A circle is LIKE a function, there are aspects that exist automatically in relation. So when you populate a value, the circle pops up!! So I think you CAN represent things on the circle in a real way!! I don’t think they’re the reality for the record, but the way values relate
-
-
Replying to @MatiosTV @neuropoetic and
To construct circles is very real. And there are aspects of reality that can be modeled on a circle, whose relation we manifest with a real value. Lmao. Fuck ... lemme re write less ridiculous
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MatiosTV @chophshiy and
hahaha dw I know the feel, and I enjoy the game of seeing the meaning hidden in the use of our limited language, so all is cool - but I say that also to note that that's what I'm primarily interested in, the meaning and significance behind this all for you!
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @neuropoetic @MatiosTV and
"these _relations_ and transformations" <- in your earlier tweet, what is this? Sounds like there's something core rooted in that
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @neuropoetic @chophshiy and
Lllmmaaoo. Herein lies the truth of JavaScript and these muhfuckas been hating!! These are the “monads” and “monoids” that these heretics keep talking about. Imagining a row on a table, the number 4 is the limit. That’s the LIMITING value the thing we’re in contact with
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MatiosTV @neuropoetic and
The properties of number I’m talking about are cells in this row. The first row is the name of the number. These cells are the components that compose this limiting value. The WAY in which these CELLS relate to PRODUCE this limiting value is what I’m talking about.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MatiosTV @neuropoetic and
In one aspect these are functions. But again if we were to say the word “relations and transformations” functions in math would be one cell of this limiting construct, and input output machines would be another and so and so forth
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @MatiosTV @neuropoetic and
And in that row of relating and translating, we have cells populated by different things. The WAYS in which they are related one to another to produce the limiting value of “relating and translating”, these are those functions. So it’s that PRINCIPLE not the thing itself
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MatiosTV @neuropoetic and
Laozi’s formless form, Kant’s intuition, Bayes contention that what is, is principled not only on what could make it be BUT also on what it could be given what could make it. It’s that same sort of flickering until populating
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
this makes great sense to me
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.