Tractate 8 : The Error of Einstein (continued)

The following progression helps explain knowledge being the universal building block:

The graphic:



Becomes:



The universal building block becomes ‘knowing’

The complete whole becomes ‘Knowing’

In actually the progression becomes a quadratic relationship as opposed to a linear relationship and thus we obtain the graphic:



Therefore the two, ? and ? take on the appearance of being one in the same. The full understanding of the relationship therefore becomes twofold in nature:



It is not the point of this work nor is it the point of this tractate to examine the second half of each statement: ‘Being’ being ‘being’ and ‘Knowing’ knowing ‘knowing’. Regarding the second aspect of the relationship, the fields of Ontology and religion have said plenty. The point of this work and the point of this tractate is to examine the first half of the statement: ‘being’ being ‘Being’ and ‘knowing’ knowing ‘Knowing’. It is the field of philosophy and in particular the field of Metaphysics, which have, practically speaking, said nothing in regards to this metaphysical perception.

Multiplicity of unique entities of knowing, multiplicity of individuality becomes the primal atom of the Whole of Knowing. But what is the universal building block of universes? What is it that could be so small as to be the universal building block of the universe yet be so filled with its own self as to be the means by which the ‘primal atom’ of the whole can be generated? As we shall see in Tractate 10: The Error of Heidegger, it may very well be ‘nothingness’ itself acting in an active manner versus acting in the passive manner we have always perceived ‘nothingness’ to act which could reasonable account for the growth of the whole independent of time.

Perhaps the circle can help us see a useful progression, which might lead us to better understanding the universal building block of the whole of reality:

From a distance we have:



Zooming in we observe a progression of Aristotelian shells:









This is in essence a form of disguising what it is we observe as an inversion of ‘?’. The inversion factor simply inverts the left and the right as seen in a mirror. In the case of ‘?’ found ‘outside’ and ‘?’ found ‘inside’ as seen through the observation of the tunnel of abstraction or what might more generically be called the tunnel of perception.

Tractate 3: The Error of Boethius, detailed a few principles regarding the symmetry of abstractual and physical relationships:

The principle of symmetry:

  1. We only understand half the model if we understand where seamlessness lies in multiplicity for if there is a place where seamlessness lies in multiplicity, then it holds there is a place where multiplicity lies in seamlessness.
  2. We only understand half the model if we understand where abstraction lies in the physical for if there is a place where abstraction lies in the physical, then it holds there is a place where the physical lies in abstraction.
  3. We only understand half the model if we understand where divine foreknowledge lies in free will for if there is a place where divine foreknowledge lies in free will, then it holds: there is a place where free will lies in divine foreknowledge.
  4. We only understand half the model if we understand where non-Centricism lies in Centricism for if there is a place where non-Centricism lies in Centricism, then it holds there is a place where Centricism lies in non-Centricism.
  5. We only understand half the model if we understand where omni benevolence lies in omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence for if there is a place where omni benevolence lies in omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, then it holds there is a place where omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence lies in omni benevolence.
  6. We only understand half the model if we understand where the non-Cartesian lies in the Cartesian for if there is a place where the non-Cartesian lies in the Cartesian, then it holds there is a place where the Cartesian lies in the non-Cartesian. d/t = v/1
  7. We only understand half the model if we understand where the Cartesian lies in the non-Cartesian for if there is a place where the Cartesian lies in the non-Cartesian, then it holds there is a place where the non-Cartesian lies in the Cartesian. t/d = 1/v
  8. We only understand half the model if we understand where nothingness lies in the physical for if there is a place where nothingness lies in the physical, then it holds there is a place where the physical lies in nothingness.
  9. We only understand half the model if we understand where time is directly proportional to distance for if there is a place where time is directly proportional to distance, then it holds there is a place where the inverse of time is directly proportional to the inverse of distance. E/m = d/t
  10. We only understand half the model if we understand where seamlessness lies in multiplicity for if there is a place where seamlessness lies in multiplicity, then it holds there is a place where multiplicity lies in seamlessness.