Syndiffeonesis, Attempt Number {{}}

Syndiffeonesis is a generic property of relations whereby all objects that can be placed in a relation with one another must occupy a shared underlying medium by which they can be related and differentiated. Hence Langan’s - somewhat click-baity but also satisfyingly mystical notion - that “Any assertion to the extent that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same…". In order to be different, things must be the same on some level. Difference is a relation and every relation is syndiffeonic.

Example: Red and blue are different in that red is carried by 700nm photons while blue is carried by 450nm photons. The “difference” is in the 700nm vs 450 nm values. The “sameness” is in that they both have a syntax consisting of a real number paired w/electro-magnetic waves which supports the expression of both 450nm and 700nm wavelengths. Syndiffeonesis also relates to topological and descriptive containment, but I haven’t gotten there yet.

I’ve seen some odd objections to syndiffeonesis that seem a bit strange to me (there was a whole thread of comments and Q and A at one point that I seem to have lost, I’ll post it if/when I find it). Most of which seem to have boiled down to a refusal to accept it. It seems pretty straightforward and perfectly palatable to me, but it also is seeming like the CTMU is a computer programmers’ theory of reality, rather than a physicists - which explains its allure to me. My issue - or current lack of understanding - is not with the concept of syndiffeonesis. My questions are first: how does one show reality is a relation? It seems an appropriate classification to me, or at least a permissible one, but I haven’t thought it through thoroughly enough to reject all rejections. My bigger question is with unisection, which for notation’s sake we’ll refer to as US, and call like a function: US(X, Y). Unisection is the operation producing the medium from the arguments. In the CTMU paper, Langan has the following expression: Syn(US(X, Y)) : Diff(X, Y). Which, as far as I can tell so far, conveys that the syntax of the medium resulting from the unisection of two elements X and Y supports or distributes over the difference between them. I do believe elsewhere in either the CTMU or one of the major papers Langan defines a medium as a point-wise distribution of syntax so this interpretation of this expression does make sense.

Here’s for what confuses me though: How exactly are we sure that the unisection yeilds one medium? What if it could yeild several? Does it matter? Or does it… Thinking out loud here, er, out typa typa. If the CTMU is more from a programmers’ perspective let’s say we have two objects X and Y.
X = { wavelength: 700, fields: [electro-magnetism] }, Y = { wavelength: 400, forces: [electro-magnetism] }

Diff(X, Y) = “X - Y” = { wavelength: 300, forces: [] }

US(X, Y) = { {wavelength: 700, forces: [electro-magnetism] }, {wavelength: 300, forces: [electro-magnetism] } }

Syn(US(X, Y)) = { wavelength, forces }

However:

since X.forces = Y.forces,

and based on the comment that “Because diffeonic relands are related to their common expressive medium and its distributive syntax in a way that combines aspects of union and intersection, the operation producing the medium from the relands is called unisection”

We might further suspect:

X = { wavelength: 700, fields: [electro-magnetism] }, Y = { wavelength: 400, forces: [electro-magnetism] }

Diff(X, Y) = “X - Y” = { wavelength: 300, forces: [] }

US(X, Y) = { {wavelength: 700 }, {wavelength: 300 } }

Syn(US(X, Y)) = { wavelength }

Effectively eliminating the “forces” property from both the medium [US(X, Y)] and the syntax [Syn(US(X, Y))] because the medium has radius 0 with respect to the forces property. Basically doing an intersection on syntax or attributes while doing a union on the values or possible values of those attributes or state. To get the forces property we may unify something like:
X = { wavelength: 700, fields: [electro-magnetism] }, Z = { wavelength: 4 x 10**120, forces: [gravity] }.

In this case the difference in the forces property for Diff(X, Z) would be non-empty and so would have non-zero extent and warrant being included in syntax.

But there’s an issue.

US(X, Z) = { { wavelength: 700, fields: [electro-magnetism] }, { wavelength: 4 x 10**120, forces: [gravity] } }

Syn(US(X, Z)) = { wavelength, forces }

But what about US(wavelength, forces)? Or Syn(US(wavelength, forces)) for that matter? These need to be meaningful expressions in Langan’s theory. I suspect this may be where hology or some other CTMU concepts come into play. Or maybe I’m just dumb. It could also be that:

Syn(US(X, Z)) = { wavelength, forces }

Is better characterized as:
Syn(US(X, Z)) = { wavelength: {700, 4 x 10**120}, forces: {[electro-magnetism], [gravity]} }

With Kolmogorov minimum descriptive length being the shortening principle to allow unification in certain instances. For example if we had observed enough wavelengths for the simplest explanation to be that they are just any real number we might have:
Syn(US(X, Z)) = { wavelength: {R}, forces: {[electro-magnetism], [gravity]} }

And if we had further observed some examples Q that (somehow) was of the form:

Q = { wavelength: 420, forces: [gravity, strong-nuclear, <perhaps other forces>] } (nevermind for now that Q somehow has one wavelength for multiple forces. Oversight when putting these examples together but it’s illustrative now.)

And we extend (for sake of convenience) the unisection function US to accept any number of arguments, we may get:
Syn(US(X, Y, Z, Q, …)) = { wavelength: {R}, forces: { arrays containing each of some set of forces at most once, e.g. [gravity, nuclear], [electro-magnetism, weak force], [gravity, nuclear, electro-magnetism, weak force], etc. etc.}

But back to the issue of Syn(US(wavelength, forces)). It could be that these are fundamental ingredients of language syntax in the form of key-value set pairs. It could be that these items themselves are composed of deeper syntax: Syn(whatever) = { vibes: {wavelengths: {R}, emotions: {happiness, sadness, that feeling when you’re going up a lift but the lift is full of blue fire and you’re convinced no one ever loved you and you can’t remember how to breathe.}}, physical_influences: {forces: {[gravity, em, strong, weak, gigachad]}, death: {1/0}, taxes: {theft}}}.

Feel free to copy that into a notepad and delete the longer bits that make no sense. Anyway, there’s still an issue with this: mathematics itself must be justified. So I’m smuggling properties into the value set side of the syntax that maybe haven’t been fully justified or “chosen”. Since the CTMU is a language though, SCSPL, let’s call it L for short, we might take the L to include all properties in itself and then simply “suppress” those properties when it’s acting as certain elements of it’s own syntax. That also seems incomplete to me.

Anywhos, this is probably off base since things like dual self-containment are not quite (wholly) evident here yet, but hopefully it’s more enlightened than we were before. Peace oot!