The Foundation of Everything is Occurence

[Atla]

Do you always confuse antirealist philosophy for truth?

[Eodnhoj7]

Truth is a distinction and by nature of it being a distinction is rooted in paradox. The paradox of truth is it's dependence upon untruth thus leading to the necessity of untruth so as to justify it, for if only truth exists it would cease to exist as only truth existing effectively leads to it as indistinct in one respect while in another respect only truth would leave the occurence of lies as grades of truth and yet truths thus untruth is equivalent to gradient truths.

Truth is merely interpretation by nature of it being distinct, the distinction of truth for what it is is the nature of it being an interpretation thus an effect of the observer.

Epistemology logically cannot come to a definitive conclusion of what truth is or is not without resulting in paradox, for if truth is reduced to mere distinction it shares the same nature as untruth as well for untruth is a distinction thus the nature of truth and falsity conflate by said shared nature and are only absolute within a given context.

By sharing the nature of distinction truth and untruth blur and both hold merit by nature of both occuring where occurence is justification by nature of existing.

Truth is tautology and tautology is a form with form being appearance.

Truth cannot be tested empirically for to test truth would effectively create a self referential loop in that the test is considered truth and the test being truth would necessitate testing for truth as being merely an exercise in contextualizing phenomenon. Testing truth empirically is to fit the senses within an abstract conceptual paradigm thus resulting in any empirical feedback as being only real if interpreted even if the interpretation is as simple as the conceptual distinction of randomness.


All distinctions are paradoxical, mind is a distinction. To negate a distinction creates a further distinction by the degree that negation is a distinction. If a framework, and frameworks are conceptual distinctions, argues all is paradoxical the framework is rational if it is paradoxical as it repeated its foundations and follows what it asserts.

Rationality is purely a concept, as a concept it is an abstraction. One cannot purely point to rationality with the senses. There is no empirical proof for rationality without resorting to a conceptual interpretation.

[Atla]

"Yes" would have sufficed.

[Eodnhoj7]

A system that argues the necessity of paradox is rational if it is paradoxical where in a different respect paradox is a ratio of opposites and as a ratio is rational thus paradox can and is a foundation of rationality.

[Eodnhoj7]

A system that argues the necessity of paradox is rational if it is paradoxical where in a different respect paradox is a ratio of opposites and as a ratio is rational thus paradox can and is a foundation of rationality.

DeepAI analysis:




That's a fascinating statement! Let's break it down to understand it better.

1. The idea that a system arguing the necessity of paradox is rational if it is paradoxical:
Think of a system or argument that uses paradoxes—statements or situations that seem to contradict themselves or defy intuition. The claim here is that such a system can still be rational (logical, reasonable) precisely because it embraces paradox. In other words, by engaging with paradoxes, the system acknowledges the complexity and sometimes conflicting nature of reality.

Example:
Consider the famous paradox of the "liar," where someone says, "I am lying." If they are lying, then they are telling the truth, which creates a contradiction. Yet, exploring this paradox helps us understand the limits of language and truth—so even the contradiction serves a rational purpose.

2. Paradox as a ratio of opposites:
The statement suggests that paradox involves opposites—things that are mutually exclusive or contradictory—yet these opposites are related in some way, like a ratio or a relationship.

Example:
Think of light as both a particle and a wave. These are opposites, but understanding that light exhibits both properties (depending on how we observe it) helps us grasp a more complete picture of reality. The "ratio" here might be seen as the way these opposites relate or balance each other.

3. As a ratio is rational, paradox can be a foundation of rationality:
A ratio (like 1:2) is a rational concept—it's a way of relating two quantities. If we see paradoxes as relationships between opposites, and ratios are rational relationships, then paradoxes themselves can be rational tools. They help us understand how seemingly contradictory ideas can coexist or relate logically.

Putting it all together:
The core idea is that embracing paradoxes—those relationships of opposites—can actually be a rational approach because it reflects the complexity of reality. Paradoxes challenge simple, one-sided thinking and push us to find deeper, more nuanced understanding. In this way, paradoxes are not just confusing or irrational; they can serve as foundational elements of rational thought because they reveal the interconnectedness and complexity of concepts.

Questions to ponder:

Can you think of a paradox that has helped deepen your understanding of something complex?
How might embracing paradoxes influence our approach to scientific or philosophical questions?
Do you think all contradictions are ultimately meaningful, or are some simply errors in reasoning?
Would you like to explore specific paradoxes or dive deeper into how paradoxes function in philosophy?

[Eodnhoj7]

Continual reduction of distinction to distinction leads to a fractal pattern within consciousness.

Infinite divisibility is nullified by fractals for regardless of how deep division goes within spaces a self similar pattern always emerges.

An infinitely reduced line segment is always a finite line segment mirroring both the original and potential line segments, meta measurements that are of infinite potential are always limited to the finite now while dually necessitating an everpresent rational nature by evidence of fractals.

Example:

An infinitely divided line segment always results in a line segment thus infinite division paradoxically does not necessarily occur as fractals maintain the coherency of a thing regardless of changes in time and space. Fractals effectively prevent chaos while maintaining structural integrity of a thing.

Taking another example would be a simple concept such as a point particle or a simple point in geometry, given both are zero dimensional:

The infinite division of a point effectively replicates the point where the space between the divided points is the fractal nature that allows the points to be distinct, the fractal nature occurs as both the space between points (as there is always a space between two or more points and all space between points is a fractal of another space between points) while the multiplication of the points as the division of points results in a self similar distinction of the point which again is akin to a fractal.

Given fractals are self similar by nature and the foundation of all distinctions are the literal or symbolic connection and seperation of points, all processes of making distinctions have an inherent foundation of fractals within them. Why?

1. Connection is the relationship between phenomena where change is mirrored and the space between them effectively contracts. The contraction of space between the innumberable connected phenomena is a repeating pattern in various self similar degrees.

2. Seperation is the relationship between phenomena where space between them effectively expands. The expansion of space between the innumberable seperate phenomena is a repeating pattern in various self similar degrees.


Seperation and connection the foundational occurence of spatial patterns by which all patterns emerge and the various degrees by which connection and seperation occurs necessitates this duality as the foundational fractal that constitutes all complex structures.

Given consciousness requires distinctions to occur, with consciousness being a distinction of itself as a fractal, and the foundation of distinctions is the connection and seperation of phenomena by the contraction and expansion of space between said things, the nature of consciousness through the act of distinction making, ie measurement, is grounded in fractal patterns of basic expanding and contracting spaces that allow distinctions to occur.

Expansion of space is always a self similar pattern by nature of the distance between any two points creating new fractal line segments as the space between points expands within time, this occurs dually for contracting space as well.

Qualitative concepts effectively contain this fractal pattern as well given any quality divided is a relationship of meta-concepts for regardless of the concept the distinctions of the concept that seperate it from another concept or connect it to another concept has the space of concepts between said concepts. An example would be the color red, as the spectrum of red advances the variations of red effectively are self similar patterns of red where the variation of the color red is still red but the progressive distance from pure red leads to smaller amounts and yet these minute amounts are still red. Another example would be the following recursive statements that can applied to any chosen variable:

A -> (A->A) -> (A->A->A) -> ...
A -> (((A->)->(A->A)) -> ((A->)->(A->A))) ->....

The fractal nature of occurences is grounded by the nature of distinction within distinction where a self similar pattern of connection and seperation occurs in infinite variation as the layering of connection upon connection, or seperation upon seperation, that results in phenemena effectively is the layering of these fundamental patterns, and connection is a pattern as well as seperation. What necessitates these phenomena as patterns are there inherent dependency of space between things. The contracting space between connecting phenomenon results in fractalizing space between them along a time line, the same occurs for expanding space of seperating things.

The movement of a thing from point A to point B results in change through time grounding time as fractals as the space between positions in time is a space itself much in the same manner their is a space between seconds on a clock that is manifested as the clock hand moves from point A to point B, the movement of a thing is time and yet the movement of a thing is the creation of space as distance thus time is fundamentally spatial change. Given the distance of point A to point B then point B to point C as a fractal of point A to point C time is fundamentally a fractal as time is the manifestation of space given time is spatial change.

Regardless the infinite divisibility of line segments or points results in fractal patterns that maintain a cohesive finite order within infinity thus allowing for the infinite to maintain an everpresent finite nature by which it can be observed for while there may be infinite line segments all are relatively seen by the single line segment as an ever present fractal that is self similar regardless of the depth and degree of division.

[Eodnhoj7]

++++++++

The expansion or contraction of a percieved phenomena within time and space, relative to the observer, necessitates that with each difference in percieved size is a distinct fractal effect of the phenomena compared to the previous moment.

The observer percieves all change of depth, the observer and/or observed changing position, through a fractal effect of the phenomena where the phenomena is a fractal by nature of expanding and contracting in awareness, each moment of expansion/contraction within perception is a self-similar fractal of the phenomena percieved.

A phenomena observed as actually changing size, within a fixed point of reference, is dually a fractal effect as this is another means of expansion and contraction albeit the actual phenomena itself.

The expansion and contraction of space, by nature of change, between any given set of points necessitates each distinct moment as a fractal of the previous. A phenomena changing positions within any given distance, where a relative starting and end point are observed, necessitates that this change is induced by a fractal effect where a change in distance between phenomena requires the distance to occur as fractals.

The manifestation and dissolution of limits, which allows for form to occur, requires an expansion and contraction between points that composes said limits thus within all changing limits a meta-fractal effect occurs, by expansion/contraction between points within the limits.

Simultaneously the expansion and contraction of limits from, nothing into being and back to nothing and then back to being, is a fractal effect within each appearance of the phenomena and the change of it. Change as the expansion and contraction of space, and the limits of a thing as a space between spaces, necessitates change and fractals being synonymous.

The self similar nature of fractals necessitates recursion through repetition, isomorphism through identical foundations within differences, and a nature of variability where the self similar phenomena is both the same and different. Fractals thus necessitates an intrinsic order through progressive cyclicality thus within change is a paradoxical maintenence of order.

The self similar nature of change, through fractals as the meta-foundations of change simply being the expansion/contraction of space between points that allows for limits/form to occud, necessitates a relative self-reflective quality to phenomena that corresponds in nature to the self reflective quality of consciousness. Reality as a process necessitates the pivotal nature of change that constitutes it as having an intrinsic self-reflective quality through self-similarity at the meta-levels of change and further on. The foundation of change is the expansion/contraction of space between points, the unification and seperation of points, where each successive moment is a distinct spatial fractal that allows the limits of change to occur.

Change can thus be viewed as a self reflective quality that unites both the observed phenomena and the phenomena of the observer.

_______

Consciousness is a distinction made by consciousness for consciousness is the act of making distinctions and as such the distinction of consciousness is consciousness as self simulating through self reference thus for a total degree of awareness consciousness must be aware of itself if it is to be aware of it transformational nature of the distinctions it makes.

Consciousness as self simulating and self referencing is a distinction through the distinction of the process of fractals, by the nature distinction, a process of connection and seperation by which things occur, consciousness is the distinction of the process of change.


1. All order occurs by recursion, this recursion maintains the phenomena within a specific space, by inherent symmetry that allows occurence of it from nothing, and across space as temporal space where the phenomena is maintained for a period of time, a ratio of space within another dimension of space as time. By recursion a phenomena is self similar.

2. The recursion of a phenomena is a phenomena itself, the relations of the foundations of a phenomena, that occur recursively, layer so as to result in a new phenomena that is an isomorphic to its foundation where the new phenomena is the same as its foundations but yet is a different expression. By isomorphism a phenomena is self similar.

3. A phenomena is the same across its differences by nature of it foundations being self simulating layers where each phenomena is a recursive foundation for another in temporal space and the space in which this space occurs.

4. Consciousness is pattern recognition by nature of bias formation that leads to a self-referencing identity. Consciousness percieves a pattern. This pattern is embodied within the consciousness. Further patterns the Consciousness percieves are filtered through the bias that is the pattern which is assumed by consciousness. The bias that filters experience in turn forms experience so that the bias is reinforced. The bias is turn becomes a process of a protjective and reflective loop, a process of self reference, that reinforces itself where it forms experience so that experience forms it. Identity, synonymous to bias patterns as the ego, is a cycle which contains the awareness of the identity. It is order.

5. All identity occurs by recursion, this recursion maintains the identity within a specific space, by inherent symmetry that allows occurence of it from awareness, and across space as temporal space where the phenomena is maintained for a period of time, a ratio of space within another dimension of space as time. By recursion a identity is self similar.


6. The recursion of an identity is an identity itself, the relations of the foundations of an identity, that occur recursively, layer so as to result in a new identity that is an isomorphic to its foundation where the new identity is the same as its foundations but yet is a different expression. By isomorphism an identity is self similar.

7. An identity is the same across its differences by nature of it foundations being self simulating layers where each identity is a recursive foundation for another in temporal space and the space in which this space occurs.


8. The identity of consciousness is a distiction, it is the connection and seperation of phenemena that allows it to be as distinct. By distinction all identities are self similar for to connect and seperate identities it to expand and contract the spaces between them and the identities themselves. Consciousness is the manifestation and dissolution of distinctions by transforming them. By transforming the identity the consciousness percieves the identity which contains consciousness is transformed.


9. This identity is rooted in self-referencing change through change, and by expansion/contraction of identity does identity occur as a fractal from distinct moment to distinct moment thus the cycles that maintain identity in one time and space are the cycles that maintain identity in another time and space, time and space are bent when seperate identities interact with eachother by nature of having the same symmetry, same order.

10. One identity in two different spaces, by nature of being fractals, observes the relative containment of the space between them through the cycle of the identity. Simultaneously the distinct spaces of identities symmetrical to eachother results in a new identity by nature of each symmetrical identity forming a new symmetrical identity, using the prior symmetrical identities as it's foundations. What occurs in one space, occurs in another and each occurence is an extension of the other by nature of being fractals.

11. Identity is the quantum entanglement of identities through fractals where consciousness is the transformation of these identities that in turn contain it by this cyclicality. Given an identity occurs within a given space of time, and this space of time contains multiple distinctions of said identity, the space of the past is inherently reflected and inherent in its repetition as the future. Dually the identity within the future effects the past by nature of the identity occuring simultaneously in both.

12. Time thus becomes integral to identity and yet it is a distinction of the space by which an identity occurs, for time is the distance by which an identity occurs and as such time is a space, for time allows change and by change there is distinction. Consciousness occurs by distinction thus necessitating a nature of being akin to space for distinction is by nature spatial by means of connecting and separating identities. Consciousness as seperation and connection is spatial. Fractals are unfolding self-similar spaces.
______

If all things are purely distinctions, and to make this distinction is a distinction within the distinction that "all things are distinctions", does this necessitate all knowledge, assertion by default as a thing thus a distinction, being a nesting of assertions and what we know as knowledge is nothing other than self-simulating contexts as assertions are relative?

If this is the case and knowledge resorts to purely interwoven contexts then does the chain of reasoning break as all assertions eventually lead to others in a non-linear way, thus further necessitating that rationality is not entirely necessary for knowledge as all assertions are interwoven to such a degree that a purely linear approach to knowing is impossible?

Now given the assertion that linear knowledge is limited within interwoven co-dependent contextual assertions, and knowledge is reduced to other nested distinctions, with "nested distinctions" being a distinction, does this reduce knowledge to merely be "appearance" given any essence within a distinction is also a distinction?

What differs "appearance" from "distinction" given an appearance is a distinction and distinctions appear within the mind?

If distinctions being appearances, appears as an interconnected web, and this web is the looping of distinctions, does this necessitate learning is less of acquiring knowledge and more of actualizing latent processes of thought and memory?


Given language is determined by symbolism, and symbolism fundamentally is forms composed of and composing space, the nature of language becomes a process of spatial curvature, by nature of the symbols involved, thus necessitating the application of meaning only occurs if there are forms by which meaning can be transferred. In these respects the creation of meaning is the creation of reality through symbol formation where meaning is the energy by which the symbol institutes change with phenomenon, including consciousness.

This further necessitates the consciousness transference occurs through spatial curvature by means of applying intention and attention to forms in such a manner that consciousness becomes transdimensional. In these respects language takes on the nature of being a portal through which awareness travels given a single symbol causes a transformation of the psyche.

Symbol conceptualization is the paradigm by which the mind is formed as a structure of interwoven symbols with the symbol fundamentally being curved space, as it is a form, thus meaning results as a transference of intention and attention by nature of space where form acts as a vehicle for the psyche in the respect that the symbol contains the transformative ability to institute change within oneself and in others.

Consciousness thus becomes symbol projection and reflection by nature of forming space so that symbols contain the mind and by the mind reality comes forth by the existence of forms.

Meaning thus takes the nature of the symbol embodying it and relegates the conscious acts of intention and attention to being inseperable from space. In these regards the conceptualization of language so as to provide dimensions to the psyche results in the nature of consciousness being grounded in space where pure consciousness may effectively be akin to a spatial void by which forms arise, as seen in eastern meditation practices and quantum appearances of particles in western science.

Language is the transference of consciousness through symbols that in turn house the psyche and the nature of these symbols is grounded in a spatial nature. Where space becomes self-evident for what it is by the appearance of form, consciousness becomes inseperable from space by nature of the forms, the symbols, used to house it. Symbols become portals within the psyche to further symbols where the derive meaning acts as a source of change within consciousness so that consciousness may exist both as distinct and a means of distinction through interwoven change.

[Eodnhoj7]

++++++


All assertions are multilayered, there is no fixed meaning to any one assertion outside of specific context.

With multiple contexts an assertion has multiple meanings.

Multiple meanings is superpositioned intention within the psyche by form of language.

By context is an assertion revealed, without context an assertion is ambiguous, absent of meaning.

Context is a layer to an assertion, by context an assertion is or is not.

Truth is fixed within a given context, but context is not fixed.

Context dependency necessitates truth as paradoxical when multiple contexts are present.

The simpler the truth the greater the variety of meaning, the simpler the truth the greater it mirrors the observers perception.

Simplicity results in division of truths for contradictory interpretations, by nature of projection, are revealed.

A simple truth is but a mirror, a reflection of many things.

To pursue a universal truth would effectively result in a truth with innumerable dimensions by nature of innumerable meanings, context could not hold it for the context would depend upon it in one respect while limiting the truth by nature of context.

Context gives dimension to truth, with increased context comes increase dimension, by dimension is a truth distinct from other truths but given context gives dimension and contexts can contradict, context divides a simple truth into a contradictory state thus by relativism comes a multitude of absolute truths, in some respects, thus leaving the simplest truth, underlying all, being the distinction of context.

If truth is contextual, and this is a truth, then truth B as a context for truth A inversely makes truth A a context for truth B. Context is relative, all truths are potentially contexts for all truths.

Context is the limit of truth, in themselves all contexts are absolute as they are a self referencing loops. Without context truth has no limit, no meaning.

If context depends upon context and truth dependent upon truth than a context is state of superpositioning where attention and intention provides the dimension of a truth amidst infinite possibilities. Truth thus is an assertion of attention where actuality is derived from infinite potentiality.

Truth is superpositioned meanings until attentive perception forms it as either a distinct meaning or finite layered meanings.

Meaning is truth by nature of relative contexts being a new context and yet truth is layered thus meaning equates to potential new truths by virtue of new contexts to define it as a context.

Truth is not fixed and yet manifests as contexts, one context to another necessitates truth as a process of transformation.

_______

Regardless of whether or not one believes, or what they believe or disbelieve, what is consistent within the nature of belief is the act of distinction of the belief and the distinctions which come from the belief/non-belief....and this nature of distinction spans across all experiential phenomena thus relegating belief/non-belief to a form of psychological architecture in the respect it is compounded or layered distinctions.

________

If contradiction and paradox are observed as rational, rational by nature of being a percieved ratio of thesis and antithesis from which a structured negation and/or synthesis occurs and with these things a transformation of perception, then the nature of contradiction and paradox being inherently "bad", which is generally the case in western thought, is less of a rational viewpoint and more of a value projection based upon an assumption of what conceptualization should be....and yet the evidence is ignored at the inevitability of paradox and contradiction within and through systems of thought at the detriment of accepting the obvious nature of truth.

By transformation of conception, by paradox/contradiction, reason becomes a fixed process where rational discourse is nothing other than the formation and dissolution of limits by which contextual truth is symbolically a "raft to cross the river of the psyche".

______

The translucent nature of distinctions in turn alludes to all distinctions being illuminating by virtue of appearance while being "see through" as one leads to another.

[Eodnhoj7]

++++++

Philosophy is the assertion of definitions of terms.

In philosophy anyone can define their terms as a word is defined according to context.

Philosophers use the defined terms to create a chain of reasoning.

The chain of reasoning is generally for the most part rational...A leads to B leads to C...etc. In non-linear arguments an underlying pattern exists across seemingly seperate points.

Those convinced of a philosophy are so by degree of the appearance of reason...but the majority fail to see this reasoning for what it is: an appearance.

Now why is reasoning an appearance?

Because of the defined terms by which it began. In choosing infinite phenomena and infinite experiences the definition is a localizization of one possibly thing amidst the infinite. Even within innumberable finite phenomena the same situation occurs. To localize one assertion within infinite or innumerabley finite is to make the assertion appear by nature of being distinct.

There is no law by which one chooses the foundations of their argument. If there is a law, there is no law by or how to justify this law.

The foundation is baseless at best, beyond that the foundations and argument justify eachother through a circle, or the foundations lead to an infinite regress by which in finite time they are always changing or in the infinite expanse fundamentally indefinite.

Now because the foundations of philosophical arguments are mere appearance there is no substance other than intent for the intent manifested the foundational assertion..this leads to a subjective state where a treatise, is an expression of perception and less of truth where the nature of truth follows the same asserted definitional nature previously stated.

Philosophical treatises are a means of people influencing others to see things a certain way and yet fails to take into account that the distinctions required to make them what they are are dependent upon another viewpoint being wrong. To convince others by means of assertion requires antithetical assertions by which the presented assertion is distinct.

In simpler terms a philosophical system requires it being wrong from another respective system, so as to be distinct from the other that claims it is in error.

A universal philosophical system, by nature, is not within the nature of the system itself.

Now the context expands:

All forms of knowledge can be reduced to a philosophical nature for "the love of knowledge" occurs in many distinct intellectual fields.

_____

Given knowledge is by nature distinction, the act of knowing becomes the projection and reflection of distinctions, projection by assertion and reflection by assuming.

The act of distinction by knowing the distinction can be of any phenomena as any phenomena with the distinction of the context by which the foundational distinction occurs requiring knowledge as distinction through distinctions, distinctions within distinctions and distinctions out of distinctions.

The known distinction leads to further distinctions thus necessarily resulting in an inherent meta-ratio by which knowing and knowledge occurs.

Distinctions generally are for the most part rational...A leads to B leads to C...etc. In non-linear knowledge an underlying pattern exists across seemingly seperate distinctions thus necessitating seemingly seperate distinctions as nested within a broader one and thus rational as a set.

Those who know, know by degree of the appearance of ratios, of reason, and yet ratios/reason are but an appearance as these things are distinctions and by nature of appearance there is a translucent quality to distinctions as one is seen through another.

Experience is translucent:

1. To make something clear, through rhetoric or rather the use of words, is to make something transparent in the respect that it is now "see through" as its definition allows one to see connections that go beyond said thing. This "seeing through" allows the now clear thing to no longer be a barrier to understanding as its limits become transparent as a result of its perceived connections.

2. The observation of change is the observation of transparency as the phenomenon changing into another is the phenomenon being seen through another thus showing a vacuous yet clear, or rather 'see through', nature to being.

3. It is difficult to rationalize the Truth as rationalization requires the dividing up of said Truth, through definitions, with this division resulting in hindrances as the fine lines of definitions now become barriers.

4. Order requires boundaries. Boundaries require a distinction. A distinction requires a standing apart of one thing from another. This "standing apart" results in contradiction. Order is contradiction.

5. If all is boundaries, and boundaries are distinctions from other boundaries (otherwise without distinction there would be no boundary), then there is a boundary between boundaries thus making the boundary as a contradictive in nature. This contradiction makes the boundary as fundamentally 'see through', thus no longer a boundary, considering the opposition of boundaries makes the nature of the boundary as empty as the act of standing apart through distinction creates a gap through separation; the boundary is a gap and the gap is empty of distinction. This emptiness of the boundary makes it paradoxically not a boundary thus there is nothing is stop one from seeing through it to further boundaries.

6. Order comes from spontaneity as it just appears. The impression that one thing appears from another is just an impression as one thing occurs then a different thing with this difference being a form of spontaneity. Connection between things only shows an absence of distinction between things thus leaving us only with differences and with this difference there is a spontaneity. Order requires symmetry and with symmetry an absence of distinctions. One thing leading to another thing is just continual spontaneity, due to difference, as the absence of distinctions required between symmetrical things leaves a nature of emptiness.

7. We assume order because one thing follows another yet it is this action of "one thing following another" that can be dually observed in reverse where anything can be observed as ordered if one thing follows another, yet in the nature of a raw spontaneity one thing follows another thus spontaneity can come before order. The observation of order is as spontaneous as the spontaneity that allows the one thing to be followed by another.

8. "The more things change the more they stay the same." With the continual change of a thing comes a transparency of boundaries as one thing is seen through another due to their connections. This transparency eliminates the boundaries into a conceptual unity as one distinctness leads to a further distinctness thus leaving distinctness as empty in itself as there is no comparison for it as that is all there is. In change one boundary results in another thus resulting in a transparent unity where paradoxically all things become one as they are connected by their very nature of having boundaries with one boundary being seen through another as one is connected to another. The transparency of things is the emptiness of things with this emptiness occurring by the inherent oneness things share due to an absence of distinction between boundaries (as all there is is boundaries) and one boundary leading to another thus leaving it as empty in itself.

9. To create a distinction requires a distinction between further distinctions thus one distinction leads to another with an inevitable ambiguity as to why there is a distinction to begin with and why there are distinctions to begin with. Distinction is thus spontaneous in nature as what we are left with is it appearing 'as it is' with a source in nothingness and an end in nothingness as the continuity of distinctions leaves us with an inevitable emptiness from which things 'just occur' considering this continuity of distinction is a paradoxical absence of distinction. This is considering the act of distinctions leading to further distinctions is a transparent self-referentiality as the self-ness of the distinctions has nothing beyond it but itself which in turn lends credit to the emptiness of said distinction(s) as there is no comparison beyond it/them. This emptiness of the distinction(s) is fundamentally a unity as the multiplicity of things share the same nature of being distinct and with this same nature of being distinct there is no distinction between said distinction. However to assume the opposite, that there is distinctions between distinctions is to observe a contradiction of the nature of distinction, through a self-opposition, in which case the nature of distinction self-negates thus leaving an absence of distinction that in turn result in the emptiness of unity.

10. "Thing" is an ambiguous term if all distinctions are things as distinction requires further distinction and this continuity results in an absence of beginning or end thus an absence of distinction. The ambiguity necessitates an absence of sense, an absence of distinction, as to what "thing" really means thus leaving "thing" paradoxically as "not a thing" or "no thing". This paradoxical nature leaves us with "thing" as fundamentally a see-through and clear term thus relegating knowledge, through this foundational term, as vacuous and illusive.


11. A boundary between boundaries necessitates the phenomenon of boundary as divided against itself thus a contradiction. Knowledge's requirement of boundaries is a requirement of contradiction with this contradictory nature emphasized within the observation that for every 'x perspective' there is a perspective of 'not x perspective'. Knowledge's grounding in contradiction, which results in further contradiction, results in knowledge being its own antithesis as it is the act of contradiction. Even then this contradiction contradicts itself thus leaving us with no contradiction, through a double negation (i.e. not not this or not not that), but with this absence of contradiction comes further contradiction as the absence of contradiction is to contradict contradiction. This senseless nature to knowledge makes it fundamentally transparent in the respect that the absence of sense is a formlessness and with this formlessness comes transparency.


12. Multiplicity alludes to being as transparent considering that with multiplicity one thing is seen through another under the nature of contrast. Unity alludes to being as transparent considering that which unity there is no separating distinctions between said things thus an absence of boundaries. Transparency is thus paradoxical and with this paradox comes a deeper nature of transparency given that the paradox results in a formless nature to truth.

13. Empirical senses put boundaries to the world and blind us as they manifest a thing to us by superficiality or strictly it just being an image. Only by sensing the empirical senses do we observe one thing leading to another thus a connection that induces a transparency as one thing occurs, and is sensed, through another. This is a transparency through contrast as one thing is seen through another only because it stands apart from another. This standing apart is a contradiction that occurs because of barriers. The contradiction of barriers, as one thing standing apart from another, results in a paradoxical transparent unity of things as boundaries occur through the standing apart from other boundaries (boundaries are sensed through further contrasting boundaries) as a boundary with this act of standing apart, which results from boundaries, being shared by all things.
This leaves us sense the nonsense of the empirical senses with this nonsense being the sense of a thing by what it is not through the act of one boundary, or thing, standing apart form another. The sensing of nonsense is the sensing of things through what it is not and this only occurs through the emptiness that results from the contradiction of things standing apart.

14. Change is the emptiness of things as one thing resulting in another is the manifestation of further distinctions from an inherent emptiness, which has no boundaries, given the new distinctions (resulting from change) have a said emptiness in themselves as they are dependent upon the contrast of further distinctions. This nature of distinction occurring through further distinction, as a comparison or contrast, necessitates a dependency upon continuous contexts that leaves an emptiness of selfhood. Change is emptiness and this emptiness is an absence of distinction through the continuum of further distinctions that leave the nature of distinction as fundamentally empty of meaning. Perpetual change is perpetual sameness as perpetual distinction has no comparison to make it distinct from itself. However if the phenomenon of distinction where distinct form itself it would no longer be distinct as to be distinct from distinction is no longer distinction, thus from this other angle distinction is also empty. There is no distinction between distinctions if one tries to encapsulate the nature of distinction within a squared rational framework, otherwise all there would be is distinction and this in turn would leave distinction meaningless as there is no comparison for it to occur unless a contradictory self-division of distinction comparing to itself takes place in which case anything can be said about distinction.

15. In infinite space every point is a center point but this leaves every other point not a center point (as there can only be one center point) thus every point is both a center point and not a center point thus leaving the point within infinite space non-sensical.

16. All repetition requires change as the act of repetition is the continuity of a thing through time and space with this continuity requiring gaps between the instance of one thing and its further appearance in another time and space. This gap necessitates repetition as an act of continual distinctions in time and space of said thing with, otherwise there would only be one instance of said thing with this one instance being formless as it would have no comparison to the other times and spaces through which this thing must repeat in order to gain an identity through relation. This repetition is thus dependent upon change with each new appearance of said thing no longer being the thing which supposedly reappears as the new time and space is the new thing. Repetition is cyclical thus has no beginning or end thus no distinction in one respect (as there is no beginning or end) while in another respect is perpetual differentiation as each new time and space is a new identity. Sameness and change are thus one.

17. Sameness is an absence of distinctions which separate things and perpetual distinction is an absence of distinction as there is no distinctions between distinctions if all there is is distinction. Dually from another angle to distinguish distinctions is to have the phenomenon of distinction negate itself through a self-opposition thus is paradoxically no longer distinction as it distinguishes away distinctions.

18. The continual renewal of things is the continual change of things with this continuity of change pointing to an inherent emptiness within the selfhood of all things, through a dependency upon further conditions, thus leaving a form of unity as this perpetual emptiness of selfhood has an absence of distinction that allows it to underlie all things.

19. We only understand things by ceasing our understanding of these very same things as understanding creates a barrier and with barriers comes separation and contradiction.

20. If it is a thing it will eventually become exhausted due to its relative nature as the continual dependency upon progressive contexts, through which it is observed, leaves an emptiness of it being a thing in itself. The more contexts required for a thing to be observed leaves it in a less and lesser state of appearing as a this in itself. This exhaustion in observation points to an emptiness and with this emptiness comes a nature of transparency.

21. The continual progression of a thing, through repetition, necessitates a thing coming from nothingness as the repetition of this thing results in little variations, little distinctions, that occur spontaneously as the thing progresses in time and space. The continual progression of a thing results in micro-variations and distinctions because of said differences in the time and space in which it occurs. The sameness of a thing that repeats occurs simultaneously to the little variations that manifests in each instance of its repetition thus manifesting a dualistic quality of being one and many things. Repetition results in spontaneity as the thing just appears, disappears in a relative gap, then just appears again. We only apply order to a series of events after they occur and yet if we withhold the judgement of this applied order we are left with a spontaneity; in another respect order 'just appears' thus necessitating further spontaneity.

Order is assumed but there is no groundings to it other than it being an applied quality that is artificial as it is created as a concept. Things just occur and the evidence of there being an order only occurs when we look at the continuity behind the change. However this continuity can be observed as spontaneous as well considering it just occurs as itself. We say order occurs because 'x leads to y which leads to z' but if reality only appeared as y then x and then z instead we would say it is also just as ordered because that is how it appears. Everything appears as ordered when there is nothing else to compare it to that would imply some other order from which to randomly choose from. Under these terms order is just appearance and appearance not only fades away with change, thus order following with it, but is spontaneous considering it just occurs then disappears.

To say everything requires order is strictly a statement of belief that paradoxically may not be orderly in itself as we cannot observe everything without resulting in broad generalities of being that effectively mean nothing due to infinite applications. To say everything is ordered is to may order meaningless, as it is without compare to other things, and self-contradicting, as it compares only to itself thus is self-dividing. Order just appears and this nature of 'just appearing' necessitates it as being its own opposite (that of disorder).

22. The totality of being is formless as it has no comparison, with comparison being required for form to occur through contrast (i.e. a standing apart), otherwise if it were to have comparison it would not be the totality as something would be beyond it. Comparable, or rather contrasting (i.e. standing apart), only to itself it is self-divided thus contradictory. Being formless it is translucent as the formlessness necessitates an absence of barriers and distinctions that would otherwise result in an inability to see through it. As one without comparison with nothing being beyond it, yet paradoxically self-divided through self-comparison, it is seen only through itself thus is radiant with any self-contrast through self-division occurring radiantly considering definition only occurs where light is present.

23. There is space inside a circle. There is space outside a circle. The inner and outer space is divided through the form of the circle with this form being space itself. Space is divided by space with this division being space itself; space is self-contradicting. The division of one space by another necessitates space as seen through another thus necessitating space as both transparent and illuminated. One form, i.e. space, seen through another is the standing apart of forms, i.e. spaces, that allows definition to take place. This "standing apart" necessitates a transparency in being as one thing cannot be seen except through another while dually the "standing apart" necessitates a radiance which is definition of forms in itself.

24. A previous order has to disintegrate so that a new order may occur with this new order being the adaptation of the old due to the introduction of new contexts and/or problems. It is this introduction of new contexts/problems that shows the previous order as having very little footing other than its strict existence as an appearance, in the respect it is observed 'just as is', with the new order having this same nature considering it will have to eventually dissolve under the necessity of further adaptation. The dissolution of an order for another order shows a certain spontaneity in which change of context, resulting in the aforementioned change of order, manifests as change producing further change in which order just emerges from randomness and that is it. It is spontaneous and thus as randomly occuring as the randomness from which it comes. Order becomes mere appearance as this emergent quality is its only observable grounding. In observing order we relegate it to nothing more than appearance or image; this nature shows order as fundamentally being flat or shallow as one order/appearance results in another, then another, so on and so forth with no end in sight as order becomes a self-referential string looped upon itself as order changes to further order. Order, under these terms, is meaningless. This loop of order changing into further order is just a meta-order that spontaneously appears thus grounding order in a quality of 'emergence' that is spontaneous and random considering it just occurs...and that is it; 'it' just occurs.

Order requires adaptation with adaptation existing only if something is introduced randomly for order cannot adapt to further order unless there was first a gap between said orders that first requires a contradiction or rather absence of order. Change separates one order from another thus making each order distinct from the other with this distinction of orders resulting in a level of assymetry between them which is synonymous to randomness and spontaneity. No two orders are exactly the same thus necessitating the groundings of order in 'disorder' and a paradox ensues from this. Order and disorder effectively blend as one, in the macro context, due to their co-dependent relationship thus leaving us with absurdity; yet in acknowledging this absurdity we rationalize an order definition of things, by calling them "absurd", thus it is absurd that there is absurdity. By pointing to disorder in things we only bring order to them by defining them under the term "disorder"; by pointing to order within things we only bring disorder to them by leaving the definition of "order" open ended in the respect that is requires self-evidence thus fundamentally subjective and subject to a multitude or interpretations that are distinctly different (what is 'ordered' to one individual is not always 'ordered' to another).

The spontaneity and randomness of order appearing can be evidenced by a series of square objects sharing the same form of the square with the square just appearing from nothing, it just appears; even in things with shared forms the general form just appears spontaneously. Order being grounded in further order results in an infinite regress where the succession of order just appears and as such is spontaneous and random thus contradicting its own nature at the meta-level. To believe order underlies all things is to make order meaningless as it has no compare to allow it to be distinct (thus no longer can 'order' be said to exist because of this indistinctness, and with this occurring to 'disorder' as well); to say order does not underlie all things is to result in a contrast of disorder and order that results in truth being grounded in contradiction and with it 'order' and 'disorder' as well.

25. In everything being different everything is the same by sharing the quality of 'standing apart' or rather 'distinctness'. In everything being the same everything is different as sameness requires multiplicity (i.e. a thing cannot be the same as itself without there first being multiple states which equate) and with this multiplicity comes distinctness due to differences in time and space, thus there is neither sameness nor difference.

26. The order of an event is ascribed only after the event occurs and as such it, i.e. the observation of order or the order itself, cannot be differentiated as either an actual objective state or a subjective interpretation. This reverse nature to order necessitates it as a projective quality with this projective quality coming from a spontaneous emergence from the observers in the respect it 'just appears'. Even from the perspective that this observation of order is not spontaneous, considering we measure one order relative to another, the nature of perception just "clicking", i.e. suddenly seeing the order, still necessitates a deeper spontaneity considering this "clicking" just emerges from nowhere the is perceptible. We only observe order from the observation of other orders, with orders beyond that and so forth, and yet order in its totality 'just appears' spontaneously, this spontaneity necessitates order as rooted in randomness. Ultimately any rational explanation is rooted in a subjective state that is irrational as drives and impulses, as well as subjective memories, influence it. This grounding in randomness, or spontaneity, and rationality makes order fundamentally transparent in the we respect we see order emerging from the observation of other orders (for example we see why x event occurred because of other similar events occuring and one event is seen through another. Another example is of the observation of the order the the sun rising and setting is through the other observations of times of the sun rising and setting). In other words the spontaneous emergence of order necessitates a transparent quality to order as one order is seen through another.

27. The space inside the circle is empty. The space outside the circle is empty. The circle itself is the emptiness between spaces. This is the nature of all forms.

28. With the highest of pleasures comes nothing beyond it but itself thus it is a state of meaninglessness.


29. All order occurs through symmetry and symmetry occurs through repetition with this repetition being the foundations of a cycle. All order is grounded in cycles with this cyclicality being a 'prison', in the most abstract of terms, as it 'contains' or rather is a 'container'.

30. All extremes in actions allows a person to stand apart as the imbalance, of the extremism, creates an asymmetry in which there is no similarity between that person an another. This extremism is the condition for a fragmentation of being, or rather observers, as said 'standing apart' results in a multiplicity of states as there is no unity through commonality. Only through balance, with balance occurring through moderation, does a person become transparent and without a self as this balance allows an embracement of the whole of all possible actions thus negating an identity with any one thing that stand apart but rather results in an identity with all things thus effectively nothing; the transparency of a person, through moderation, is the person being able to be seen within all facets of life as balance allows for all things to occur. The transparency of balance is the emptiness of being as balance results in a state of evenness in which one thing does not rise above or fall below another thus there is no 'standing apart' or distinguishment.

31. To master a thing is to make it indistinguishable from the self. This oneness of the person and the action is emptiness as the said lack of distinguishment is an absence of boundaries between the action(s) and the person. To master an action is to result in a state of emptiness where things occur with little to no hindrance.

32. The self is limited when one's happiness is conditioned upon things that require further conditions, in order to exist, as all conditioned things have a beginning and an end thus are limited.

33. To achieve balance is to achieve a state of emptiness as all things and there opposites neither rise above nor fall below eachother thus preventing any assymetry or 'standing apart'. This emptiness of balance allows the spontaneous emergence of all things as there is no distinctions or hindrances within it to prevent anything from occurring. Balance allows for all possibilities as well considering a thing and its opposite must occur; with all possibilities manifesting comes a transparent emptiness of things as one thing is seen through another as one thing is dependent upon another. Balance is emptiness as one thing does not stand apart from another thus negating distinctions.

_____

The translucent nature of distinctions in turn alludes to all distinctions being illuminating by virtue of appearance while being "see through" as one leads to another. "Translucence" is a quality, thus a distinction, thus necessitating distinctions bring light to other distinctions by virtue of the act of distinction, by distinction bringing light to further distinction one distinction is seen through another.

Given distinction brings light both empirically and symbolically, for empirical and symbolic light is how distinctions occur, the translucent nature of distinction results in light being inseperable from the knowing of consciousness by virtue of the making of distinction that both allows consciousness to occur and the distinction of consciousness through consciousness.

________


Causality is grounded in observation by nature of distinctions that occur through observation which furthermore is reflectively founded in the distinction of observation itself through the act of observation itself as observation makes the distinction of observation.

To observe is to make distinct, to make distinct is to change, for by distinction is potentiality actualized through the localization of a phenomenon, from all that is possible, so that the new distinction is the manifestation of some distinctions and the dissolving of others. For example to observe x is to see certain distinction actualize and others dissolve, this is change. This change is the contraction and expansion of distinctions in and out of reality with reality being the underlying distinction of 'occurence' for what occurs is a reality by virtue of it occuring.

Observation is the cause of change, by nature of awareness, for distinctions arise from observation that reflect back upon the awareness, as both a reality and the reality of the awareness, thus resulting in awareness being justified by nature of distinction which inseperable from existence for existence is distinction, what is not distinct does not exist relatively speaking.

Within the language of physics this is the "Observer Effect" and yet this Observer Effect goes beyond physics given the nature of distinctions occuring is universal across all things that occur, be it abstract or empirical, literal or symbolic.

By awareness being the occurence of distinction, for distinction arising from it, it acts as cause. By further distinctions arising from others not only is this cause ever present, by nature of awareness, but the effects, distinctions from distinctions, have a simultaneous nature superpositioned cause within them by nature of being further potential distinctions. In these respects potentiality is cause by nature of actuality arising from it and the emptier the awareness the more potential it has for distinctions to arise from it.

Potentiality is causality for actuality comes forth from it. Awareness is the potentiality by which distinctions emerge. Potentiality is everpresent for potentiality is the absence of actuality by which actuality has space to occur. Pure awareness is pure potentiality where a pure potentiality results in a paradox that it becomes actual by nature of it being distinct as potentiality for when potentiality becomes distinct it becomes actual for distinction is actuality.

This process of the potentiality of potentiality being actuality is akin to a double negation where potentiality, absence of actuality, negates itself by its own potential of actuality. In other terms, actuality occurs as the potential of potential and the potential of potential is the distinction of the potential and by nature of the distinction of the potential does the potential become actual for actuality is distinction.

1. This is recursive, potentiality of potentiality.

2. This is isomorphic, potential of potential is but potential as actual.

3. This is variable, potentiality manifesting all forms of actuality and yet always being potentiality.

Given awareness is the potentiality of distinction, all awareness is an ever present cause in one respect. In another respect potentiality births actuality as distinction thus extending the definition of awareness across all phenomena that have underlying potentiality.

Potentiality in these regards can be observed as synonymous to space for by space do things change as it is the means through which change occurs, and these things, or rather distinctions, are spaces within space or absences of absences, potentialities of potentialities that not only result in the continuation of absence and potentiality but the isomorphic occurerence of positive and actual relativistically.

Pure awareness, pure potentiality, is akin to pure space and can be literally or metaphorically be reduced to a single point. Given a single point cannot be observed until the division/mulitiplication of it by the distinction of form, such is the nature of distinction making where a single point not only represent pure consciousness but effectively is the empircal space by which things emerge. The awareness of awareness is akin to a point dividing/multiplying into a sphere.

Potentiality is the absence of actuality, actuality is distinction, thus potentiality is the absence of distinction. It is not a thing, hence nothing.

The negation of potentiality is the potentiality of potentiality by which actuality comes forth in two respects:

1. Potentiality is now actual as potentiality for the potential of potential is actual by nature of potentiality being a distinction.

2. Pure potentiality ceases for a pure potentiality would have the potential for an absence of potentiality, the absence of potentiality is actuality.

Now here is a corresponding argument that mirrors the negation of potentiality argument:

The negation of a point is a point through point by which definition occurs in two respects:

1. The point is now distinct as a point for the point through another point is definitive form by nature of the point being a distinction.

2. A single point cease for a single point would contain all points as all forms, the absence of a single point is definitive form.

Now here is another argument that mirrors the above two:

The negation of awareness is an awareness through awareness by which distinction occurs in two respects:

1. The awareness is now distinct as awareness for the reflection of awareness through awareness is distinction by nature of awareness being a distinction.

2. A pure awareness would cease for a pure awareness would be aware of the absence of awareness, the absence awareness is the distinction of awareness.

[Eodnhoj7]

+++++

Given the inherent cyclical nature of order, evidenced by things repeating and things repeating through these repeating things, there is an omnipresent awareness to the universe given the distinction of consciousness is not only a form of this order but effectively the root of it by nature of self reflection thus consciousness is inseperable from cycles.

The nature of cycles inseperable from consciousness would effectively reduce reality to a process of consciousness where a complete central reality would effectively being infinite cycles within and without infinite cycles thus leaving only a sphere within no observable circumferance that would effectively appear as nothing and yet the cycles would be everpresent regardless of a percieved absence.

Consciousness in these regards, both universal and particular, is a paradox thus is expressed through the confines of time as transformative order where time as an experiential concept allows for the distinction of cycles to occur and by distinction consciousness gives rise to an appearance.

Given the cyclical nature of consciousness, and the underlying cycles that allow order to occur by repetition, or rather recursion, there is an omnipresent nature to consciousness.

______

Binary code is the quantification of being where the qualities of existence and non-being correspond to 1 and 0 respectively.

This nature of dualism, expressed within conceptualization, pervades through many seemingly different facets of experiential reality ranging from moral attributes of good and evil, biological sexuality, epistemological thesis and antithesis, metaphysical yin and yang, measuring processes of unity and multiplicity, spatial awareness of up and down or left and right, political attributes of conservative and liberal, geographic awareness of east and west or north and south...so on and so forth. The list is effectively endless and yet the underlying quality that overarches said concepts is that of a relative presence and absence, presence of one thing and the absence of that relative presence in another, relative being and non-being.

Any dualism can be used as the foundational point by which to construct an interpretive architecture where the act of distinction sets itself for this fundamental dualism for by distinction connection and seperation acts as the foundational qualities by which limits occur and from limits comes being.

Dualism is the foundational means by which things become distinct for a thing is derived by what it is not and what it is not is negated as the thing itself. This nature of identity is grounded in negation in many respects where the absence of a thing results in the absence of the absence of the thing within the realms of experience. Dualism is thus the recursion of absence as the absence of absence as a positive, or inversely a positive and a positive of a positive that simultaneously results in a relative absence. By the extremity of one identity comes its inversion into that of its opposite and by the union of opposites come a new phenomenon which again contains an opposite.

By opposition comes distinction and by continual distinction all things are one by said quality of distinction thus relegating dualism as an inherent process of consciousness so that distinction may occur as a process of transformation by which order arises through change.

The inherent cyclical quality of dualism, as evidenced by binary code, resorts it to a process of recursion by which recursive strings form isomorphic structures and a metadualism occurs by nature of recursion and isomorphism. This binary code can be observed in any interpretative paradigm where 1 and 0 are replaced by any dualistic account where one variable is 1 and the other variable is 0.

Dualism is a constant where relative opposites can have any set of variables applied all of which can be reduced to presence and absence and presence/absence be the variables of which innumerable expressions of them may occur. Why dualism is constant is by the nature of distinction required for being to occur, and the paradox of relative nothing on the other hand. Where experiential reality may be reduced to presence and absence, a meta dualism occurs by nature of reduction and wholism where relatively one may precede the other or not and yet a dualism remains as a superpositioned state of variable interpretation where options are infinite until localized by nature or conceptualization.

The infinite variables by which dualism manifests results in the dualism of finiteness to infinity as evidenced by the finite nature of the conception of dualism. A pure non-dualistic perspective would effectively result in a non-non-dualism if the logical course of being is necessitated by a pure negation for non-dualism is a distinction and all distinction gains contrast by what it is not.

A simple conceptual exercise can be observed to illustrate the above.


1. Negate infinitely.

2. Negate the infinite negation for boundless negation must negate itself.

3. A positive occurs.

4. Be positive infinitely.

5. One is positive about negativity for boundless positivity must accept negation.

6. A cycle of both occurs.

7. This cycle holds both simultaneously.

8. A balance occurs where all things are given a time and place.


By observing the nature of dualism a meta-dualism occurs by which a dualism of meta-dualism/dualism further occurs thus justifying a meta-meta dualism following the same processes through which dualism is a process of gradation resulting in a diversity of phenomena and a recursive process of dualisms, with each dualism being isomorphic, occurs through a process of fractals akin to a conscious nature where variability, a nature of sameness as difference occurs as a process of transformation of distinctions. Dualism is an identity process.

[Atla]

And then your cycles eventually fall apart as time goes on.

[Eodnhoj7]

****Time is the manifestation of change by the emergence and dissolution of limits where limit is the continual cycle and the form by which a thing occurs in time is repeating limits.

[Atla]

****Time is the manifestation of change by the emergence and dissolution of limits where limit is the continual cycle and the form by which a thing occurs in time is repeating limits.

There are no known limits, continual cycles, forms, occurrences, hard emergences, hard dissolutions, manifestations, true repetitions in the natural world. Why this particular fantasy?

[Eodnhoj7]

**** The natural world is defined by cycles of emergence and dissolution of things, life and death, expansion and contraction of populations, cyclical seasons, revolutions of planets, quantum spin, etc.

[Atla]

**** The natural world is defined by cycles of emergence and dissolution of things, life and death, expansion and contraction of populations, cyclical seasons, revolutions of planets, quantum spin, etc.

Your cycles eventually fall apart as time goes on, and they aren't perfect cycles anyway. And a large part of the world doesn't follow cycles. So it's obvious that the natural world isn't defined by cycles, nor by hard emergence and dissolution.