'Knowledge' and 'Belief' as Primordial Antitheses

[nothing]

The relationship of letters necessitates a rationality that is a phenomena in itself. It is the letters, as parts thus ratios of words, that necessitates them as rational entity. A ratio is that which is a part of something, it is a relationship of parts.

The first/last relationship a letter has is with itself: A:A.
However, as I already indicated some time ago, A ≠ A as
A can be +A and/or -A (√A) because A is immutably subject to/of
conjugate discretion (alpha/omega) thus the "rationality"
of any/all letters precedes letters entirely.

Space and time are related
(relatable) by way of reciprocity:

(s/t x t/s) = Φπ²/16 = 1
∞ 1/16 x Φπ² ∞ = 1
v = s³/t ∞ (st)² ∞ t³/s = e
______________________
wherein v (velocity) and e (energy)
are incessantly whole by way of
the intermediary square (st)²
space ∞ multiplicative reciprocity ∞ time

Hence space and time are multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion
measured in/as velocity (or speed) thus any/all space/time phenomena
(including conscious beings) is rooted in the same reciprocal relation.

Once the nature of the relationship between space and time is known,
they cease to become "two" and are united in/as one (which they are anyways)
however are subject to/of conjugation in relation to unity √1 = +1, -1, hence *A as √A.

The unfurling occurs through a series of circumferances unwound to form a line. Each rotation, as a distance a point travels until it reaches its origin, results in a circumferance. This circumferance, as a 2d circle or 2d loop, unwinds to form a 1d line. A series of circumferances results in a series of lines thus making each line, as one of many unwound circumferances, as a ratio of the summation of lines.

We already talked about this: you can not "unfurl" a 2d circle into a 1d line without loss of information.
A circle requires an equiv. x/y axis whereas a 1d line only requires x or y.
Line is line and curve is curve - they are as (different as) rational and irrational numbers.

As phenomena which are constructs of consciousness, and consciousness being real, the lines and points are real as extensions of consciousness.

Try:

As phenomena which are constructs of unconsciousness, and unconsciousness being real, the lines and points are unreal as extensions of unconsciousness.

Needed a 180-degree flip.

See lines are real because consciousness is real response.

I haven't any clue what you mean by "consciousness is real response". Consciousness implies discretion, one can "respond" to stimuli either consciously and/or unconsciously. Lines as naturally occurring in nature really do not exist.

False, that which is imagined is real as imagined. Considering consciousness is real all imagined entities take on some form of truth value as extensions of said consciousness.

That which is imagined may be taken to be real, but this does not mean it is real.
What is real is the suffering/death associated with taking what is unreal to be real
as any/all impetus of a being rooted in such conflation will result in real suffering.
This is a/the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, and is even
alluded to in complex analysis:

√+1 = 1 (real)
√-1 = i (imaginary)
__________________
wherein imaginary numbers cause rotation(s)

In reality, Western science(s) does not realize:
what real is to rational, imaginary is to irrational
thus complex analysis is an invention based on
the same relation that exists naturally in/of
ordinary mathematics (no need for complex analysis).

[Eodnhoj7]

The relationship of letters necessitates a rationality that is a phenomena in itself. It is the letters, as parts thus ratios of words, that necessitates them as rational entity. A ratio is that which is a part of something, it is a relationship of parts.

The first/last relationship a letter has is with itself: A:A.
However, as I already indicated some time ago, A ≠ A as
A can be +A and/or -A (√A) because A is immutably subject to/of
conjugate discretion (alpha/omega) thus the "rationality"
of any/all letters precedes letters entirely.

Space and time are related
(relatable) by way of reciprocity:

(s/t x t/s) = Φπ²/16 = 1
∞ 1/16 x Φπ² ∞ = 1
v = s³/t ∞ (st)² ∞ t³/s = e
______________________
wherein v (velocity) and e (energy)
are incessantly whole by way of
the intermediary square (st)²
space ∞ multiplicative reciprocity ∞ time

Hence space and time are multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion
measured in/as velocity (or speed) thus any/all space/time phenomena
(including conscious beings) is rooted in the same reciprocal relation.

Once the nature of the relationship between space and time is known,
they cease to become "two" and are united in/as one (which they are anyways)
however are subject to/of conjugation in relation to unity √1 = +1, -1, hence *A as √A.

The unfurling occurs through a series of circumferances unwound to form a line. Each rotation, as a distance a point travels until it reaches its origin, results in a circumferance. This circumferance, as a 2d circle or 2d loop, unwinds to form a 1d line. A series of circumferances results in a series of lines thus making each line, as one of many unwound circumferances, as a ratio of the summation of lines.

We already talked about this: you can not "unfurl" a 2d circle into a 1d line without loss of information.
A circle requires an equiv. x/y axis whereas a 1d line only requires x or y.
Line is line and curve is curve - they are as (different as) rational and irrational numbers.

False a circumferance of X is a length of X.

As phenomena which are constructs of consciousness, and consciousness being real, the lines and points are real as extensions of consciousness.

Try:

As phenomena which are constructs of unconsciousness, and unconsciousness being real, the lines and points are unreal as extensions of unconsciousness.

Needed a 180-degree flip.

See lines are real because consciousness is real response.

I haven't any clue what you mean by "consciousness is real response". Consciousness implies discretion, one can "respond" to stimuli either consciously and/or unconsciously. Lines as naturally occurring in nature really do not exist.

Consciousness is real through a circular self relation where it repeats itself through itself.

False, that which is imagined is real as imagined. Considering consciousness is real all imagined entities take on some form of truth value as extensions of said consciousness.

That which is imagined may be taken to be real, but this does not mean it is real.
What is real is the suffering/death associated with taking what is unreal to be real
as any/all impetus of a being rooted in such conflation will result in real suffering.
This is a/the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, and is even
alluded to in complex analysis:

Phenomena as image are real as imagined.

√+1 = 1 (real)
√-1 = i (imaginary)
__________________
wherein imaginary numbers cause rotation(s)

In reality, Western science(s) does not realize:
what real is to rational, imaginary is to irrational
thus complex analysis is an invention based on
the same relation that exists naturally in/of
ordinary mathematics (no need for complex analysis).

Letters are defined through other letters. A is defined through B, B through C, etc. No letter stands in itself alone.

[nothing]

False a circumferance of X is a length of X.

If X is a circumferential length, it is not equivalent to a linear length.
Again, curve and line are not even in the same dimension. You
can not measure a 2D length with a 1D instrument. It is the same
with the π approximation error: measuring a curve with straight lines
will miss an entire constituency of the (length of the) curve.

False, that which is imagined is real as imagined. Considering consciousness is real all imagined entities take on some form of truth value as extensions of said consciousness.

Imaging someone/something does not make it real "as imagined".
One may conduct themselves under the impression that what they imagine
is real, however this does not mean it is - to the contrary, it is imagined.

To conflate real and imagined indicates confusion.

Phenomena as image are real as imagined.

Again.

Letters are defined through other letters. A is defined through B, B through C, etc. No letter stands in itself alone.

As you imagine.

[Eodnhoj7]

False a circumferance of X is a length of X.

If X is a circumferential length, it is not equivalent to a linear length.
Again, curve and line are not even in the same dimension. You
can not measure a 2D length with a 1D instrument. It is the same
with the π approximation error: measuring a curve with straight lines
will miss an entire constituency of the (length of the) curve.

A circumferance unravels into a straight line. The width of a 2d circle can be measured through a 1d line.

False, that which is imagined is real as imagined. Considering consciousness is real all imagined entities take on some form of truth value as extensions of said consciousness.

Imaging someone/something does not make it real "as imagined".
One may conduct themselves under the impression that what they imagine
is real, however this does not mean it is - to the contrary, it is imagined.

An imagined unicorn is real as imagined, as in it being imagined is real. The phenomena of it being imagined is real.

To conflate real and imagined indicates confusion.

Phenomena as image are real as imagined.

Again.

Letters are defined through other letters. A is defined through B, B through C, etc. No letter stands in itself alone.

As you imagine.

The accuser is accused.

[nothing]

A circumferance unravels into a straight line. The width of a 2d circle can be measured through a 1d line.

If you unravel a circumference into a straight line, it will not be the same length as a plain line with the same magnitude.
2D and 1D are not the same dimension, thus a single metric magnitude in both are not cross-equivalent.

I've said this over and over: you can not unravel a 2D curve into a 1D line without loss of information.
What was once a ratio is now a linear vibration (at best) and one loses the nature of the relation.

An imagined unicorn is real as imagined, as in it being imagined is real. The phenomena of it being imagined is real.

"Real as imagined" is thoroughly nonsensical
if not for betraying what "real" must be:
not unreal, which is what unicorns are.

At best one can say imagination is a real phenomena,
however this again does not render the substance(s)
of the imagination as "real"... quite the contrary.

The accuser is accused.

I'm glad it stuck, it will be useful in the future.

[Eodnhoj7]

A circumferance unravels into a straight line. The width of a 2d circle can be measured through a 1d line.

If you unravel a circumference into a straight line, it will not be the same length as a plain line with the same magnitude.
2D and 1D are not the same dimension, thus a single metric magnitude in both are not cross-equivalent.

I've said this over and over: you can not unravel a 2D curve into a 1D line without loss of information.
What was once a ratio is now a linear vibration (at best) and one loses the nature of the relation.

False, the circle has the same beginning and end points as a line. The circles and the line are both defined through the same beginning and end points they are grounded in.

A line within a line necessitates the line as the foundation of ratios, ratios are grounded in 1 dimensionality. Information is not lost. A series of unravel circumferances is a line within a line.

An imagined unicorn is real as imagined, as in it being imagined is real. The phenomena of it being imagined is real.

"Real as imagined" is thoroughly nonsensical
if not for betraying what "real" must be:
not unreal, which is what unicorns are.

Unicorns are real as imaginary entities. An imaginary entity is real as imaginery. The imagination is real as the imagination is an extension of consciousness.

At best one can say imagination is a real phenomena,
however this again does not render the substance(s)
of the imagination as "real"... quite the contrary.

The accuser is accused.

I'm glad it stuck, it will be useful in the future.

The circularity of projection is universal, it existed long before you projected it.

[nothing]

False, the circle has the same beginning and end points as a line. The circles and the line are both defined through the same beginning and end points they are grounded in.

A circle (itself) does not begin/end - it has no periodicity
aside from 2π as generally indicating one circle/cycle:

Φ = (π+π√5)/2π = 1.618...
Φ² = (3π+π√5)/2π = Φ² or (Φ + 1)
________________________
difference: 2π

A circle unraveled or observed from the side (as an equivalent line) is distinct from a line.
One is a rational terminating number such as '1' the other is an irrational (such as Φ).
Lines are rational and terminating whereas circles are irrational and non-terminating.

1 = rational terminating
√5 = irrational non-terminating

These on a base of 2 implies a constant relation between rational and irrational
and is preserved in/as Φ² or (Φ + 1) and even 16/Φ = π² = (8√5 -8).

Beg/end requires a discrete point such to begin/end the circle.
For human suffering, this point is the adoption of a belief(s)
which is not necessarily true, thus time takes her curve accordingly.

A line within a line necessitates the line as the foundation of ratios, ratios are grounded in 1 dimensionality. Information is not lost. A series of unravel circumferances is a line within a line.

There is no such thing as a 1D "ratio" as 1D implies only one term.
A discrete ratio (relationship) is of at least two discrete terms.
Thus s/t is a 2D relation, hence image (line) and likeness (curve).

v = (s³/t) ∞ (st)² ∞ (t³/s) = e

Unicorns are real as imaginary entities. An imaginary entity is real as imaginery. The imagination is real as the imagination is an extension of consciousness.

Imaginary entities are not real - "real as imaginary" is nonsensical and imagination may indicate a lack of consciousness.

The circularity of projection is universal, it existed long before you projected it.

Yet would you have been conscious of it had I not?
Consciousness is what allows discernment of what is real
from what is imaginary (unreal). Conflation of the two
is not a conscious undertaking. It implies the opposite.

[Skepdick]

Imaginary entities are not real - "real as imaginary" is nonsensical and imagination may indicate a lack of consciousness.

What? Like numbers?

[Eodnhoj7]

False, the circle has the same beginning and end points as a line. The circles and the line are both defined through the same beginning and end points they are grounded in.

A circle (itself) does not begin/end - it has no periodicity
aside from 2π as generally indicating one circle/cycle:

The circumferance begins an ends at the same point given any point is observed on the circle.

Φ = (π+π√5)/2π = 1.618...
Φ² = (3π+π√5)/2π = Φ² or (Φ + 1)
________________________
difference: 2π

A circle unraveled or observed from the side (as an equivalent line) is distinct from a line.
One is a rational terminating number such as '1' the other is an irrational (such as Φ).
Lines are rational and terminating whereas circles are irrational and non-terminating.

False, the line is a circle on its side. The beginning and end of a line results in the same point as two 0d points are the same. The same applies for a circle.

1 = rational terminating
√5 = irrational non-terminating

These on a base of 2 implies a constant relation between rational and irrational
and is preserved in/as Φ² or (Φ + 1) and even 16/Φ = π² = (8√5 -8).

Beg/end requires a discrete point such to begin/end the circle.
For human suffering, this point is the adoption of a belief(s)
which is not necessarily true, thus time takes her curve accordingly.

A line within a line necessitates the line as the foundation of ratios, ratios are grounded in 1 dimensionality. Information is not lost. A series of unravel circumferances is a line within a line.

There is no such thing as a 1D "ratio" as 1D implies only one term.
A discrete ratio (relationship) is of at least two discrete terms.
Thus s/t is a 2D relation, hence image (line) and likeness (curve).

False, a 1d line can be composed of multiple 1d lines as lines within lines or rather line segments within line segments.

v = (s³/t) ∞ (st)² ∞ (t³/s) = e

Unicorns are real as imaginary entities. An imaginary entity is real as imaginery. The imagination is real as the imagination is an extension of consciousness.

Imaginary entities are not real - "real as imaginary" is nonsensical and imagination may indicate a lack of consciousness.

Imagination is a process of imaging thus part of the consciousness and real as an extension of it. Your theory, as a process of imaging how the universe works, is imaginary.
Numbers do not exist as physical entities thus, according to your stance, your Pi argument is not real.

The circularity of projection is universal, it existed long before you projected it.

Yet would you have been conscious of it had I not?

The Buddhists in all actually. That which a person sees in another is that which they see in themselves.
Consciousness is what allows discernment of what is real
from what is imaginary (unreal). Conflation of the two
is not a conscious undertaking. It implies the opposite.

[nothing]

Imaginary entities are not real - "real as imaginary" is nonsensical and imagination may indicate a lack of consciousness.

What? Like numbers?

Numbers are both real and imaginary.

This is because they are both quantitative and qualitative.
This can be seen in simple ordinary mathematics
by performing ongoing root operations (beginning with 1):

√1 = +1, -1 (implies internal/local conjugation)
√+1 = 1 (real)
√-1 = i (imaginary)

What modern-day mathematicians do not understand is
what real is to rational (terminating),
imaginary is to irrational (non-terminating).

The nature of this relation is established in/of (as) Φ
wherein the golden ratio (1 + √5) / 2 is composed of
one rational '1' in addition to one irrational '√5'
as 1.000... + 2.23606... = 3.23606... halved '/2'
= 1.618... now square to see the relation preserved:
Φ² = Φ + 1, the same rational/irrational relation.

This is the only ratio (in the universe) which allows
for the incessant inter-relation between the two.

The same is true thus for 1 = Φπ²/16 however this equality
can only be seen if/when π is corrected from 3.14159...
to the rationally precise ratio of 4/√Φ:



Irrationals such as √5 have a universal quality(s):
√(√1+2√4) which allows for a discretionary choice-between-two:
2(2) = 4 and/or -2(-2) = 4 wherein the ± difference ultimately
reflects in/of the √1 because...

...√-1 is IMAGINARY. √1 is REAL because it relates the primordial Α+∞-Ω binaries
which is a null binary satisfying any/all other real binaries. The associated location
is a complimentary symmetrical beg∞end axis.

[Skepdick]

√+1 = 1 (real)
√-1 = i (imaginary)

They are both imaginary from where I am looking.

Numbers don't exist.

[nothing]

√+1 = 1 (real)
√-1 = i (imaginary)

They are both imaginary from where I am looking.

Numbers don't exist.

The relationships they are able to capture/describe do exist.

For example space and time are reciprocal aspects, thus
s/t x t/s = 1 precedes any/all consideration(s) of other numbers
given +1 is (also) the outcome of another multiplicative process:
ΦxΦ = Φ² = (Φ + 1) wherein Φ is not (only) a number, but a
scalable relationship with any/all other numbers.

It is not the numbers that are important (though they are: both real and imaginary)
it is the nature of the relationship between them. This is also true for space and time,
as all follows from the principle premises proposing (thus also composing) the nature
of the physical universe accordingly. This will be seen when mainstream science corrects π
from the "approximated" 3.14159... to 4/√Φ such to solve Einstein's E=MC² as 16=Φπ²
(implying 1=Φπ²/16). The nature of the relation between space and time is captured
therein - the golden ration (spatial constant) Φ in an incessant (multiplicative) relation
to π² (as 8√5-8) on a rational base of 16. The unification factor is √5,
hence my highlighting the need to recognize:
what real is to terminating rational (line),
imaginary is to non-terminating irrational (curve)
and line and curve are once again (finally) reunited:

Φ = (π + π√5) / 2π
π² = (16π√5 - 16π) / 2π
____________________
Φπ² = 16

Thus "complex analysis" is no longer needed - ordinary mathematics accomplishes already
what the former had inventively set out to do: describe 'motion' via rotation(s). Sadly,
rational in relation to irrational already does this, and can be understood by anyone
with an equivalent late secondary school education - hardly post-secondary level.

As a side note:
√(√1+2√4) = √5 describes the condition
the solution to human suffering entails:



The √1 describing two solutions ±1 denotes the choice-between-two
(from the apex of a pentagram down to one-of-two roots),
the 2 denoting both possible directions/orientations, and
the √4 (+2, -2) capturing the 2x Roots + 2x Operators:
RootA→Operator(1/2)→Operator(1/2)→RootB
RootB→Operator(1/2)→Operator(1/2)→RootA (direction reversal)
beg→alpha→omega→end
to know→all→not→to believe (approaches all-knowing)
to believe→all→not→to know (captures all belief-based ignorance(s))

All forms of human suffering (of human origin) are due to the presence
of one or more belief-based ignorance(s) causing the same. All knowing
entails knowing the cause(s) of all suffering (ie. what not to "believe").

[Eodnhoj7]

√+1 = 1 (real)
√-1 = i (imaginary)

They are both imaginary from where I am looking.

Numbers don't exist.

The relationships they are able to capture/describe do exist.

Yet these relationships are imaginary considering they are captured by what is imaginary according to your stance. If reality is described and defined through a series of symbol which are imaginary, according to you, then by default these descriptions and definitions exist as extensions of these symbols and share the same property.

Symbols are phenomenon in themselves and as phenomenon are real.

For example space and time are reciprocal aspects, thus
s/t x t/s = 1 precedes any/all consideration(s) of other numbers
given +1 is (also) the outcome of another multiplicative process:
ΦxΦ = Φ² = (Φ + 1) wherein Φ is not (only) a number, but a
scalable relationship with any/all other numbers.

It is not the numbers that are important (though they are: both real and imaginary)
it is the nature of the relationship between them. This is also true for space and time,
as all follows from the principle premises proposing (thus also composing) the nature
of the physical universe accordingly. This will be seen when mainstream science corrects π
from the "approximated" 3.14159... to 4/√Φ such to solve Einstein's E=MC² as 16=Φπ²
(implying 1=Φπ²/16). The nature of the relation between space and time is captured
therein - the golden ration (spatial constant) Φ in an incessant (multiplicative) relation
to π² (as 8√5-8) on a rational base of 16. The unification factor is √5,
hence my highlighting the need to recognize:
what real is to terminating rational (line),
imaginary is to non-terminating irrational (curve)
and line and curve are once again (finally) reunited:

Φ = (π + π√5) / 2π
π² = (16π√5 - 16π) / 2π
____________________
Φπ² = 16

Thus "complex analysis" is no longer needed - ordinary mathematics accomplishes already
what the former had inventively set out to do: describe 'motion' via rotation(s). Sadly,
rational in relation to irrational already does this, and can be understood by anyone
with an equivalent late secondary school education - hardly post-secondary level.

As a side note:
√(√1+2√4) = √5 describes the condition
the solution to human suffering entails:



The √1 describing two solutions ±1 denotes the choice-between-two
(from the apex of a pentagram down to one-of-two roots),
the 2 denoting both possible directions/orientations, and
the √4 (+2, -2) capturing the 2x Roots + 2x Operators:
RootA→Operator(1/2)→Operator(1/2)→RootB
RootB→Operator(1/2)→Operator(1/2)→RootA (direction reversal)
beg→alpha→omega→end
to know→all→not→to believe (approaches all-knowing)
to believe→all→not→to know (captures all belief-based ignorance(s))

All forms of human suffering (of human origin) are due to the presence
of one or more belief-based ignorance(s) causing the same. All knowing
entails knowing the cause(s) of all suffering (ie. what not to "believe").

[Skepdick]

The relationships they are able to capture/describe do exist.

I was about to take you seriously and then you used that philosophical red herring. "exists"

Nothing exists.
Only the mind exists.
Everything exists.
We don't know what exists.

We don't know how to test for "existence".

[nothing]

The relationships they are able to capture/describe do exist.

I was about to take you seriously and then you used that philosophical red herring. "exists"

Nothing exists.
Only the mind exists.
Everything exists.
We don't know what exists.

We don't know how to test for "existence".

Modern-day "philosophy" is no tenured arbiter of validity - presently, to the contrary: it is de-coupled from "existential" reality
for not even having the capacity to "test" for it, despite being in possession of the most sophisticated machine on the planet,
the human body. The faculties of the body are equipped to test for "existence" - the problem is modern-day philosophy
does not know what 'knowledge' is because there is no understanding of the nature of the relation between knowledge and belief.
The presence of one implies the absence of the other (and vice versa) such to appropriately compare them to light
(as knowledge) and darkness (as belief) wherein the latter darkness implies the absence of the former light.

Consciousness exists as non-local.

It is not something a person has in their individual possession: it is something they have access to (ie. it is everywhere).
Reciprocity may be (ie. is) a conscious relationship (as well as being the nature of the relation between the aspects of space and time).
Mind is a local phenomena only - 'only mind exists' is lunatic and like a virus in the Western "mind"set.