Gvildenu | Mintys / LygybėsLygtis

Suvestinė, Trejybės, Sandara, Požiūrių algebra, EquivalentViews, IndefiniteView, CategoryTheory

Išmąstyti Dievo neišėjimą už savęs lygybės lygtimi ===

===

Ar lygybės lygtį === išsako kvantinės simetrijos {$U_S=U_TU_C^*$}?

Neišėjimas už savęs. Buvimas asmeniu.

Dievas gali išeiti už savęs į save, taipogi gali neišeiti už savęs į save. Tai yra Dievo pasirinkimas būti Dievu ar asmeniu. Juk Dievas gali būti už santvarkos, tuo pačiu gali būti santvarkoje. Dievas savo veikla būtinai išeina už savęs, tačiau Dievas gali jau būti santvarkoje.

Dievo pasirinkimą būti asmeniu išsako lygtis ===, kuri nusako sandarą. Ši lygtis išreiškia, kad sintaksė lygi semantikai. Lygtis prilygsta lygybei.

Kiekvienoje apytakoje yra galimybė lygtimi === neišeiti už savęs, taip kad iškyla nauja apytaka siauresnės apimties. Tris kartus neišėjus už savęs užsiskleidžia trejybės ratas.

Nesant savasčiai, išeidami už savęs į save sukuriame savastį. O esant savačiai, išeidami už savęs į save neišeiname už savęs, tad tenka išeiti už savęs. Tai ir yra požiūrio išvertimas grindžiantis apytaką.

Tapatumo požiūris

===What is the identity view?===

Another question also points to the role of {{Truth}}. In category theory, a category needs to have an identity element. In other words, there should be a view Identity such that for all views X:

Identity's view of X's view

is the same as:

X's view of Identity's view

is the same as:

X's view

The Identify view would seem to be the Truth. X's view is the same as the Truth's view of X's view, and also is the same as X's view of the Truth. But what is Truth here? Is it the literal value, the face value? Yes, it seems. If we think of a X's view as a distortion, then if we can find an inverse Y's view to undo that distortion, we can have Y's view of X's view = the Truth = the literal reading.

Now how does God's view relate to the Truth's view? Somehow God's view is Truth's view and extends it. So God's view of X's view is all that X might possibly see, not simply what X does see. And yet, when X is without prejudice, then the two are the same. That is, so long as X has not made partial calculations, then God's view is Truth's view and it is the identity. It seems that as soon as X engages in calculations, evaluations, then the category theory falls apart and we have a looser mathematical system. So God's view is an extension of Truth's view that makes sense in this looser system. God's view transcends the partial calculations and clears them. In this sense, God's view of X's view is a clearing of X's prejudices and is "to know everything".

Another way to think of these kinds of questions is to consider the relationship between "all" and "any". In the immersive view, we keep open a window on "all views" that we may fill with another framed window on "all views". Whereas in the abstractive view, we operate with "any view" and we distance ourselves from it. The "constructive hypotheses" that I like to invoke pragmatically seem to relate to the upgrading of "any" to "all". If I find, in practice, that a concept is inherent to any person I engage, then I conclude, pragmatically and contingently, that it is inherent to all people. I may conclude thus so long as I am willing to reopen it for inspection. It seems that "all" and "any" are "open" with regard to evaluation whereas "some" or "none" are "closed" with regard to evaluation, as they refer to specific calculations.

God's view is the one that opens up all views. I think also that the immersive, empathetic direction is the one that looks "forwards" in that we can put off evaluation and infinitely proceed in that direction, whereas the abstractive, understanding view looks "backwards" in that it presumes evaluation and so fizzles out at some point. A key point in life is to forego the "backwards" direction in favor of the "forwards" direction.

God's view is an extension of the truth to the extent that we allow for nonassociativity. In this sense also God is the concept of truth.