This math distinct is not very different and perhaps clearer as it uses the same operators between its distinct variables of symbol, word and number. It is however used by myself because the use of words and symbols allow a clearer and more easily understood model of features.
Since our brains recognize meaning easier and visualize it better, while symbols are used for swift defining of features too diverse for naming in a model of mathematical shapes. I only use number when representing numbers and value as the rest of math's usual requirements can be done easier with words that visualize the math first and can then be given numbers to calculate their values.
The following three objects use the above physics and variations of chemicals above a model of shape and behaviors that creates an object prototype for either construction or further work. It does not calculate the value of this model and instead uses the mathematical for construction.
As to far easier design a new object of physical complexity from scratch we can make a blueprint and this math is allowing simple direction of design and easy visualization.
As such, while the image below is difficult to explain, the math itself may be easily understood by applying the operators of math to a symbol as an object or a meaning as a value of information like computer coding.
Thus in its equations to anyone familiar with coding this math is similar to the way variables of code are represented by words meaning a number of a kind. The difference here is that the value of that variable is the word and the symbol itself.
Being my own writing and having done some math of this likeness before I am familiar with the way it is done by habit, observation and practice. To do the same means especially trying to model something with variables other then number and these three maths are not the only math I know of.
As math while usually thought of as being only for numbers is actually a natural part of human thought processing being manipulated by ourselves with numbers where it is usually used as underlying parts of our thinking. So the applications with other values of human cognated information is fully possible.
The difference is that numbers are strict and constrained to the number system used, while meanings are as one defines them and references the others. Symbols are easiest for being as objects that processed by the same operators such as dividing or increasing amount mean only the most literal of operation in the sense of operating on a material.
Also important, a thing that may occur during these three examples is that in my own use of number I use an additional number after one that is not two.
This is because I once wanted to find such an absurdity and realized that when we count the second number after one. When counting to two we are not referring to the number two when pointing at the second object and rather refer to a second singular amount that adds together with the first to become two.
It means the second one after the first one is a distinct divided value of equal amount to one and is needed for numbers to exist as it describes the difference of a number and another. However, for simplicity, this number is represented by รพ and is used in my math to define a new dimension of infinite length.
Meaning the number when used defines a second 1,2,3.. to infinity starting at the number it was added to and this new value is equated to a symbol to define the difference after by the symbol being placed in front of the numbers of that new dimension. This serves the math I do the purpose of being able to create new lines of length in as many directions as I want.
The number between 1 and 2 is called Tone because it looks like a ten too and blend one and two.
It means I can map a set of lines as distinct and apart from the other, rather then within the same line of counting as normal arithmatic. So allowing me to observe the continued change of connected lines that in difference of the symbol defining it, means that meeting lines of geometry are organized and followed in their connections.
As a result, the multi dimensional arithmatic serves the use of organized linear descriptions of a shape or even identical variable in another place and means an easier time keeping track of the calculated variables in an equation. As like the first one represent the first counted, the second single object counted after keeps track of the difference between the first and the second forming the number two.
A final mention of my absurdisms used in my usual maths distinct from most sensible people is that zero is the only real number because all values are null and do not have a real counted value.
This means a number is a model in itself for a represented subject that only has value in its distinctions as separate null thing and so anything not 0, is a different number 0 which does not equal all other numbers. I use this idea of anything being never something else as a basic form of counting and as my form of measured distance, distance is something measured in division by what it is not.
It means the corner of a table is never the millimeter to the left of that corner or anything between and allows absolute distinction of difference as the inherent length of somethings apart from another in scale in any sense. As such distances of difference between something are measured in exactly when they are not something else by point precision.
Below is an image that distinguishes a circle from another as a similar part of another value by difference of count and position. When I count a value greater it represents a bit of data that refers to its whole subset beneath it as one variable.
So defined words represent the same accuracy of hairsplitting specifics that would be dividing the nothing of an area in two and calling them two 0 as different. My understandings of life are based not on what is the same about anything but what is different to the absolute extreme.
Two number 0 are different by the shape of that nothing, in the same sense a part is different and distinct from another by all that defines it in physical or described reality as apart from another.
Parts as a result can be anything that is a distinctly defined thing in mind or matter, the defining of these parts creates their nature and using them requires the defined thing to be used.
A part is a model I use that is represented by 0 in math because a part is null defined and a group of nothing is distinguished by where, what and which 0 is the topic and when defined given name.
The same is done with anything where it is distinguished by what it is and is not in something else and defined by the word that is used which is represents the value of information it contains.
Parts are used to model the world by describing a feature as something in reality for study, it navigates the differences of it from other parts and modify them by using those parts with others.
As a result, my math and my modelling treats a value of information like a modular data bit that can be used with any other to form a set of a higher complexity of value merges as another part.
So instead of gliding over the scenery with my eyes in a controlled manner following motion and so the ball, I have no idea where it will be after I overshot the glance and saw a seagull.
This meant I noticed a larger amount of points on anything in general due to hardly ever looking at the same point on an object or scene and thus confused myself from the start on the value of what is equal in value and lead to a visual form of counting in elementary because I just looked at the points that were the five apples instead of counting them.
So I count the numbers of something in my head as visual objects ( usually circles ) and those amounts can add only to a maximum of on average 10. With this equality of sets as one value, I can then call one and make the same circles count decimals with the same visuals because I see the visual pattern in the symbols of numbers. Normal arithmetic is easy for me because I see 3 then 5 in my head as shapes.
Although after this with anything beyond addition and subtraction it breaks down due to difficulty visualizing that many objects in a mind so the visualized models of value in math fail to multiply and divide in a efficient way and I have a naturally bad memory so I learned to multiply up to 3 and then gave up. I presume I did this instead of memorize the numbers my brain can't remember anyways.
So my understanding of numbers breaks down visually faster then they do with the memorized values and my own counting works like many atoms together clumping form into one larger object as the number that also equals one. So straight off from basic school my understanding of math was backwards and accustom to numbers as shape arrangements.
This means I never did well at the usual math at school, even when I played with math in class cause i kindof like it. Likely to my math's teachers confusion when reading my notes and finding me failing her class but doing random unrelated math on the other page. In fact this confusion of my eyes seeing visual points is responsible for all my math oddity.
As being able to narrow the focus of a set of objects observed externally through focused points I select while looking around allows me to count objects outside myself with the recognized patterns of what a number looks like because they are configured in my habits to be apparent and in willed focus of my view when desired.
It means I both suck at normal math everyone knows and am really good at my own that is unlike. They tried to fix my eyes when I was a kid, but it was too late for the math confusion that my brain thought was normal for only knowing visual counting. So I didn't know real math from what I would realize later is not staring at objects and seeing the number five appear visually.
The difference of that visual counting would then spawn a distinct and separate philosophy of objects because it models values of information differently and as part modular bits. So my whole life I lived in a backwards reality of progressively counted information bonding into larger information sets as this is what I knew instead of the more often repeated wisdom.
My brain naturally kept counting ideas long after it wasn't necessary to compile a list of every idea that existed on the planet. Simply because I only learned the value of information as being 1 to 10, then 1 again.
This same point focus use of my eyes as counting parts different from others that I have from birth, also makes me extremely good at manipulating pareidolia because I relocate the patterns in new values of depth so I see another likeness of the same object.
As I can look at an object from different points, in a certain direction of origin, use visual highlights of the eye for pattern recognition and refocus my eyes distance in seconds to see pretty much anything in the least of like things if I try.
My current knowledge of matter is built of patterns located and matched to my own imagined visuals in mind, using the same pattern recognition and its seeking in my memory and surroundings.
While these patterns are sometimes apparent when I extend them from the natural encounters, sometimes my use of pareidolia as I use it seems absurd to others. As they presume pareidolia is psychological and is because a persons brain usually uses the same points of focus for every day life.
Some however do know how to change pariedolia as I have spoken to them about it and they confirmed being able to do the same or similar themselves.
I once looked for a cat head randomly in a rose flower and found it quickly, the cat was looking to the right. As such, because my eyes are accustom to another way of seeing the same things as everyone means even I think their is no question that I sound crazy to some people.
I speak of weirder connections because my visual observations formed their own personalized language of the patterns it saw. These connections I link from the patterns I see everyday, in what most gloss over. These behavior physics refer to the same experience as most peoples life parsed apart into distinctive visible variations.
As my visual experiences of objects and my constant staring at random things taught me to manipulate and observe nature in their smaller likeness of patterns and their larger relationships to a grown obsessive focus both literal and figurative.
Since I began to notice them more often when I started trying to do science and accidentally confused the scientific method because my own with matching patterns and likewise ideas seemed objective but is actually quite different.
So I now have a parallel perspective of the physical world from science, that is based off what I see and how it always behaves immediately in front of me, instead of science whose own hypothesis and tests for proof of natures on the atom they cannot see when proven are true.
Neither of these views are incorrect because both ensure tests and direct confirmation to ascertain validity of knowledge and technically both study physical reality. Yet both my science and real science do not focus on the same exact part of scale for study. My own begins at the top where I am and can see things and science's begins at the bottom where the atom is that it cannot see.
Luckily other people, I think can experience parts of different patterns of the seen beyond the typical they see when looking at another point on an object instead of the usual and paying attention to the differences it created.
The new was invisible from our blind spot and our focus point of view, only clearly detecting some of an object and blurring the rest in the peripheral, which I will add here actually changes the angle of objects inside it if you pay attention.
The objects in new focus point are distorted by our eyes blindness and yet reveal other parts of the same thing, so the object itself is unknown to us without distinguished points explored in interpretation of use and viewed insights on their nature.
For example my best real window into other alien worlds is done with a refocus of pareidolia on the reflective side of chip bags which are usually disregarded and myself using them in improved contexts of cut out pieces beyond the sold shape.
Yet first I had to focus with my eyes on the reflections to find patterns absurd in differences to here on the earth and so see not just a colorful shiny light.
They work as my multiverse windows in reflections of colors because its distorting and crumpled nature creates extremely eccentric reflections, that have no resemblance to here that can even have still or moving aliens.
The validity of these windows is irrelevant, for being a rearranged pattern of usual light that shows another arrangement of normal matter in a virtual or real other timespace. I say the same matter is found in the reflection because the arranged geometry seen can be studied then extracted as objects built if the time spent on their likeness to arrive here.
Above is an example reflection of a purple light I shined on chip bag mirror plastic.
No comments:
Post a Comment