic, as in they project from one beleif to another, than all belief is grounded in a constant linear form.

Duh!

A -> B
f(A) = B
Process.
Black box

The "linearity" you are observing is the arrow of time. Causality.

And at some point you are going to bump into the Universal Turing Machine.

It's so Universal that it can simulate ANY process/function. Including itself.

Retrocausality is also linear, and observes that a car can only move if down the time line it eventually crashes. Its potential state allows for its actual state considering actuality requires potentiality. However from a separate time zone all potential states and relativistic and can be already actualized. This is observing the timeline from a larger time scale, where present events only happen because of a simulateous future event given a large enough time scale.

Causality is circular as well...but yes it is linear.

You fail to keep in mind that a function can also hold another function and as such are grounded within recursion. Thus "f" is a constant and we can observe the dualism of one and many without contradiction.

f(f(a + b) = c) + d) = e

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes.



As you pointed out, beliefs are dynamic and are related to other beliefs. With this I agree. I cannot conceive of beliefs that do not have connections to other beliefs.

I was referring to circular beliefs that have extra-planar connections and those that have only planar connections.

Agreed to above.

Elaborate your position about "planar connections", I am not completely familiar with how you use the term...specifically "planar".

I suppose I could have substituted uni-planar for planar to convey my thoughts more clearly.

I think more than one belief can occupy a single plane. Their connections could exist within that single plane (or uni-plane, if you will), or across many planes.

However, speaking metaphorically instead of mathematically, a belief could exist on a plane of its own. From the metaphorical viewpoint, all beliefs, circular or not, would have extra-planar connections only.

But hadn’t you said earlier that beliefs are at least three-dimensional?

New thought, that plane is equivalent to a single point as all points are boundless planes. This may link the language variation.

But yeah we are on the same page. Logik and I were on half of the same page, I agreed with everything he said about the properties of divergence he was applying (for where I understood)...I disagreed with "divergence" as the sole axiom of the properties of logic and nature.

Divergence and convergence are simultaneous.

[Skepdick]

You fail to keep in mind that a function can also hold another function and as such are grounded within recursion. Thus "f" is a constant and we can observe the dualism of one and many without contradiction.

f(f(a + b) = c) + d) = e

Congratulations!

You have discovered the generator pattern.

All of these concepts and more, are common design patterns in software engineering.

[Sculptor]

I want to agree.

And I mean I actually want to.

Actually nature is grounded in points, lines and circles strictly because of its atomic nature.

1. All phenomenon from a distance are always point particles in the context of the space in which they are observed. Upon closer inspection the phenomenon is composed of point particles (jagged edges, etc.)

Conversely all places that look smooth and straight by the eye, when looked upon closely are lumpy uneven and jagged. SO for the everyday mundane world of the human metric. Engineers , carpenters and architechs go to strenuous efforts to create mathematical percection but are thwarted by nature

jaggedness requires angles, angles require straight lines. The branching patterns of nature obverse this.



2. All particles in nature moving from a point A position to Point B position do so in a straight line. Even a simple curves, in a wave, requires the Crest of the wave to go up and down. The curves, as a particle, always requires a particle to move from point A to point B. A curve is composed of a less than infinite number of angles.

Only in theory. One atom supposedly moves theoretically in a straight line towards another. Yet where is this integer or quantum? The atom? The electron, the Neutron? But what then of the multitude of subatomic particles whose discovery seems to have no bounds? When do we stop and ask if the universe is really particular? Waves seem to exist! And if a body falls in a straight line where and how does the gravitron (or whatever quantum of gravity is supposed to exist) act? Is it emitted from the large body to the smaller; the other way round? How? IS the line straight? Or is it only approximately straight, since it is by defintion simultaneously and at the speed of light attracted to every other body in the universe. There can be no stright line, here even by theoretical standards.

All empirical phenomenon exist as point particles relative to a specific distance in space. Distance determines the movement of phenomenon, thus all phenomenon take an atomic nature as "part" of a larger context. Any approximately straight line is still composed of angles, thus is composed of straight lines.

A simple example of all phenomenon exist as straight lines is a simple movement from point A to B where the phenomenon effectively replicates by assuming a newer position and canceling the older position, all movement is recursion in these respects and is grounded in a linear state.

This is evidences strictly because a particle, when dividing/multiplying, always does so in a linear direction.

According only to the model. Reality has a way of interceding. The genetic code for a oak leaf is the same for every leaf on a particular tree. But I challenge you to find a single oak leaf exactly the same as any other in a million leaves.

Paradox of one and many. A single phenomenon always replicates in infinite variation. I challenge you to take as many oak leaves as you want and not find repeating patterns of color, branching, shape, etc.

3. The repetition of events in nature, such as the repetition of a particle, is always a cycling of a variation of the same thing. Upon first glance a point projected to another point appears as a linear trajectory, but if the point is repeating itself it fundamentally is maintaining itself through a cycle. All repetition is a cycle. For example, A clock turned on its side would observe a simple point go back and forth causing it to repeat it's original position.

No object on earth can ever return to the same position in space. The universe is expanding and the solar system is hurtling through space at an astounding speed. Not just terran rotation, or our passage round the sun, but also the entire system is moving.

All expansion is followed by a simultaneous contraction as observed by the laws of nature and implied under the condensed state of the universe in the big bang.

Simultaneously all objects are positions in space, considering they are composed of spatial limits...as such each object relative to itself is a position. The expansion of space is the replication of positions....recursion is universal.

Quantity and quality are inseperable.

I don't think this serves your position.
Since no 2 oranges are exactly the same. 1+1=2 does not work in that case.

Oranges are the replication of qualities.


1) 1 point manifesting into two points observes the creation of distance, as a quality, by a change in quantity. 1 point inverting to 2 points observes quantity begets "quality" through distance.

2) A single line between any two points is always composed of infinite points between the two points as the progression of one point to another requires position A then position B then C, etc.

Distance as a quality is dually a quantity of one set of infinities, evidenced by the line. All quantities are actually infinities. The line takes on an actual distance when it is divided into further lines, thus necessitating individuation.

This is just a repetition of idiomatic assumptions of maths. Exactly the moot point I was challenging.
In and of itself it all makes perfect logical sense.

And one of the proofs of math is its grounding in empirical reality. From the perspective of matter as the premise of reality ( which is assumed under the division of abstraction and empiricality) all mathematical phenomenon result from the progression of matter
(Ie our thoughts are composed of matter. This is an assumption as abstractness can be observed as a starting point as well.

This either/or dichotomy can be solved if space is viewed as both abstract and empirical. This is evidenced by the simple point.

One line individuates into two lines. This is the first understanding of measurable distance using a grounding standard (ie the 1 infinite line). The 1 line as two lines observes simulateous multiplication and division.

Multiplication as two lines, each a replication of the original where anyone standing alone (as infinite) is the same as another.

Division where each line is 1/2 of the original line that exist as a set.

Quality thus begets quantity, considering quality begins with a continuum (the line as infinite points).

3. Quantity and quality alternate through eachother through a cycle. Either one can be taken first only if assumed as such.

This is just a repetition of idiomatic assumptions of maths. Exactly the moot point I was challenging.
In and of itself it all makes perfect logical sense; circular but not empirical.

Nature exists through the cycling of phenomenon, to say that no two things are exactly the same is to ignore basic repeating qualities and forms.

I meant to say axiomatic, not idiomatic, sorry.
But I'd say that your thinking on this thread is axiomatic generally and so seem caught in the circles of logic that can never fully represent nature except approximately. It might seem paradoxical that the maths/logic used to represent nature is resisted by the cold hard reality. Nature is always that oak leaf, never able to fully replicate without what the axiomatic thinkers regard as experimental error, but is, in realty the truth that the axioms and "laws" never quite fit the truth.
Science is like that always making pronouncements of absolutely certain factual reality, yet one day the earth gets thrown off its place and starts to go round the sun rather than the sun going round the earth.

[Eodnhoj7]

You fail to keep in mind that a function can also hold another function and as such are grounded within recursion. Thus "f" is a constant and we can observe the dualism of one and many without contradiction.

f(f(a + b) = c) + d) = e

Congratulations!

You have discovered the generator pattern.

All of these concepts and more, are common design patterns in software engineering.

Honestly, logik/timeseeker/univalence your process of diverging personalities is almost predictable. I will give you credit for memorizing some philosophers, and progressing past your original personality, but that is still part of the pattern of divergence.



Anyhow, I did not discover anything.

All axioms are recursive, "f(x)" is an axiom. Thar generator pattern is an isomorphism of natural law through artificiality.

[Eodnhoj7]

Conversely all places that look smooth and straight by the eye, when looked upon closely are lumpy uneven and jagged. SO for the everyday mundane world of the human metric. Engineers , carpenters and architechs go to strenuous efforts to create mathematical percection but are thwarted by nature
Only in theory. One atom supposedly moves theoretically in a straight line towards another. Yet where is this integer or quantum? The atom? The electron, the Neutron? But what then of the multitude of subatomic particles whose discovery seems to have no bounds? When do we stop and ask if the universe is really particular? Waves seem to exist! And if a body falls in a straight line where and how does the gravitron (or whatever quantum of gravity is supposed to exist) act? Is it emitted from the large body to the smaller; the other way round? How? IS the line straight? Or is it only approximately straight, since it is by defintion simultaneously and at the speed of light attracted to every other body in the universe. There can be no stright line, here even by theoretical standards.

According only to the model. Reality has a way of interceding. The genetic code for a oak leaf is the same for every leaf on a particular tree. But I challenge you to find a single oak leaf exactly the same as any other in a million leaves.

No object on earth can ever return to the same position in space. The universe is expanding and the solar system is hurtling through space at an astounding speed. Not just terran rotation, or our passage round the sun, but also the entire system is moving.

I don't think this serves your position.
Since no 2 oranges are exactly the same. 1+1=2 does not work in that case.

This is just a repetition of idiomatic assumptions of maths. Exactly the moot point I was challenging.
In and of itself it all makes perfect logical sense.


This is just a repetition of idiomatic assumptions of maths. Exactly the moot point I was challenging.
In and of itself it all makes perfect logical sense; circular but not empirical.

Nature exists through the cycling of phenomenon, to say that no two things are exactly the same is to ignore basic repeating qualities and forms.

I meant to say axiomatic, not idiomatic, sorry.
But I'd say that your thinking on this thread is axiomatic generally and so seem caught in the circles of logic that can never fully represent nature except approximately. It might seem paradoxical that the maths/logic used to represent nature is resisted by the cold hard reality. Nature is always that oak leaf, never able to fully replicate without what the axiomatic thinkers regard as experimental error, but is, in realty the truth that the axioms and "laws" never quite fit the truth.
Science is like that always making pronouncements of absolutely certain factual reality, yet one day the earth gets thrown off its place and starts to go round the sun rather than the sun going round the earth.

What logical system does not represent nature approximately? Linear logic results in a continual divergence.

And what axioms/laws never quite fit the truth?

I understand where you are going, and I agree with it...for the most part. However we are left with a paradox of certain constants still existing.

Relative truths are approximations of constant truths.

[Skepdick]

All axioms are recursive, "f(x)" is an axiom. Thar generator pattern is an isomorphism of natural law through artificiality.

Not all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-point_theorem

[Eodnhoj7]

All axioms are recursive, "f(x)" is an axiom. Thar generator pattern is an isomorphism of natural law through artificiality.

Not all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-point_theorem

Yeah, and several aspects of this theorem (an assumed definition of reality) argue (from the mathematical analysis section):

1. There is no methodology to find a fixed point.
2. The fix point can be approximated.
3. Thus, and I am arguing this, the fix point is assumed.

This argument is relative to the mathematical analysis section of the wiki page.

Second, the continuum of numbers in a function still requires the basic recursion of a simple 1 for the axiom to form. All numbers are recursion of 1 and 1 is assumed.

[Eodnhoj7]

All axioms are recursive, "f(x)" is an axiom. Thar generator pattern is an isomorphism of natural law through artificiality.

Not all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-point_theorem

And yes the repetition of one point to another point is recursion. All axioms are points of awareness with the point being the purest axiom there is.

[Skepdick]

Yeah, and several aspects of this theorem (an assumed definition of reality) argue (from the mathematical analysis section):

1. There is no methodology to find a fixed point.
2. The fix point can be approximated.
3. Thus, and I am arguing this, the fix point is assumed.

This argument is relative to the mathematical analysis section of the wiki page.

The observer is the fixed point.
The observer is also your oracle machine.

It can be anything you want it to be really. Because it's just a model...