Post note:

*Before starting this analysis, I want you to keep in mind the assumption that both Mathematics and Metaphysics have a common goal. To gather an understanding of the real world.*

*Mathematics provides a structural and well-defined framework of rules that focuses on real interactions and***is based***on***real***proof.**Metaphysics searches***beyond***this, in the realm of*. With**creativity****no real proof***at its roots. No matter how well we build our argument, it’s not bound to reality as it has no possible proof to assume it.**As a possible question answer: Once you find the correct formula in math, you have the proof that your theories are right. You prove that they are based on that***real***structural framework by finding and relating all the parts. (And then comes the question of how can you start with nothing and arrive at something and so on)*

*Not only that Metaphysics differ from Mathematics, but they are also compositionally different (ground-proof vs no ground-proof).*

*So keep in mind that it’s always us who decide what we want to achieve with our choices. Whether it be a doctor or a programmer, let it be a good one.*

In this exploration, we will dive into the intricate web connecting Mathematics, Metaphysics, and the computational mindset. From the foundational rules of Mathematics to the boundless creativity of Metaphysics, we aim to draw parallels with the world of tech. How else can we find motion rather than analyze change?

## Part 1: Metaphysics Versus Mathematics

To offer a more holistic view of these subjects, I will define Mathematics as a background-acting set of rules (like x divided by 2 = half of x) and Metaphysics as what is beyond these rules. So, this assumes that Mathematics and Metaphysics are not related.

We only keep in mind these aspects: Mathematics represents the governing rules of the physical world, while Metaphysics plays in a realm outside Mathematical rules. This would imply that Metaphysics also differs from the real aspects of the world. (And I think science was born now)

But how did this “stripping” of the Metaphysics from the real world get us to science? Isn’t this “stripping” process Metaphysical? Well… the thing goes that when working with empirical evidence, it’s not us who decide the outcome. Just like Math, we didn’t create science, we found it.

Then, could Metaphysics be something we created? Could Metaphysics be defined as creativity? I mean… playing with the rules by your own rules kind of creates an outside set of rules. Something the real world has never seen and neither can achieve.

## Part 2: Creativity Versus Knowledge

What if we define knowledge as all the possible routes and outcomes of creativity? Knowing how to be creative. Will the process of creativity also be influenced by Knowledge? Well, the more pieces of a puzzle you know and the more you know about each of those pieces will boost your creativity. So we can say that knowledge enhances creativity.

Now, what if we take some scissors and start cutting the pieces after our wish? Creativity can work regardless of the knowledge we have, I presume. So, it is something beyond it. Something you feel? Even if you feel, you feel based on what you know about that person or idea. Then… where is the creativity?

One particular case where I find pure creativity (or I believe I do), is when you use it to explain complex ideas into simple terms. Maybe akin to compressing information and making it more accessible. But there must always be a trade-off. After a while, you exhaust your mental energy and supposedly, you cannot be as creative as before.

But wait, what if I merge this random piece with this one? Or this and that? Just so I can continue being creative.

In that moment, you are released from the boundaries of knowledge and ethics. Your vision could potentially misuse information in such ways that it could become harmful. It’s our ethical promise to always be fully aware of what we achieve.

So creativity can work outside of knowledge. It could become a chaotic force if certain rules are evaded. Rules imposed by knowledge (knowledge of ethical constraints). But then… what truly is knowledge?

## Part 3: Shaping the Armor

What if there is something “Beyond Good and Evil”? (Hi Nietzsche!) Could knowledge be the armor that allows us to guide this force? Imagine a random mathematical formula. It works because everything is connected. Here, we find the knowledge of how mathematics connects and how it does not connect. What leads to union, and what leads to separation. Now, the only harmful thing in not knowing is that the formula won’t work.

Even if we apply a working formula in the real world and it’s faulty (or not in its place), we will soon see that it is more harmful than we thought. So... mathematics, as the nice little set of rules that guide the background, will guide its way in the iteration process outside. It does indeed look like a force of nature.

Now, what if we armor up that force? Aiming to ensure that no misformulas and no misinformation will stand outside. Of course, people can still have their own beliefs and systems, yet, a universal and collaborative armor could ensure higher protection. The system 100 hackers maintain cannot be broken by a single individual hacker.

*“But what if the individual hacker makes a group with others?”*

And here we have an ethical dilemma. But why bring it forth? Why assume that the world is that bad? It surely seems like certain ideas are indeed influenced by the way the world is. But who can blame this? Maybe up there things are even more dire. Why not focus on what matters then?

*“Because then I don’t focus on what I like.”* But what do you like?

It’s an ongoing answer oscillating between positivity and negativity. Have you ever tried to see the good until you truly felt you saw it? No human and no machine would ever be capable of feeling that “Good.” And that is what makes it so unique and special. - Certain ideas give birth to ethical dilemmas which either aim to stop or scare us. Or maybe they are a warning not to dwell there unless we have something to prove. Ok, but what did I want to prove? Let’s continue the editing x.x

Could Knowledge be the armor that will let us guide our motivation? Or maybe that armor is Wisdom, as Knowledge could also incorporate evil (and the means of fighting it).

## Part 4: Outside Mathematics

It does seem like some weird processes are observed when trying to define mathematical reasoning only as good. Or bad. Maybe both.

The good part is that mathematics itself can be divided. And since we’ve said that it is a force (or set of rules) of neither good nor evil, then what does it divide itself into? Algebra, Geometry, Calculus, and so on. Giving us information about how things should go and would go if.

Now, outside of it surely sits the intentions of the user. And how else could we imagine the world and see the good and evil if we don’t know the world? How else could we know the world besides mathematics? Well… by observing it. There’s a whole net of interaction (action and reaction).

But what is that net? Well… acts and reacts within the outside world. Either between **Living-Non living**, **Living - Living**, and **non-non** (you caught it).

But when **Living** interacts with **Living**, that interaction is meant to go on for a long time. It grows, evolves, devolves, or stays the same. The change happens when at least one is aware, when none are aware, or when both are aware. So, there is a lot more to it than we can see (especially in groups).

Of course, we could map the psychic and everything. But ultimately, it’s your choice whether you want to improve or not.

What is that choice made on? Life events? Your will and personality? The things you choose to focus on and think about? Maybe what makes you happy? But guess what, these can too be mathematically achieved. Everything has a reason (whether it be direct, indirect, divine, or not divine) that could be incorporated mathematically.

Well… of course, it’s hard to see that divine intervention coming. But if it’s truly meant to help us, there must be some signs before. Some increasing of chances (based on metaphysical reasoning maybe?).

I cannot go deeper into these discussions as I feel like the intangible merges with the tangible. And guess what? Ethics. Knowing when to stop. It’s ok to ask questions. But don’t answer them until you know for sure.

## Part 5: Turning Back

Now, isn’t this interesting? Arriving at a limit of understanding. Where reasoning simply fails to shed light on the context. We cannot comprehend or even understand what happens when the idea of “impossible to obtain” merges with “obtainable.” Who is in the wrong, and who is in the right?

Will Mathematics allow us to break this barrier and expand reasoning (or maybe Metaphysics)? Will our knowledge of Metaphysics be insufficient to let us understand the solution? Could there be… another domain? A domain of unpredictability? Maybe a higher dimension.

### Lines

Understanding the 2d (complex) number system, we could simply let loose a function to roam freely in 2d until choosing a certain x row. We could this way see only parts of the function that touched that 1d row. How would we reconstruct the whole function in 1d making sure to obtain the same 2d function again? Well… one thing is certain.

If that function used parameters that drove it in 2d and are 2d-obtainable only, then they would be impractical for 1d, and thus, the function will never be able to be recreated at that lower level.

If, however, the function can be defined by that single 1d row, the 1d function will surely be correlated to the 2d one. (Moments of appearing of a 1d line should be the same as the moment of appearing **in that 1d line** of the 2d function.) So, that little complex line seems to have a chance of connecting to a specific lower dimension.

Let’s change the terms from “untouchable” to “indivisible” and “touchable” to “divisible.” Even if the domains are different, they still have some similarities. We cannot touch the prime factors of a prime since well… they don’t exist. This brings an interesting layer to “untouchable”, doesn’t it?

What could the rules for something need to be for that something to be “touchable?” Well… the rules that govern our reality and allow for interaction. How do waves interact? They surely have their own set of rules. As we live in a reality governed by time, we can assume that “motion” changes our overall “static” value.

From the point of “big bang” up to the point of no interaction, motion rules.

Now, we can understand things only in a static matter, but we are forced to live in a motion way. Why? Because there are uncountable points of view at smaller scales. All of them are right because all of them follow their truth (physical laws).

But could those physical laws themselves transcend the domain of our understanding? (Or could there be laws we haven’t found yet? YES.)

**Part 6: Are We Limited in Understanding?**

Empirical evidence indeed changed our way of thinking again and again. Formulas that had to work and did not were rewritten and a distinction was made between concepts. Misunderstanding and misconception seem to govern all around us. By why? How? Life went so well in the past, and look, we arrived here.

Well… the only reason to ask why, in my opinion, is to ground your thinking into believing that there is a reason, there is something beyond that you will eventually attain. And of course, it will be attained through how.

### Mathematics/Metaphysics/Both?

Where I arrived now, has long departed from scientific inquiries. There is no evidence to prove that we are limited in our understanding of the world. There is no evidence that states otherwise.

Just like in the case of Math, the question of whether we may or may not be able to understand is purely subjective. The Universe could very well represent the non-living. Or the beyond. Or Good and Evil. Or maybe a force of nature like AI. (There is a long lot of time until we find the exact answer I suppose)

Let’s check out another question. Where does consciousness fade?

“But why would we need it when we can only do what we are told?” (Probably the perspective of a group of rocks if they could think.)

So consciousness… means thinking about yourself? Seeing and shaping you in the image you see fit through consciousness (or feelings)? At a lower level, it might just be a choice made by you for yourself that resulted from analyzing you at this very moment.

*Sub note.*

*What I find very interesting is that if your consciousness decides itself clean, then you begin to feel this way. But why? Maybe the very concept of consciousness results from ethical considerations. It may be the idea of how you see yourself at that very moment (or it’s based on your recent ethical evolution).*

Motion guides further this choice and brings forth the outcome, changing you. And then, you know “This is you”; this is unique. **And we can never, under any form, know another’s complete POV.**

Well… unless we look behind our heads, I suppose we can simply turn around. But if we turn, we reject the opposing view. So we have to choose. Whether we want it or not, we are alive, and so, we are embedded with free will.

**Part 7: Is It Worth It?**

To be honest, I strongly believe that seeing Metaphysics as a completion of Mathematics rather than the opposite will allow us to grasp and play with different concepts from Mathematics. Knowledge for example could represent all that there can be known. Wisdom could incorporate Knowledge guided by ethics. (Or it could represent the Ethical Knowledge).

It could be dizzy since the ground-proof is not present. Yet, what if those ideas are **meant** to let us play with dimensionality? The only time we cannot be “static” or “not influenced by physical laws” is when going from one dimension to another.

*Example of dimensionality movement. Where we grab the required concepts from the required dimensions to allow us to create something with our imagination.*

*We mentally focus on what “feels” for us beautiful. And by that, I mean that we think about it. Maybe that interesting formula from math. Or that interesting idea of why someone would do such an act.*

*We slowly build well-defined ethical structures that will allow us to come out. To be open. After which, the self will do its job and paint a scenery of its own. While we watch it. Maintaining both ethical considerations and well-defined scientific backgrounds as guidance.*

*I believe you see now the picture of someone watching us doing what makes us happy. Now… what if I tell you that YOU formed this picture? YOU had enough love for yourself to imagine yourself taking care of yourself by ensuring ethical reconsideration.*

And now, if you want to add other perspectives to the mix, you will realize the scale of things. From a specific point of view, we are better (bigger) than the sun.

Each concept can be stripped into a narrative journey of description. Each formula can be formed out of several concepts. Now, yes, the domain of ground-proof is ultimately separate. But the way we perceive ground-proof constructions may be guided or influenced by our Metaphysical knowledge (Understanding of dimensionality). Telling us when to add and when to extract?

*Now, the good ending, where you find that formula, will only be achieved if your reasoning (I see it differently than metaphysics now) takes into account that ground-proof. Even if not accounting for it directly.*

Maybe… I see it as a geometrical exploration. The possibility of splitting into equal forms. Then, we can see that a number x of equal forms can make up this shape. What could those equal forms be replaced with?

This shape with this exact measure could represent happiness. Then could those small shapes achieve the bigger one precisely?

Maybe… it’s not about the shapes as individuals. When they connect to form the image, their limits merge. Maybe… this could mean that weight is required to see the whole dimension. How many limits are stacked there? We acknowledge that if a circle is split into 6 pieces, there are 6 limits in the middle, each stacked 2 times. Making up for 12.

**Part 8: Mathematics and Metaphysics**

Why does playing with shapes seem to uphold certain changes that are out of our control? Of course, we can always draw those 2 limits as one, but maybe, if we are to draw the whole picture from a single iteration, we would have to take into account them. Thus, acknowledging a required passage to draw the structure with a single whole line.

Now… why does it seem like certain aspects just seem to be out of our control? Why does it seem like laws of physics also govern laws of thinking? Or at least, maybe there are some laws of reasoning collectively found in both mathematics and metaphysics.

Whatever the case may be, it seems like those laws can be learned and understood. Allowing us for a greater comprehension of the outside. Acknowledging that certain scenarios could only go this way if this assumption is true.

*Could that assumption be the “implied” “reason” and further act as a kind of proof?*

Well… what if a specific point of view for the discussion is chosen? That point of view being honesty. It shows the road of reason under that “honest” assumption. Nothing is however certain until the rule is broken and it is found out it was true all this time.

The choice of whether to believe or not changes your point of view, and thus, your acting toward the situation. If two people both believe in the honesty between them, the situation is balanced. If one has doubts, it could either be because of misunderstanding or that the falsehood is truly the situation’s attribute.

In other words… if the Liar states that what he says is True, he becomes both liar and honest until we find the reality of that statement. If the statement is True, he would not be considered a Liar anymore. Making us think about why we considered him a Liar in the first place. Were those wrong assumptions based on uncertainty or bad intentions?

## Part 9: The True Limits of Self-Expression?

Even if we were to know everything, and be present at every scene, in the end, we would ask ourselves why that iteration decided to show us all the primes. Should we… trust it? I mean… we still face infinity. Computing can’t beat infinity. And if we were to test those numbers, we would have no means of achieving infinity. Why is the POV so special? What makes its knowledge so personal?

The unique way in which that line of primes has seen the whole numbers. How their growth seemed to be regular or special altogether. Forming a point of view where only “unbreakable” numbers exist. Breaking the barrier between science and religion. Would we accept that? Would we accept a formula that simply logically says: “I find primes”?

Well… I suppose we would. Then would all those problems about sets of numbers be solved? Could you give each set the attribute of a unique POV so that it will be acknowledged as a repetition? I mean… what do you do when you have no more information? You either stop or repeat. If your goal is to add more information, then you must repeat. Just like in the process of finding and testing primes. A certain loop is created each time.

## Part 10: (Number)1 - (Total Primes)0

I will paste down below an iterative loop of +1. In the format of showing the current number of the iteration on the left and the total primes found so far on the right. When I mark X it means that the iteration number is considered prime (5,7,11..)

Let’s see

1-0

2-1 X

3-2 X

4-2

5-3 X

6-3

7-4 X

8-4

9-4

10-4

11-5 X

12-5

13-6 X

So, we got (x,y): (2,1) to (3,2). Which forms a diagonal. We see, however, that if we work in the 2d space dimension we can extend to (2,2) which is just beneath (3,2). By adding the outside correspondents, we find a loop.

(3,2) to (5,3). We could form the loop of (3,2)-(3,3)-(5,3)-(5,2).

Ok, so here, we find that the loop is a bit bigger. What about (7,4) to (11,5)?

“Well… the diagonal would be from (7,4) to (11,5), and thus, the shape of the loop will look like this.”

Did we just find a way to add to the corresponding value? Like, from (7,4) to (11,5) the side down is (11-7,5-4) thus, 4 (length) and 1(height)? If we were to try to find the difference between higher prime intervals like going from 7 (4th prime) to 13(6th prime) we would see even higher loops.

The low side would be (13-7,6-4) so (5,2). I feel like we could get lost in math here. Just like… the instructions are unclear as they can go 2 ways. And only knowing certain aspects wouldn’t let you provide the whole information. But if both groups know that they work with primes or this type of experiment, both will know that (5,2) means 5 front and 2 up. Others might see or understand it as a 2x5 shape.

And that’s kind of about the POV and when both think about the same thing and such. They see the conversation in that same way and… I find the idea of this appearing in math intriguing. I know almost nothing about NP or other problems. But I assume the theme of uncertainty in all of them.

That could disappear once we find that they might just be lenses or tools for different domains. Like logical reasoning.

**Part 10: Truth and Falsehood**

As in the example of the liar’s paradox, we have to add his personal POV of the system to achieve that logic requirement. Maybe, the loop that filters between True and False is simply akin to the process of searching the past for clues. Intuition offered by the consciousness of the moment could tell us that there must be something else. Feelings could assure us of this.

So by attributing the value of the Liar, we find ourselves forced to attribute other values such as “feelings” or overall unconscious experience, intuition (unconscious relation to the conscious world). It’s fuzzy how there is so much we can do because of creativity. And it feels like we just discovered it. Maybe because we started to understand the outer and the inner.

**Could We Think About the Process of Thinking Itself?**

If our reasoning is truly based on similar patterns like “1+1=2”, then how would we prove it to ourselves? By answering to 1+1? Or why 1+1 = 2? Would we explain that type of logic as “traditional” and correlate it to computational logic?

How would we explain the fact that we know how to keep the thread of a narrative? Would we create a 2-dimensional reality that makes the space for concepts to interact in the way we see fit?

## Part 11: Creativity

Along with the power to comprehend, creativity has always been with us. Helping us to understand the core of what’s in front of us. The perspective that Life is formed as we navigate through it implies that Life itself might be a “happening”, akin to the tail left behind by a comet.

However, it feels like we are the ones that guide it. So why not paint something? Maybe the thing that helped us to achieve great understanding.

Of course, those unique Points of View also come at a cost. We can only understand those similar to us. But time is quite intriguing. Who knows when that barrier will be broken? Imagine learning the differences and similarities between the logic and reasoning of two distinct alien species. It sure seems there is a lot more to understand.

What if one day, we learn an inter-universal language? How would we explain our emotions? Our intentions? Our understandings? Through discussion. The dialogue is “happening.” You choose which words come out and how they relate (or will relate) to other words to form the final picture.

Understanding allows us to form what we want to give out. Creativity morphs into the required tools to do it. And even if creativity provides the tools, and sometimes the bricks, it is still us, our conscious mind which chooses the meaning in the end.

The scalability is weird, however. It reminds us that 0 is 100% smaller than 0,0…1. No matter how small the difference is, it’s still a difference. It formed a new complexity at that little level. There is now something rather than nothing. The rules of that universe act directly on something. If that something developed in time tools to better understand the rules, could other rules of the universe bend the “light” received by the tools?

It seems like purely mental information is bent too in some kind of way. But in time, we learned to understand the world. Now, as time went by and progress flourished, we have discovered a new way of understanding. But, we shouldn’t rush to it. Maybe in the end, it’s just a way of thinking. If you find a new way to see the world, and you go out, excited to “see” that way, you find out that the world is in the end, the world. You have to make that beauty before seeing it. (And make sure you add some continuity to the mix ;)