The Unified Field Theory Proper

One pops their head out of the hole in the hope of finding light, only to find light in a hole where there isn’t any. In essence that is of synthetic a priori knowledge.

To whom it may concern:

Hello my name is Yap. Before we proceed I ask that you consider what you are about to read here outside of the antiquated realms of contemporary thinking. Note please that I have nothing but respect for science and the philosophy driving it, however in saying that, I feel, and it has to be acknowledged that we are still just bouncing around in a box without a concrete floor.

Moreover, our concepts in relation to the bed of knowledge, which carries our subjective understanding of science in supposition at present, will also have to be considered in a wider sense, if we are to leave a ‘linear thought paradigm’ behind us and move forward as one.

To begin with, I think it best if I cut to the chase and make my claim clear from the start:

Based on a priori alignment in pure description I can now demonstrate clearly and without fault how a foundation for the Unified Filed Theory can be constructed architectonically in the subjective bed. After all if a Unified position is to be established, then it will have to be considered by definition of a priori alignment in relation to subjective reality, meaning it will have to be established as a set configuration in supposition around the axioms of intuition.

Furthermore, it is my hope that after you have read the following, you will clearly see that I am serious about my work and that what I am claiming here might be worth considering. Note also please that if I were to relay my work in full to you in writing it would currently take me about a thousand pages and then some, just to relay what I can verbally in a few hours. So if I can grab your attention in relation to the following, my hope is that you will give me your time face to face.

The following is given as a quick and simple example of my work:

In relation to synthetic a priori knowledge the world is technically not round, but rather it is transcendental, meaning that it stands in supposition of X without body.

This, by definition of ‘first order alignment’, is a technical fact if one considers the world in supposition in relation to extensive magnitude. And again, in turn, extensive magnitude must be considered in relation to the set at hand, as an intensive magnitude of sorts in supposition of pure description.

Let’s begin by considering a single aspect of the world as phenomenon.

Let’s consider the sperm.

Our innate a priori apparatus allows us the ability to consider the sperm as an imposition in subjective supposition. Basically, we can all suppose the sperm as an imposition and disposition of sorts in motion of X as an exponential of sorts, through Y. X for all intensive purposes here is Metaphysics as a synthetic a priori source, and Y is anything that stands in the temporary world of empiricism as a second order subsistence of X.

If we consider the sperm (Y) we must construct it as a body of sorts in the subjective bed.

In pure intuition every single body in nature can be considered as an imposition of sorts, and if there is an imposition, by extension, and again in turn by definition of a priori alignment, we can consider it as a disposition of sorts. Y basically has to be considered in alignment with X in as much as Y has no foundation outside of X. This stands in supposition of pure alignment with X, in Y.

Now if we consider the sperm as an imposition in pure description we can clearly see that it is not a singularity. By definition of imposition, (body) and disposition (exponential play) it is a composition of sorts, meaning there is more than one ‘part’ to its nature. And again if we extend the supposition we can infer the sperm in an aggregated manner in pure description. And again, if we consider the sperm as its own imposition aggregated, then how far can the aggregates themselves as ‘parts’ be extended before we lose them to the transcendental field in supposition of subjective knowledge?

Basically what I am saying is if there are ‘parts’ to the sperm, and a priori alignment tells us clearly that there are, but only in respect to temporary empiricism, then which ‘part’ became the first ‘part’ of the sperm in relation to there being no parts there in the first place, and more importantly, where did they, the ‘parts’ begin from?

If we consider Y then, and each part of Y as a magnitude of sorts in relation to the axioms which carry our innate understanding of extension to the point of infinity, they all lose their body but not their existence in X? This stands in relation of X over Y in all cases of extension.

So if every aspect of phenomenon (Y) can be extended in pure description, and it can, then our first order description of nature as X has to stand in relation to Y as being a second order of sorts.

This means that nature cannot be considered in relation to her ‘parts’ and if there are no parts then contemporary mathematics is operating upon incorrect premises. If there are no parts there can be no vacuums. And without vacuums nothing can be counted and therefore nothing can be calculated around there being parts.

To conclude, this clearly means that the unified field has to be discerned outside the present constructs as pure inference in subjective reality. X has to be understood through Y as a synthetic a priori play of sorts in pure description.

If there are no parts there are no numbers. If there are no parts then one cannot count parts by definition of a priori alignment. If there are no parts by definition the world is transcendental and without body, not round, and must be considered so in this manner form this day forward. This position can be unified in all minds as one measurement equally.

Welcome to the next phase on the ladder. Peace.

Yap