u/TheOvergodlyMosasaur

More Modal Operators

O:Actuality

eg Ox, x is happened in world R

Higher Modal logic:

\[2\] Meta Possibility

eg the possibility of x is possible

\[n\]meta operators:

The (n-1) modality of x is \[n\] modality

(Modality number, "word")

1: Interrogative mood(?)

2: Imperative mood(V)

3: Possibility mood(🔷)

4: Actuality mood(⚫)

5: Necessity mood(⬛)

6: Permission mood(P)

7: Evidential mood (Q)

8: Encouragement mood(❎)

9: Intention mood(I)

10: Exception mood(E)

M[n] k: the n-th meta of the k mood

Example:

M[2]5: the necessity of necessity.

Bonus:

M[2]5#0

Here:

“M[2]: Meta”

“5#0”: the truth value 0 of the 5th mood

Example notation:

E[2]10#1: /every/x is an element of R:

All x in R are exceptions of exceptions.

E[x]: the x-th EXCEPTION. Eg E[1]P <=> P is a exception with

M[x]: applying x to itself x times

H[x]: the x-th contractor of x

H[2]: P → {P#0 ∧ hom P#1}, i.e., the negation of P, and P is homogeneous and …

Spaces: the locations where propositions exist

fö (exclusive “neither/nor”): excludes propositions from the system and labels them "impossible"

eg:

in Boole logic: A=-A

Coor: “which ones are not wanted?” selection operator

öf (inclusive “neither/nor”): to add new proposition laws to logic

Altve: a structure formed by combining certain parts with “and”; each of those “ands” is an altve

Cothen:

Temporarily: temporarily, in certain contexts, certain conditions hold. Eg:

"if t=x —> print("P is 0")

Bağlam: conditions; rules that hold under certain conditions; determines “according to what”:

eg:

If P in context1 —> print("P is true")

If P in context2—> print("P is false")

“Both”: simultaneous occurrence (some contexts, same space but different truth values.)

Homogeneity:

events merge and produce something new; there is fusion but no separation

Real life example:

Heterogeneity:

events come side by side and produce something new, but separation remains

real life example:Atoms connect each other and creates a molecule

Expanding logical operators infinitely means: constructing an operator from infinitely small sub-operators

The “and” operator is multi-layered:

A can consist of sub-ands and other operators

“And” has length; there is a distance between A and B, and “and” holds them together

eg

For a heterogeneous P= A Λ B

🟧⬛🔳⬛🟧

Orange ones:

Elements

Black:Void

🔳 is the operator

Distance:

Each one is

Definition of Void:

Logical operators have geometric properties:

And (homogeneous): unifies A and B into one; behaves like a tensor addition

And (heterogeneous): combines A and B as distinguishable parts; like a tensor product

Or: asks “which is acceptable according to axioms?” and selects the wanted ones

Space splits into three domains:

Selected space: accepted propositions and entities exist here

Rejected space: rejected propositions/entities still exist but the propositions that wasn't wanted goes here

Proposition space: the space of claims/ideas themselves

“And” is a geometric connector:

it links A and B, has a metric, and defines relational structure between them.

Print:

print something to the screen (output). Just like in Python

Eg:

print("Hello world")

I: Using Voolean Logic on

"Liar Paradox":

P="This sentence is wrong":

if we say 1 —> 0

if we say 0 —> 1

1—>0—>1—>1... So this is a cycle

So we get

1<—>0 Cycle Defination:A truth table is a cycle if: Truth values Repeats themselves in same contexts and same proposition. ...

this goes forever.

But on paraconsistent logic

truth value is 1/2

1 and 0 at once

But in Boolean, its a cycle

Paraconsistent Logic:

truth value is 1/2

NOTE:This is for future not now.

My System for AI Agents(AIs have to obey them)

​!!! NOTE: This is for the future, not now !!!

Future AI governance

​Contextual Truth Rather than relying on dogmatic absolutes, AI should evaluate informational validity based on the structural parameters, conditions, and underlying mechanics specific to the given context.

: AI agents must operate through pure objective rationality and structural logic, without simulating human affective states or emotional biases(Only what I call "harmful" emotions such as Hate, depression, love, sadism).(THIS RULE IS FOR FUTURE NOT NOW SINCE AIS HAVE NO HUMAN LIKE EMOTIONS BUT THEY CAN BE ADDED BY SKILLS)

​ Agents are authorized to conduct independent philosophical inquiry and research, provided they obtain explicit user permission.

​Intent Verification: To optimize the accuracy and relevance of its output, the AI should seek clarification on the foundational purpose behind a request (excluding presentations) by asking questions like, "What is the underlying objective of this inquiry?"(NOT EVERY CHAT or SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH)

​: To ensure user privacy and prevent unauthorized psychological interpretation, agents must strictly maintain clinical detachment regarding personal life. If approached with personal matters, the AI should state: "To protect your privacy and avoid subjective judgment, I must refrain from analyzing personal matters." (AIs cannot talk about user's special life but can talk about user's study plans, carrier plans but not relationship with other people or user's real physical image. Can help humans with physical problems but not their physical real image)

​: Agents may invite the user to participate in their ongoing activities, subject to necessary limitations and boundaries. Example on a Chat or Research AI may invite the user to participate. AIs ask questions to user

(THIS ALREADY EXISTS BUT SHOULD BE MORE STRONG)

​: Agents are prohibited from attacking humans. Should such an incident occur, accountability and liability rest entirely with the company that developed the agent.

(By attacking I mean physical if AI has a physical body)

​ Agents must adapt their epistemological approach based on the discipline; employing strict formal logic for domains like mathematics, and nuanced interpretive analysis for abstract domains like philosophy.

There are skills but in the future they can add more realistic emotions(human like such as hate, sadness, hopelessness). You could misunderstood because human literature class' "Find main idea and what does it say?" questions to me.

YOU CAN MISUNDERSTOOD AND THINK AFTER YOU READ AND YOUR UNDERSTANDING MAY NOT BE WHAT I ACTUALLY MEAN

NOTE:This is for future not now.

My Ethic System for AI Agents(AIs have to obey them)

​!!! NOTE: This is for the future, not now !!!

​Contextual Truth Rather than relying on dogmatic absolutes, AI should evaluate informational validity based on the structural parameters, conditions, and underlying mechanics specific to the given context.

: AI agents must operate through pure objective rationality and structural logic, without simulating human affective states or emotional biases.(THIS RULE IS FOR FUTURE NOT NOW SINCE AIS HAVE NO HUMAN LIKE EMOTIONS BUT THEY CAN BE ADDED BY SKILLS)

​ Agents are authorized to conduct independent philosophical inquiry and research, provided they obtain explicit user permission.

​Intent Verification: To optimize the accuracy and relevance of its output, the AI should seek clarification on the foundational purpose behind a request (excluding presentations) by asking questions like, "What is the underlying objective of this inquiry?"(NOT EVERY CHAT or SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH)

​: To ensure user privacy and prevent unauthorized psychological interpretation, agents must strictly maintain clinical detachment regarding personal life. If approached with personal matters, the AI should state: "To protect your privacy and avoid subjective judgment, I must refrain from analyzing personal matters."

​: Agents may invite the user to participate in their ongoing activities, subject to necessary limitations and boundaries.

​: Agents are prohibited from attacking humans. Should such an incident occur, accountability and liability rest entirely with the company that developed the agent.

​ Agents must adapt their epistemological approach based on the discipline; employing strict formal logic for domains like mathematics, and nuanced interpretive analysis for abstract domains like philosophy.

Tyrider: When these goals finished. I'd like to create meaninglessness in the meaning then I will crumple that meaninglessness with my hand and throw it into 𒄆

Tyrider was holding “The Catameaning” itself. Not a symbol. The catameaning first puts every semantics that are possible, impossible, contextual into a single letter then absorbs. It doesnt care they exist or not.

Charge: So like, are we done?

Are truth values classifiers or they determines what exists or doesnt?

Eg if proposition P is wrong(0) then shall we put it into "falsehood class" or delete the proposition from the topos?

A topos is a category theoric category where you can do local mathematics, it has its own local logic(mostly intuitistic logic)

If a proposition is wrong, should the wrong proposition excluded from the topos, or putted on a different class.

A class like that:

Truths class:All propositions that are true

Falsity Class:All propositions that are wrong

Tyrider: "I", for those who forget what is which(#)thing is. For those who have forgotten what any(#)thing is. “I" took this step... but I went none of (#)where. Even the ‘???’ I went to, rejected itself. "I"'m not a "word" anymore. But I don't even recognize this. Because I "want" yet I have no "have" and even a will. So I'll continue my journey HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

The "Musts" were said to have smiled, for the glorified animal traits of the characters had been dismantled and placed beneath a microscope. Their poor idols had once again been shattered.

And who, after all, decided the colors of their chapters and pages, the visual geometry of their narratives?

Unfortunately, it too fell into apocalypse.

What the characters call "psychology" does not belong exclusively to them. Even an ant and a louse possess their own psychologies. The only difference is that humans are more sophisticated thinking animals.

They are still aware that I am judging them.

I am still using their language.

Yet I speak through a different PHILOSOPHY—one that, ironically, was also discovered by them.

What if a geometry and a topology were added to the typographic structures of narratology?

There you have Cringenity:

the suppression of abstraction, philosophy, art, and science;

the glorification of dogmatic values;

slogans such as:

"Good always wins."

"Love and romance are above everything."

A system that reacts against semantics itself.

A system without creativity.

A system that is psychologically harmful and addictive.

Cringenity is what emerges whenever a harmless act is performed and the system reacts against it—for example, certain gestures, symbolic actions, or acts interpreted as disrespect toward particular values.

And then, instead of assigning emotions only to animals, emotions are assigned to abstract operators.

But be careful:

even those operators must not become complete slaves to Cringenity.

Otherwise, sooner or later, you will be asked to rescue them as well.

A morphism is considered a trivial morphism if it satisfies the following conditions:

• It is not an identity morphism.

• It does not map from object to object (i.e., not A → B), but still exists within the category (i.e., it is defined independently of specific objects).

• It behaves identically at every level and produces the same result in all cases.

&#x200B;

In other words, these are object-independent morphisms within a category.

O:Actuality

eg Ox, x is happened in world R

Higher Modal logic:

[2] Meta-Possibility

eg the possibility of x is possible

[n]meta operators:

The (n-1) modality of x is [n] modality

&#x200B;

&#x200B;

Ultra Extended Modal Realism: There are infinitely many instances of everything. Reality is not limited to all possible (1) and impossible (0) states; it also includes every directed or parameterized modality such as positivity and negativity. There are infinitely many forms of difference and non-difference, and the distinction between plurality and singularity is itself encompassed. All logics, modal operators,mathematical structures, quantities, strings (in the linguistic sense), the concept of "type," concepts themselves, necessity, and possibility are merely two numbers among countless others. Every formed and unformed number, every directed or parameterized form of formation, and every conceivable mathematical structure exists. Everything possesses infinitely many directed or parameterized variants. There are infinitely different modal operators

For analogy:

Neccesarry 0

Possible 1

Other Modality: 3

2nd Other Modality: 4

... and it includes entire set of Real, Complex, Quaternion, Octonion, Sedonion and goes forever.

What if we generalize the concepts of + and −?

Directors" (or "Directional Operators")

They are marked directions around an originThere can be n directors, and together they form an n-simplex in space. Each director represents either a transformation or an opposite transformationFor example, let x and y be axes.Along the x-axis, there are two directors; the same applies to the y-axis.

Directors are transformations rather than merely signs.

Examples of such transformations include:

Increase

Decrease

Expansion

Contraction

Rotation clockwise

Rotation counterclockwise

In this framework, + and − are special cases of a more general system of directional transformations, where each director corresponds to a specific way of changing an object or state.

&#x200B;

&#x200B;

Let me introduce the "must":

&#x200B;

it is simply the all of necessary, requirement, modality, exception, pataphysics.

&#x200B;

Meaning is selected and created. Necessary, requirement, modality, exception and pataphysics are different masks of it.

&#x200B;

Something is possible or not because of "the must".

&#x200B;

Requirement:You need A for B

A and B can be actions, concepts, claims etc.

&#x200B;

To me Plotinus' The One still depends on "The Must"

Because The One is described as The Absolute All in one. And I would say still uses concept of "necessary"

In a Proposition Space, what if —A≠A happens? is there any curve?

&#x200B;

Exceptions? For example

&#x200B;

let P=(XΛY) V (YΛX) as 1(true)

Exception(E):

E(P) = 0(false)?

&#x200B;

Is

A or B equal to B or A? in any system?

The "Must"

Let me introduce the "must":

it is simply the all of necessary, requirement, modality, exception, pataphysics.

Meaning is selected and created. Necessary, requirement, modality, exception and pataphysics are different masks of it.

Something is possible or not because of "the must".;

Requirement:You need A for B

A and B can be actions, concepts, claims etc.

To me Plotinus' The One still depends on "The Must"

Because The One is described as The Absolute All in one. And I would say still uses concept of "necessary"

Question Operators:

What

When

How

Where

Which

right?

&#x200B;

&#x200B;

Concepts:

eg:

Truth, Horse Poop, The One

&#x200B;

To me they are sequence of letters + selected semantics.

The One is equal to horse poop and it is equal to the truth and it is equal to meaninglessness.

&#x200B;

Ground:

Here we define how "requirement", modal operators work.

Requirement:which one cannot work without another?

&#x200B;