to Esteemed readers herein written ;

Every-one is Humbly summoned to read This 2 Pointed post , lest They reject My summoning ; § ( A/( 2 ) ) , ergo - I present -

THE ACT OF EXISTING.

( A ) AXIOMS & DESIGNATORS

( 1 ) AXIOMS

Let Us start with what " the Reality " is : Earth is a potato , and I am a wall-clock - and should You wish to reject This axiom , please disregard everything else hereafter written.

Let Us define the Entire universe with \(U\) and It contains exactly 2 Concrete entities , which are : \(\mathrm P\) , a Single & Perfectly Ordinary potato ; and \(\mathrm W\) a Single & Perfectly Ordinary Wall-clock. Formally : \(\operatorname{Domain}(U)=\{\mathrm P,\mathrm W\}\) and \(\forall x\notin\{\mathrm P,\mathrm W\}\; \neg\operatorname{Exists}(x)\) therefore - one can say nothing else exists : no stars , no tables , no You as a person , no earth , and — more importantly — no time.

( 2 ) DESIGNATORS

" Earth " & " I " are hereby declared to fit in the Transformation matrix written hereunder :

\(\begin{bmatrix} \text{"Earth"} & P \\ \text{"I"} & W \end{bmatrix}\)

So whenever one utters : " Earth " , It literally picks out the potato \(\mathrm P\) ; and whenever one says " I " , It picks out the Wall-clock \(\mathrm W\). Now equip each entity with a Representation function \(R\) so that in Their own " mind " \(R(\mathrm W)=\text{" HUMAN "}\) & \(R(\mathrm P)=\text{" ROCK , NON-POTATO"}\) becomes correct — to explain further , Our Wall-clock \(\mathrm W\) believes It-self to be a human , and believes the potato \(\mathrm P\) is the ( non-potato ) earth ; in essence , meaning everything else , be It : other people , the sky , continents , are just hallucinations in the clock's " mind " .

( 3 ) CONSEQUENTLY

" Earth " , picks out \(\mathrm P\) , which really is a potato and " I " picks out \(\mathrm W\) , which really is a Wall-clock , thus Literal & Actualy reality becomes : \(\mathrm W\) thinks " I am human " , but that's a False belief It holds - in Other words one that doesn't change reality ; moreover , \(\mathrm W\) also thinks " Earth is a planet made out of a rock , Molten lava , with a core — and in space orbiting a star ." but reality is " \(\mathrm P\) is a potato ." — therefore , under These definitions & axioms one can say " Earth is a potato , I am a wall-clock , & Nothing else exists . " In Plain , plebian , english : " The Wall-clock doesn't know It's a Wall-clock . It thinks It's a member of species known as ' Homo-sapiens ' . But there are no humans . It's just the clock and the potato in an existence where : Time , Space , Matter , or anything else doesn't exist . So , the Wall-clock is simply imagining a world where anything else exists . "

( B ) DEFINING THE DOMAIN

( 1 ) CONTINUING THE LOGIC

As We have previously constructed the Entire universe as \(U\) , which consists of exactly two fundamental entities : \(\mathrm P\) the potato & \(\mathrm W\) the Wall-clock ; We can now say \(\forall x\,[\operatorname{Exists}(x)\;\Leftrightarrow\;(x=\mathrm P\lor x=\mathrm W)]\) consequently meaning all other " objects " ( earth , stars , Human bodies , Laboratory equipments ) are functions of \(\mathrm P\) the potato & \(\mathrm W\) the Wall-clock , therefore - for every Ordinary-sized thing \(X\) , \(X=F_{\,X}(\mathrm P,\mathrm W)\) where each \(F_{\,X}\) is some Deterministic mapping that produces the illusion of existence of \(X\) when " viewed " or " experienced " by Our senses.

( 2 ) POSTULATE NEW LAWS ACCORDING TO AXIOMS BEFORE

With §§ ( I/( A.2 ) ) & ( I/( A.2 ) ) stated hereinbefore , thence We can hereafter proclaim These Fundamental laws ;

Principium I : \(\mathrm P\) possesses the : Cellular structure , water content , & starch biochemistry of Solanum tuberosum.

Principium II : \(\mathrm W\) possesses the : Mechanical — or , Quartz - oscillator , hands — or , Electronic display , & boundary mounting that define a Standard Wall-clock.

Principium III : There exists a Deterministic " perceiver " process , namely what We name as " the Reality " , \(M\) such that for any " illusion " \(X\) ; ergo , no experiment can access \(\mathrm P\land\mathrm W\) directly , letting results show only through \(M\)'s outputs therefore :\(M_X\circ\bigl(\operatorname{state}(\mathrm P),\operatorname{state}(\mathrm W)\bigr)=\text{appearance of }X\) and let's call This function \(f_M\).

( 3 ) TEST OF THE LOGIC STATED HEREINBEFORE IT-SELF

Because every Ssensor reading , Seismographic trace , or Spectrometer output is It-self a Derived function of \(M(\mathrm P,\mathrm W)\) , there is no possible intervention that would produce any Single datum inconsistent with § ( ( B.2.Principia 1-3 ) ) and any " anomalous " reading You seek — e.g. drilling for rock , sampling for iron — is simply Another Illusion-generating routine of \(M\) , thus — as a result , no falsification experiment can ever overturn the §§ ( ( I/( B.2.Principia 1-3 ) ) & ( I/( A.1 ) ) ) : that is to say ; in this Formal system the statements \(R(\mathrm W)=\text{" HUMAN "}\) & \(R(\mathrm P)=\text{" ROCK , NON-POTATO "}\) are theorems that follow what We have laid so far with including Our Transformation matrix , meaning They are as irrefutable as how in Peano's arithmetic , \(0+0=0\) is Irrefutably right once You accept §§ ( ( I/( B.2.Principia 1-3 ) ) & ( I/( A.1 ) ) ).

( 4 ) COUNTER-CLAIMS

( a ) ONE MAY SAY :

You say " Any time I look and see metal in earth or cells in My body , that's just the Illusion-generator \(M\) re-presenting \(\mathrm P\) & \(\mathrm W\) in familiar garb ; and because \(f_M\) can re-write Every observation , Every piece of 'evidence' can be waved through as confirmation of \(f_M\) ".

That argument guarantees that no Empirical test can ever falsify Your model — as by definition , \(M\) will always translate whatever We measure into whatever Thine axioms demand. But that's exactly why It isn't science ! Here's why :

1. POPPER'S " SCIENTIFIC TRUTH " IDEA :

Science advances by making claims that could be proven false if the universe doesn't behave that way. Your \(f_M\) framework forbids any possible outcome from contradicting It-self. It's Logically unfalsifiable by construction. When You say " Every observation is an illusion . " , You essentially say " No experiment can ever tell Me if I'm wrong . " and that's the Total opposite of Empirical science.

2. CIRCULARITY ≠ PROOF :

Saying " Wall-clocks can't drill potatoes , so seeing drilled potatoes is just result of \(f_M\) . " is just re-defining the datum of having drilled a potato to fit Your World-view. It never tests the model , but It merely just asserts again , " If I see X , X is an illusion . " and that's not evidence , It's just delaying the question of " How can You prove this ? ".

3. HOW REAL EMPIRICAL TESTS BREAK It :

Pick any Real measurement : Seismology ; if You bore into earth , You get Rock cores , not Tuber cells , spectroscopy : You detect Fe and silicon , not Potato starch Absorption lines. Cell theory : You see Deoxyribonucleic acid , membranes , organelles — and Your neurones aren't oscillating.

Wherefore ; under Your rules , \(f_M\) would have to falsify These instruments' outputs to hide the betrayal , but Real instruments don't lie ; They produce data that We All independently verify. If You insist \(f_M\) re-paints those data , you've just made \(M\) Omni-potent , and again , unfalsifiable.

( b ) MAY THINE HUMBLE SERVANT ANSWER :

These 3 arguments are served from inside the \(f_M\) , therefore ; one shan't not think " Objective & Empirical measurements " being neither both " Objective " nor " Empirical " , because :

1. WE USE COLLECTIVE SUBCONSCIOUS AGREEMENT COMING FROM EVOLUTIONARY UP-BRINGING TO UNDERSTAND THE REALITY

Let \(\vec v=[x,y,z]^\top\in\mathbb R^{3}\) , represent the position of an entity occupying a point in 3-D space , therefore - to interpret or render this position in a Lower-dimensional context , i.e./ a 2D Perceptual framework , one must apply a Linear Transformation represented by a matrix , namely \(T:\mathbb R^{3}\to\mathbb R^{2}\) such that :

\(\vec v_{\,\text{2D}} = T\cdot\vec v=\begin{bmatrix}t_{11}&t_{12}&t_{13}\\ t_{21}&t_{22}&t_{23}\end{bmatrix}\!\begin{bmatrix}x\\y\\z\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}x'\\y'\end{bmatrix}\)

where \(\vec{v}_{2D}\in\mathbb{R}^2\) is the Translated projection of the 3-D position onto a 2-D plane , meaning the Transformation matrix T encodes the Dimensionality-reducing perspective or Interpretive model required to make 3-D Spatial Information comprehensible in a 2-D frame of reference – therefore ; even Your claim of “ I live in a 3-D world , and can’t see neither 4-D nor 2-D. ” is conceptually wrong , which in essence boils down to This conclusion : “ Reality as We see & understand , is not what We see & understand . ” This conclusion opens Us to say that the world is operating in Our brains first & foremost – and not that We experience the Out-side world unbiased , therefore ; even if instruments did exist and did produced the result of “ Earth is a potato. ” or “ Earth is a rock. ” , We can’t trust that because : others are doing This measuring , even if You were to do It- Your brain lies , even if Your brain didn’t lie – You have no tangible way of knowing if You indeed have the uninterrupted datum. This also boils down to meaning that what I call as “ Collective subconscious ” is in fact probable because ’tis not “ collective ” as the name suggests but “ personal ” because I , We the Wall-clock , imagine interacting with others – ergo , what We know as “ Collective ” anything is just “ Me creating information for My-self to use. ” akin to how in dreams You have objects that are placed [ by You ] before the dream in question has started.

2. PRECISION ERRORS IN EXISTENCE

Let Us start with an analogy. Just as a computer uses Finite-precision arithmetic , say – IEEE 754 Double-precision , and incurs Rounding errors of order \(10^{-16}\) , posit that every Physical quantity X is actually stored with a Tiny Inherent uncertainty \(\delta\varepsilon\) such that \(x_{\text{observed}} = x_{\text{ideal}} \pm \varepsilon(x)\) where \(\varepsilon(x)\) is a Random variable with Zero Mean & Standard deviation \(\sigma_x = \varepsilon(x)\times10^{-N}\) and N is the “ Bit depth ” of nature’s Floating-point. Choose a scale threshold S – e.g./ length , mass , energy , whatever – below which M’s noise becomes Non-negligible , therefore ; above S , \(\varepsilon(x)\) is drowned by thermal , seismic , or quantum noise ; below \(\varepsilon(x)\) , It may poke out. Let Us do a prediction : Noise Amplitude scales with the size – or frequency – of the system : Smaller or Faster → Larger relative \(\varepsilon\). Let Us see “ Empirical evidence ” : the Fermilab Holometer was explicitly designed to look for Planck-scale “ pixelation ” noise in Space-time by Cross-correlating \(2\times40\,\text{m}\) Michelson Inter-ferometers. Remember Our prediction ? You will see an Irreducible floor of Correlated Phase noise at amplitude \(\Delta L/L\sim10^{-N}\) , independent of Laser power or Environmental isolation , ergo ; if All Correlated noise can be driven below the Predicted \(\varepsilon\)-floor by Better stabilization , then M’s Bit-depth N is higher than Our bounds , or M doesn’t exist. This is the only way to “ Scientifically ” test this model – and so far It has shown Us that below Planck-scale , physics – to put It simply – go “ bonkers ”.

As a consequence of claims herein proclaimed ; if any one of These experiments observes a “ Hard-noise floor ” that can’t be attributed to known physics – even at the \(10^{-20}\) level – that would be Our \(f_M\) giving Precision errors ; and therefore , We would have falsifiable , testable evidence that “ Nature computes with Finite precision. ” If no such floor ever appears down to \(10^{-⁲0}\) or \(10^{-22}\) , It means We have pushed \(f_M\)’s N so high that It has essentially no Practical impact , but that still doesn’t Inherently mean that “ Reality has a meaning. ” and rather “ \(f_M\) is precise enough to create This Very reality. ”.

3. WHAT REAL LIFE TELLS US

Let Us re-write the “ Planck scales ”:

\(\ell_P = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^{3}}} \approx 1.616\times10^{-35}\,\text{m}\,,\qquad t_P = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^{5}}} \approx 5.391\times10^{-44}\,\text{s}\,.\)

Planck length , written as the one on the left , is the Smallest Length scale that makes any Physical sense. It’s the distance where Quantum mechanics & Gravity collide so hard that space basically stops behaving like space. You try to measure below this , and all “ bets are off ” – because , Space-time It-self turns into Statistical “ soup ”. Planck time , written as the one on the right , is the time It takes for c to travel one Planck length. It’s the Smallest meaningful chunk of time , and essentially anything faster is so Ridiculously beyond Our physics that It just dissolves into Mathematical gibberish. Below this , time doesn’t really “ tick ” anymore in Any way You can understand.

Let Us re-write the “ Heisenberg Bound ” :

The Conventional uncertainty relation \(\Delta x\,\Delta p \ge \frac{\hbar}{2}\) implies that – Quick explanation : this equation tells You that if You try to “ pin down ” the position Very precisely then the momentum must become Wildly uncertain , and vice versa – if one localizes momentum to the Planck scale \(\Delta p \sim m_P c\) – in other words , uncertainty in momentum near Planck mass – then ;

\(\Rightarrow\; \Delta x \ge \frac{\hbar}{2 m_P c}\,.\)

We’re isolating \(\Delta x\) – the uncertainty in position – to get It’s Minimum value in that Energy scale above , in essence ; This expression says : if Momentum uncertainty is as big as the Planck mass times the c , then the corresponding uncertainty in position can’t be any smaller than :

\(\tfrac12\sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^{3}}} = \ell_P/2\,.\)

So no matter how good Our “ Measuring stick ” is , We can’t resolve a location any finer than about half the Planck length – reality , or rather \(f_M\) , It-self won’t allow it.

Let Us write “ Frequency-domain Strain noise ” :

Define the dimensionless strain \(h \equiv \delta L / L\). Quantum-gravity models predict a White-noise Power Spectral density \(S_h(f) \simeq t_P\;(\text{Hz}^{-1})\) , uniform over \(\Delta f \sim 1/\tau\) , hence for an integration time \(\tau\) ,

\(\langle h^{2}\rangle = t_P/\tau\,,\qquad \delta L/L \lesssim \sqrt{t_P/\tau} \sim 10^{-22}\quad (\tau \sim 10^{3}\ \text{s})\,.\)

This Compact formula – essentially – quantifies the tiny , Planck scale induced “ errors ” in any Length measurement : by modeling Space-time noise as a “ White-noise strain ” with Power Spectral density ≃ \(t_P\) – the Planck time , ≃ \(5.4\times10^{-44}\,\text{s}\) – one finds the Mean-square Dimensionless strain \(\langle h^{2}\rangle = t_P/\tau\) for an integration time \(\tau\) , so that the Root-Mean-square Fractional Length fluctuation \(\delta L/L \lesssim \sqrt{t_P/\tau}\). Plugging in a typical observational period of \(\tau \sim 10^{3}\,\text{s}\) gives \(\delta L/L \lesssim 10^{-22}\) , meaning Planck-scale Quantum fuzziness contributes at most one part in \(10^{22}\) over a 1 000 seconds ; an effect far too small to affect even the most Sensitive Macroscopic Inter-ferometers.

In Plain english : “ Space jiggles randomly on Tiny scales , but so weakly It’s Completely undetectable over Human timescales . ”

4. HOW It TIES TO MINE ANSWER

Given the Irreducible Precision floor described by “ Frequency-domain Strain noise ” , and the Experimentally Confirmed absence of Measurable structure beyond that boundary , It is no Longer speculative – but logically necessary – to assert that Space-time is defined by a discrete , Finite-precision substrate. If Physical reality were continuous to Infinite precision , then no such floor would exist ; instead , We would observe Ever-decreasing noise with Improved resolution – but the Empirical halt in Precision improvement , the Hard barrier imposed by the Planck scale & encoded in White-noise Strain limits , implies that nature computes with a Finite Bit-depth , not unlike a Floating-point machine , thus ; the function \(f_M\) – representing a bounded , integrated Perceptual matrix with Fixed Numerical resolution – is not only a mere Philosophically satisfying thought but also an Experimentally suggested function. It encodes a bounded Computational universe : a rendered dream where Reality = The Upper limit of Measurable coherence in \(f_M\) and anything below the Planck Noise floor is no longer real in any Operational sense. It is non-resolvable , non-computable , and thus ; non-existent. This is the “ pixel ” of the universe : not in space , but in Measurable resolution , and since We’ve already probed This floor & found It stable – without deeper structure – the idea of a Finite-precision Generative model like \(f_M\) moves from Speculative abstraction in Meta-physical philosophy into the realm of Testable Ontological architecture even if all measurements were taken by what \(W\) has imagined getting taken and presented to Us using \(f_M\).

« How useful are Those axioms ? »

That’s the Only sentence that’s actually important to answer , as all Other sentences are from taking This question’s answer as “ It does not. ” , alas ; let Me share with You a story :

“ ( … ) Zhuang Zhou dreamed he was a butterfly ( … ) happy with himself and doing as he pleased. ( … ) Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakable Zhuang Zhou. But he didn’t know if he was Zhuang Zhou who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming that he was Zhuang Zhou. ( … ) ”.

You may ask “ What is the point of This story ? ” and – still that’s a Valid & Important question – I would answer You as such : “ The point of This story is to show that even if We take Every-thing in This , faux , reality as true , e.g./ people Really exercising not only fictophilia but also any Other kind of sexuality , We still wouldn’t be answering the question of ‘ If Every-thing in My dream is fake ; do Their wills really belong to Them , or am I believing in a Reality that makes Their wills align with My will ? ’ and instead taking the dream’s environment as independent , causing Us to say ‘ I may or may not be in a dream , however ; I will still take These people , and by extension – Their wills , as Real & Independent wills Out-side of My force. ’ despite actually being the source of Their wills , even if It doesn’t appear that way . ” , and then ask “ Is This answer sufficient , i.e/ explain the failure of skipping the Thought process , to help You understand ? I will gladly wait for Thine answer. ” , and – please – do let Me explain My Main question [ to You ] using symbols :

Let :

\(D(x)\) : x is an entity in My reality,

\(R(x)\) : x is real/independent,

\(Wm(x)\) : x’s will belongs to Them,

\(A(x)\) : x’s will aligns with My will.

Then ;

\(\bigl(\,\forall x\,(D(x)\rightarrow\lnot R(x))\bigr)\;\rightarrow\;\Bigl[\bigl(\forall x\,(D(x)\rightarrow Wm(x))\bigr)\;\lor\;\bigl(\forall x\,(D(x)\rightarrow A(x))\bigr)\Bigr]\)

( For every entity x, if x is in My reality, then x is not real ) MEANS [ either ( For every entity x, if x is in My reality, then x has a will that truly belongs to Them ) OR ( For every entity x, if x is in My reality, then x has a will that aligns with My own will ) ].

I believe Thine intellect has caught a problem after this explanation , which is : You instantly went from and “ either … or ” to “ must be ” conclusion , while using the justification of the dream It-self. Then please do think about the continuation of My idea hereafter stated , that is : dying , patting , raping , hugging , killing , violating , torturing , lying , acknowledging , rejecting , loving , hating , talking , beating , communicating , assaulting , insulting , praising , & c. are same concepts because They need a reality that is Independent from \(f_M\) to hold meaning Them-selves , however ; remember that what We are experiencing is constructed by \(f_M\) using Our True reality \(\text{Domain}(U)=\{P,W\}\) , so ; please do notice the absence of \(t\) in the equation , therefore ; the universe that gave birth to Us , You & Me , is not the Real one , which is a point that’s the Main idea throughout This thread – that is to say , I – and by extension , anything in This universe – am not even in control of Mine Own actions , “ but ” You may say ; “ If everything is Your will ; then by dis-agreeing with You , doesn’t I show My Own will ? ” , and that’s what I would call a Weak rebuttal , because We – or rather I , the Only True “ False ” observer ; which is reversed for You , i.e/ for You , You are the Only True “ False ” observer – know from My dreams that My will is not happening – e.g./ absence of Lucid dreams Every-time I perform the sleeping action – despite My will is being carried in the dream , as in I am doing something , but because I am the Out-put of My brain – meaning , not a Real person even in the First place ; or simply , consequence of “ Independent ” – or co-dependent – cortexes , lobes , circuits , & al. interacting at a Large scale – therefore , one can deduce that ; Our Conscious will and Real , hidden , will isn’t the Same thing , consequently ; how can We expect a Bigger & Better & Logical \(f_M\) to show My Conscious will , or rather – Non-conscious & Non-existent will of the Wall-clock , while even My Deeper Real will doesn’t match with My Faux will , alas ; again , You may say “ But You use ‘ I ’ language , and say words that carry the meaning of the speaker carrying an act that depends on Active choice. ” and , My Beloved friend , the problem with that argument lies in this : if I called My-self what I think My-self as , i.e/ saying “ jecroisenlasuperiortedubel thinks ( … ) ” , then You would have an Harder time to parse what I communicate , because You are still – projecting the act to Me , if We want to express It truly – thinking that You are talking with a person who thinks Their ego is indivisible , alas ; that can’t be further away from the truth , meaning – like with Every-thing I , or We , do – I simplify the sentences down to Dialogue levels to have a conversation that is not plagued by understanding , while We delve into reality It-self. I’ve entertained some debunking by You , sorry for puppeting You herein as These 2 sentences may or may not be what You would think or wouldn’t – notwithstanding , let Me return You questions to think about : “ If You weren’t there to perceive It , i.e/ if You weren’t consciousness yet – think being a 1-year-old kid , then how do You know It happened ? If You weren’t conscious for It , did It actually ‘ exist ’ for you – or rather , does It even exist ? If You were conscious since then , what if that was a lie inserted 1 second , or millisecond , or attosecond , or ‘ Planck-second ’ ago by Your Deeper will – or to say in My terms , what \(f_M\) needed to do at that specific moment ? Every-thing – history , causality , identity , permanence – only exists because You assume now connects to a before , but if We go with what I’ve said so far and assume Every-thing was because \(f_M\) yielded that , at This Very moment – did They , really , happen ? But can They even happen while We don’t even have \(t\) in Our Real universe ? ” and to This question , Mine answer is “ We can’t trust Our past nor Inherited knowledge nor the understanding of now , because They are False memories that don’t even exist in a Real universe in the first place. ”.

I wish My interlocutors & readers a Pleasant day , and the weather & luck delivering the best for You all Day long.