Example: I don’t believe the Eagles believe they can win. Then, I believe the Eagles believe they can’t win. Note how this changes the Start condition ‘belief’ from ‘I don’t believe’ to ‘I do believe’, said this way to highlight the dropping of ‘not’. And it changes the End condition from ‘can’ to ‘can not’, meaning it adds ‘not’ at End when it is added at Start and is dropped at End when it is added at Start. And Eagles is Between, meaning it is the operations space through which S flows to E.
A similar Mudi would be I believe the Eagles believe they will lose. That transfers the ‘not’ in ‘can’t win’ so the Endpoint shifts from ‘can not win’ to a label meaning ‘can not win’ expressed as an active selection, meaning it is LC within – I’m thinking this out – the conception ‘win’ that relates the Mudi ‘win’ to ‘lose’ in a way that incorporates the distance across the meanings of winning versus losing. These meanings are encapsulated – and can be decoded to some extent – and the idealization of that is Taylor (T’ for short) Field. This describes a CM64 for the T’ Field whose Between is the Eagles as a group of individuals having processed the threads of how they might win and lose and what they really expect deep down versus what they fear and how they feel accomplished having done this much that the overall value for the threads is they don’t believe they can win and believe they can’t win. [As an update: my belief was wrong. I under-estimated their perspective because I was overly familiar with the Patriots perspective. This is why ‘betting’ on stuff you have an interest in – either a rooting interest or a lot of knowledge about one side – is risky. The method of analysis is fine.]
That makes this sentence: I do (not) believe the Eagles believe they can (not) win. That is two statements of belief I processed through the Eagles. Go through them. First is drop both nots and you believe the Eagles believe they can win. Second is drop second not, so then you believe the Eagles believe they can not win, which is what I believe. Third, is the other way: you do not believe the Eagles believe they can win. And fourth is you do not believe the Eagles believe they can not win. That’s hard to unravel, isn’t it? The last entire part of the sentence says the Eagles believe they can not win, and then you stick a not belief on the front of that! If you read it from the front not belief clause, then you get: you don’t believe the Eagles belief that they can’t lose. I had to translate that from a process statement to an existence statement, from believe to belief to capture a meaning. This means the double not says you think the Eagles will lose because you don’t believe their belief they will! This is about as much fun as I can have!
The process statement becomes an existence statement because it switches x-yR and that values the process statement, i.e., essentially freezes a countable (and counted to some extent construct). The actual countability of the construct may be as real as a dragon drawn when you walk across a bulging tree root or as real as a punch to the face, as all those x-yR collapse into the valuation Mudi. In this sentence, to say ‘you don’t believe the Eagles belief’ processes your belief to a value which functionally applies to determine the value of ‘they can’t lose’. This is true all the way back up the chain to the binary choice level. That level occurs back where you decide the Eagles will lose: you either think they will or won’t. Pick one – I picked they will lose – and that determines the chains in the Mudi.
Those chains are now visible. Take the second chain, ‘you believe the Eagles believe they can’t win’, or the third, ‘you don’t believe the Eagles believe they can win’. Read forward, two begins from Start of ‘Is’ belief and three begins ‘Not’ belief. These flip Is and Not when they’re read backwards. This puts Belief as Between. Cross from a Start over Between to End: this tests the Eagles belief they either believe fully or believe not at all that they can’t win. So SBE Starts from your belief Is, counts a specific thread through Between and comes to Not. This makes the ideal square in which Start is a belief and B1 is the Eagles don’t believe and B2 is absolutely they do. When you read forwards, End depends on the value of the beliefs at Start: I believe this is true so therefore this is more likely. But if you go back the other way, the value of your belief at what is now End compares against the value determined by reading forward. The bidirectional value, the multi-dimensional value, is the value you determine overall for all these threads.
The bidirectional value of the sentence ‘I do (not) believe the Eagles believe they can (not) win’ is containable. That Mudi is the overall winner in which one branch considers the Patriots and the other branch the Eagles. The equivalent sentence would be ‘I do (not) believe the Patriots believe they ‘can (not) win’. That just flips the labels with Patriots substituted but it gives a value for each label. If I put those in a Mudi, it would be just Eagles win or lose versus Patriots win or lose; the Immediate Context in multi-dimensional identity of the labels inherently associated with yes or no, 1 or 0 outcome is this basic Mudi.
It takes a tremendous amount of displacement internally Between what is experienced and what is observed to see the operations spaces in which SBE processes appear. They connect to drawings of fCM applied across CMs. I’m just about ready to write up one of the most basic functions: that which relates the gap Between Things when those Things are treated as existing in and as a T’ Field, so that gap reduces to the smallest amount by which the T’ Field at the level of visibility becomes ‘visible’ in fCM description (because that description generates the visible limit within CMs). To do this, you need to think of two points connected by three circles, one drawn so the diameter extends to each of the two points so the imputed origin becomes the two points connected by three circles, one drawn so … This exact same description occurs when you try to describe either point and it extends to cover the two points treated as one relative to another point. Can’t believe I was able to say that so clearly!
Oddity: the numbers are so exact it’s the meaning of ‘freakish’. I refer to the double meaning of ‘freakish’: that it’s freakishly rare and that it actually occurs even though the odds of that occurring are freakish. That’s essential to the nature of physical and mathematical constants, that they are freakish in both senses.
Another tidbit: the description of a second, meaning a tick-tock-tick in which the count of the second tick also counts as the first tick in the continuing chain of tick-tock-tick, is 10Not. That’s because what the second describes Is – not capital letter – the CM64 of the interval in which the tick-tock-tick occurs, and that is bordered by CM36. I have nice drawings of that. The base60 counting layer is reached when SBE3 counts bidirectionally, meaning the radiative bidirectional measure for any context rather obviously generates CM36 on the CMs lattice. That generates a meter which counts the extent of CMs, meaning actual count of Things across a context, as that varies according to density of the Things. This means a second shortens as density increases. To complete the thought, this means the meter ‘length’ or wavelength or seconds length gets longer as the frequency drops and density drops, while wavelength shortens as frequency increases. That’s obvious except now it occurs across CMs, meaning it is stated with ‘absolute’ relativity. That may sound absurd but it means when treated as fully relative. I can do that because I can say all the fCM for a T’ Field.
And yes, that means I had to go that far in Tali. I had to go all the way and I’m glad I did.
jomi: playing with perception 