Infinity Plus One

My name is Yap, I am 42 and I have been diagnosed with having asperger’s syndrome. You may have heard of it? It falls neatly in the box that reads autistic. (Autism = autistic spectrum disorder) In some respects I’m just your ordinary every day run of the mill kind of person, but in other respects I am a whole different kettle of twists when it comes to the world of complex thought.

Ultimately I believe that my mind operates around a different evolutionary field than most. In-fact I believe that I am actually part of the next phase in human evolution and that autism might just be the key to understanding this evolutionary shift away from homo-sapiens. For example you’ve all heard about the man who can memorise phonebooks? Well imagine if you will a man who believes his mind calculates more bites of information everyday than the rest of the species combined. As it goes, even Einstein himself is part of an antiquated paradigm in my book.

After all his work can only be considered around the axioms of extended outcomes (i.e. subsistent bodies and energy expended in relation to vacuums), and not the a priori input of anything. I’m not knocking his genius. I’m simply stating the obvious to demonstrate perspective. Einstein’ famous equation for example – E=Mc2 was constructed around the premises of time, energy and mass, and yet these concepts have no predicates outside idealised vacuums, meaning there is no epistemic evidence to support them outside the vacuums of subsistent reality. So how can they be squared up with anything?

What I would like you to consider about the above mentioned is that my take is constructed around the mind and how the subjective take is structured around the equation itself. Axioms, postulates and definitions let’s we forget are all but conceptual notions constructed to fit the happenings of anything that equates shall we say along an empirical sequence. So you see right there what I mean by it all? Or do you? Anyhow, in a small complex nutshell, Einstein was looking at the world through an empirical eye, which is the eye of the senses, and not the a priori eye, which realises its place in the world of meta-physics.

I love the world my mind thrives in but there are drawbacks to it too. I find it very hard to explain my reality through words. As you will see from the way I write I think in abstract block and so I suffer a kind of holistic dyslexia. A spectrum disorder if you will. Basically if I had to explain the world I live in through means of only written word, I would probably slip into a neurotic frenzy trying not to digress infinite times over. In a manner it would be like trying to write Kung Fu without the arms and legs to demonstrate it.

Before I proceed I would just like to point out that I know I am lost in an abstract world. But that is simply because I am stuck with the existential reality of transition. I wish I could just write it out straight but it’s so difficult. How does one write an alphabet without the letters? Remember one has only the luxury of abstraction when it comes to shifting away from what is, to what might be. For example, to move from complex A to complex C one has to first know complex A and complex B. And so the axioms dictate that our understanding of B is always going to be in the abstract of A and B and probability C until we reach absolute ABC.

All I hope to do here is demonstrate to you that I may be operating around the axioms of a more complex verse. My world is built around a language that I call Transcendental Geometry. Example – To hold precision in any equation, the mind must be in symmetry with the given set at hand, and thus, if the mind can find symmetry in precision of the given set at hand, well then the mind must be geometrically aligned with the overall picture. It also could be said for example that Hitler wandered off the path of axioms simply because there was no ontological symmetry in mind of what he tried to achieve. Sorry, digression, but the point mentioned, stands.

Transcendental Geometry allows us to look at every possible ontological scenario we might encounter in trying to map out our cosmological make-up. For example, it tells us that whatever the unified field turns out to be, it can only be if, it can be grounded in the atomic structures of the human mind first. Thus, the architecture of the mind has to be considered as the number one field of exploration if we are to find the God particle. After all, the human mind has to be more complex at the atomic level than any other atom. And this has to be considered given that our minds are geometrically aligned with the above mentioned, in relation to the ontology of a priori precision. Basically, if there is no transcendental fit down there, in there, at the atomic level, then there is nothing for us to know.

Too demonstrate where I am coming from I am going to answer a simple but complex question; a question that has plagued our young embryonic mind for centuries. The question I am referring to is none other than, Infinity plus one. Basically why can we always add another one on to infinity? One plus one, plus one, plus one, ad infinitum. That is what we mean when we say Infinity plus one. The answer actually lies in the question itself. By geometrically realigning your mind with the way the question is set, you will hopefully see; in a surface kind of way anyhow, that my head is on the other way round when it comes to complex thought.

The reason we can’t answer the Infinity plus One paradox is simply because our minds are lined up with the equation in the incorrect way. First off let us consider the premise – Infinity plus one. The perspective is constructed around an, a posterior position, in that it postulates parts. However, since technically there are no parts the premise itself is wrong, and since there are no parts how on Earth can anything be added on to the idea of infinity? Or even ten for that matter?

There is no symmetry of mind that aligns the mind with the geometry of a single part. This is precisely why there is no precision in the question itself. The answer is in-fact – ‘One aggregated to the sum of the finite Whole’, as this perspective is constructed around pure a priori subjectivity. It’s kind of like saying – 100% = One aggregated to one hundred parts. Which of course means it still only adds up to one.

So what’s my point? Contemporary thinking is mainly considered around the axioms of a posterior constructs, and therefore can only be considered around the inferences of idealised vacuums. The idea of a ‘part’ remember is a posterior, inasmuch as it must have ‘walls’ (vacuum) to discern it as a fixed position. A priori thinking on the other hand considers the position from the Mind as ‘Indeterminate X’ shall we say, out to, and through to all points extended to the finite whole. You see what I mean now about block abstract and holistic dyslexia?

I don’t fully know how to explain what I want to say. I believe that if you want to take mathematics, psychology and linguistics to the next level, you are going to have to consider your own mind in relation to how it is technically aligned with the inside of reality. You could ask yourself – how is the mind thriving and evolving in the atoms along the a priori path of existence? We as a species are a whole evolutionary step away from where we need to be in regards to finding the answers to existence. However, I know I can shed new light on old ways of thinking. All it takes is one person to take a chance on me and history will do the rest.

One has no choice but to move their mind into the realms of pure a priori thought to find the true ontological path. Whatever you may think, I, if nothing else have answered the age old ‘infinity plus one’ paradox. If I could have your ear I could show you many more ways to realign the mind with the inner workings of nature in the subjective bed. There is no other way to unify it all. Either your mind’ eye is running in motion with the total ontological agency of total X becoming total X through the transition of subsistent Y, or it is just another eye blinking for a second in a vacuum.

What at first appears like madness…. I’ll stop here because in truth I don’t fully know where to take it. All I know is that I know things of value and I’d rather be heard now than after I’m long dead. I am in a transitional state, meaning my head is trying to move away from an old paradigm to a more complex paradigm. I believe most contemporary thinkers are only floating around the surface of what the mind is capable of.

All I am asking for is a chance. A chance to come and talk with the professors of the above mentioned fields. I would also love to come and talk in your class rooms. If nothing else I will bring a stimulating view to the table, don’t you think? After all I believe the shift away from Homo-sapiens has begun, and it the most abstract way, I am the blue print of my own claim.

Principle – The complexity of the ‘idealised vacuum/volume’ will always = the whole complexity of whatever’ contained within the vacuum, plus, the mind in symmetry of it. Thus the mind is more complex than the postulated body it is trying to know….. Meaning the answer can only be meta-physical.

Peace from me.

Planetyap@hotmail.com