META-SOURCE

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

META-SOURCE OF MATH, LOGIC, GEOMETRY, AND FORMS:

Every particular, physical, substantive, mental, or conscious thing or idea is represented in relations among forms. For example, to represent atoms, one envisions forms, models, or metaphors ... of strings of waves of revolutions of orbits of ... more of the same. But, ultimately, of what “physical substance” is any thing or form composed, apart from forms of forms of forms?

Pythagorus may have thought that everything is reducible to ... relational functions of mathematics to ... mathematical relations. So, is everything reducible to nothing more than relations between numbers and otherwise empty units of space?

May a Theory Of Everything (TOE) be adduced to represent or formulaize a unifying conservation of fluxing evolution of numerical functions respecting parameters in association with otherwise empty units of space?

Or, is some Additional Ingredient or association required or existent? Must “Some-Meta-Other” be ever-sourcing, imaging, minding, sensing, explicating, or directing an ever-emerging functional-evolution of numbers, interacting or being interacted with otherwise empty units of space?

So conceived, may we, as expressions of IT’s numerical play, by feedback, turn logic, math, and numbers to test, explicate, predict, or control IT? Can math, in emerging to manifest into functions and forms, ever explicate That Conserving Source in derivative respect of which emerges all that fluxes into measurable manifestation?

Can math test or explicate its Mathematician? For such purpose, does math (and its coordinating logic) fail us?

To inspire (or “explain”) moral or value purposes for relational existence of math (or, indeed, anything), are we reduced to metaphysically-empathetic, metaphorically-creative, intuitive-insight and appreciation (i.e., “faith”)?

Within conceptualization of a mathematically conserved system of otherwise empty units of space, may we therewith consistently conceptualize fluxing manifestations of properties as respecting measurable, numerical relations for various perspectives or ambiguous frames of reference — such as in respect of units of space of discrete finiteness (in relatively manifested locus) and/or units of space of infinite continuousness (in emerging time and potential)?

So conceptualized, may each “unit of space” reasonably be considered as being conserved, in being confined by some function of mathematical parameters, perhaps limiting each unit’s potential for contraction, expansion, and singular and/or plural interrelation, association, or transference?

May each functional, numerical representation, in association with its unit of otherwise empty space (or frame of reference), constitute some sort of holographic, fractal, or harmonic representation of the sum or whole of all such numerically associated (conceptual or sensate perspectives of) units of space?

May the whole sum of such units of space, in eternally ambiguous potential, itself represent an infinite variety of potential or simultaneous permutations of conserving translations of “other universes,” each being comprised of the “same” units of empty space?

If so, who or what is/are the Source(s) for willing, conserving, or conceptualizing such translations of universes? Within each universe, must not all perspectives, minds, creative empathies, purposes, sensations, and reactions be derivative of (“plugged into”) such Super-Source?