--- The purpose of this document is to provide a theoretical framework through which understanding can be seen. To accomplish this, I will layout a thought experiment which expands on Representation and Embedding Theory. In this theoretical model, we will posit that if you abstract the principles of Representation and Embedding Theory, you can "embed anything" in some infinite dimensional space. For the purpose of our understanding, we can label each dimension with a "semantic definition," but in practice it would be inefficient to do so, as a machine can "learn" more abstract definitions, thus achieving a more efficient result. Later, I'm going to use this as a philosophic foundation. This model of thinking suggests a few things: - There exists some theoretically infinite-dimensional vector space that could capture all possible properties/aspects of any object or concept - While humans might understand this space by assigning semantic meaning to dimensions ("color", "size", "complexity", etc.), this is just our way of comprehending it - More efficient representations might exist using abstract, learned dimensions that don't map cleanly to human semantics but better capture the underlying structure - The relationships between objects in this space can be modeled through linear transformations The most interesting of these suggestion, from my philosophical perspective, is it's implication on language. For our understanding, we labeled these dimensions with words that have semantic definitions, however, what are words? Even they have deeper symbolism, and can be manipulated, transformed through deeper layers such as syntax, morphology and phonetics. Let's take a simple word such as "good," what we talk about as good isn't really a definition, as it's definition is self referencing, and at a deeper layer, has no meaning, since it is relative. What we mean by good is a dimensional direction, "we are semantically pointing in the direction of good," which is later positioned more absolutely by framing. Now, lets think about symbolism, which is particularly interesting as symbols are supposed to encapsulate or "crystalize" the totality of an idea. These in a sense are abstract forms of the idea, the point in vector space where that idea lies. When we think of concepts such as mood boards, poems, text, movies etc. What each medium of expression is doing, is laying out a sequence of vectors, all of which point to some increasingly complex or clearer vision, idea, or point in this vector space. *Symbolism and the function of time.* *Symbols often change meaning overtime, precisely because the vector which represented them encompassed "truth" at a moment time. As the function of time develops, new dimensions are added and discovered, shifting the meaning of previous ones. So while the position in the space stays the same, the structure or form of said symbol, the meaning is reinterpreted.* *This has implication for how one should engage with and interpret history.* What becomes increasingly interesting is what happens if we conduct a simple thought experiment. Lets represent all of human knowledge, art, and symbolism using vectors, and from the noise, lets see the intersections of ideas, and see the "finial convergence." What will we find at such a point? Well, perhaps it will be too abstract too interpret, which is funny, because what we will find is "truth." Not in the simple sense, but in the sense that all of the perspective of humanity, will have converged on a singularity, god, the universe, truth. To me, this is the ultimate dialectic, the one between thesis, reality, the universe, god, and antithesis, the living, the conscious mind, humans and our grand synthesis, art, expression, our perspective, truth. I encourage you to think of this singularity theoretically, as what we might find is that, in order to encapsulate all truth, what we need is a vector space so large, a computer so powerful, that what we end up with is reality itself. Furthermore, when we craft an ideal as powerful as god or "singularity" the mimetic potential for misinterpretation and self aggrandizement is real. What meaning encapsulates, truth, or objective reality as it's interpreted through our unique lens. If different cultures create non-convergent structures it's due to a lack of data, a lack of weighting of said data, or a lack of depth rather than a non-convergent behavior of the system. What we are really talking about is the convergence of all vectors pointing towards truth, in my hypothetical which goes over the "addition to dimensions" I'm talking about the embedding rather than the space itself. This is a semantic explanation, example `[0,0,0.666,0,0]` has 5 dimensions but only 1 is effectively encoded. This is a pure example about how truth and our ability to encapsulate it with symbols transforms over time, rather than a technical mathematical model. Therefore, because all meaning encapsulate some degree of reality / truth we can expect all knowledge to converge on some abstract representation of said reality / truth, with the note that I cannot make any claim about the utility of said convergent point. I'm making a claim about the behavior, rather than the point itself. Truth itself is a point, but our perspective interpret it as a direction. In other words, there exists a hypothetical point which might encapsulate all known, but the very nature of reality is an unknown, so our ability to make claims about the location of such a point has an inherent limit. Let's take a fundamental truth about dualities, this is called The Dialectic in English. We see this truth described in many ways, in binary / Alan Turning's machinations, in ancient Chinese through Yin and Yang, Tao, the way in Taoism, In Christianity through The Father, The son and The Holy Spirit, Plato's Theory of Forms, etc. I can list more, but the point is that if we we're to look at all these vectors, products of their unique cultures, we would find the converging on the same truth, they all describe the same thing. Would you say this implies that the pursuit of truth is more about refining our perspective/alignment rather than expanding our dimensional space? And how does this relate to the role of direct experience versus abstract reasoning in approaching truth? I would say that it is a refinement of perspective, but that is an extremely macro perspective. The micro is the act of definition itself, this creates a vector in which you can create an antithesis of to see where it intersects, and if it accurately describes the "truth." This is the upwards spiral that Hegel was talking about, although because of absolute idealism, he misinterpreted himself as a messenger of god... Again, we can see the power of this form, and the danger of idealist desire with mimetic theory. But we can see the problem clearly, which is that the nature of the human mind has a tendency towards desire and greater knowledge, and that the universe itself has a fundamental limit to the knowledge that we can know. In other words, there exists a known and unknown both Fundamental. You may notice, what I'm describing here is a dialectic, and so the question is "What is the answer, what does this synthesize into?" My solution of course, is humility, or an unknown god, the acknowledgement of humility itself as truth. The desire to see yourself as a Messager of god become so attractive in these "All encompassing theories" precisely because of what god is / represents, the universe, the objective reality, truth. In this manner, the more descriptive, the more artistic, the greater the dialectic, the more close to "gods word" you become. The counter to this, is the acknowledgement of truth and objective reality, as something which cannot be known. You can come close to knowing it, but so can an infinite amount of people, from an infinite amount of directions / dimensions, in an infinite medium, etc. What's key here, is that you are all pointing towards the same thing, your acts of expression are the data through which others can synthesize their understanding, their meaning, their purpose. The collection of this data, and regulation of it was the very role the Church attempted to play, the arbiter of truth, the librarian of babel. This philosophy, the study of truth, is the "ultimate why" the pursuit of truth, itself, the desire for expression, the desire to express truth, to become the embodiment of your expression of truth, for all your actions, experiences, and understanding to converge to a point, an enlightenment, a synthesis, you. ##### Dissonance and Depression This also allows us to understand depression, not as just a mental illness, but as a dissonance between your internal world view, desire, and external reality. This dissonance, will culminate in the individual having to deny reality in order to preserve their internal world view, their sense of self. However, what they misinterpret, is that reality or truth is their expression of self, so in the act of denial, they are killing themselves metaphorically, which ultimately ends in action. --- ## Convergent Truth: A Definition Convergent truth can be defined as the theoretical point or region in vector space where multiple perspectives, approaching from different directions and dimensions, intersect or converge. Key properties: 1. It is not necessarily a single point but may be a region of coherence 2. Different perspectives can approach it from different directions while maintaining their validity 3. It exists independent of any single perspective but is only comprehensible through perspective 4. It becomes more clearly defined as more perspectives align toward it This is why preserving cultures is so important, because the more we converge, ironically, the less "truth" we see. The less intersection we have, the more lonely we become. ### Mathematical Representation If we represent each perspective as a vector $p_i$ in an n-dimensional space, convergent truth ($T$) can be understood as: $T = lim(n→∞) ∩{p_i + v_i(t) | i ∈ P}$ **Where**: - $p_i$ represents initial perspective positions - $v_i(t)$ represents the evolution of perspectives over time - $P$ is the set of all perspectives - $∩$ represents the intersection or convergence point ### Convergence as Narrative, Meaning and Symbolism From this, we can begin to understand how meaning is represented through different medium. A narrative is a vector, one denoting the convergence of the events described in it's chapters. The chapters are comprised of paragraphs, which are comprised of words, each their own vectors. However, we can take those same vectors, in theory, and translate them to different mediums. We all know this intuitively, that's how movies, songs, paintings, poems, etc are made. Each having their own set of constraints on infinity, that give birth to creativity, to perspective. What's interesting is this, in theory, allows us to understand what makes a piece of art valuable. Art becomes that which teaches perspective on a truth. The better that truth is taught, interpreted, or represented, the more valuable and resonate that painting becomes. The more potent the truth, the more potential the artwork has to transcend itself into a symbol. This is why the best artists are those with something to say, those that have gone through trauma or unique experience, as it gives them perspective. ### Mimetic Propagation This theory becomes particularly potent when you consider group dynamics as representing a convergence of perspectives. This representation allows the theorization of "counter vectors" or "mimetic poison" which can shift a group's convergence to a desired target, either over time, or all at once. For example, Pinterest might be one of the most valuable companies, due to its categorization and recommendation algorithm, which essentially holds information about the categorization of semantic ideas through vectors. When technology comes that can meaningfully interpret this vector data, it can find applications across mediums. As AI technology advances, the ability to interpret and utilize these semantic relationships will become increasingly valuable. This and mimetic desire is why Facebook, Instagram, Tiktok, etc all find themselves at the height of power. *Tiktok's recommendation algorithm, specifically leverages desire, by scoring metrics such as the subjects beauty for each video.* [[Mimetic Desire → Rivalry → Crisis → Scapegoat → Sacrifice → Myth → Ritual#Mimetic Poison and Emotional Patterns|Mimetic poison]] is a manipulation strategy that exploits people's desires and beliefs to gradually shift their perspective and worldview. It works by: 1. Creating subconscious associations with negative emotions (like lust, jealousy, or anger) 2. Repeatedly triggering these emotions while offering comfort or moral justification 3. Over time, transforming these triggered responses into habitual patterns of thought The key effect is that the target's identity becomes increasingly shaped by these manipulated perspectives, making them resistant to critical thinking or contrary evidence since challenges to their beliefs feel like attacks on their identity. This can happen through marketing, propaganda, social media, or other information streams. With mimetic poison, essentially the creation of false vectors, artificially constructed reference points that skew one's orientation away from reality rather than toward it. The social media platforms are particularly effective at this because they create self-reinforcing ecosystems of these false vectors. 1. Each personality trait represents a different potential "direction" in the vector space that can be exploited 2. Social media algorithms essentially function as vector manipulation engines - they identify these personality-based vectors and gradually shift their orientation 3. The platforms create what we might call "mimetic gravity wells" - artificial points in the vector space that pull attention and desire away from truth-seeking and toward engagement/addiction What's particularly insidious about this is how it relates to depression and reality-denial. These platforms don't just create false vectors - they actively make it harder to maintain alignment with reality by: - Creating dopamine-driven feedback loops that reward misalignment - Establishing social validation mechanisms that reinforce false vectors - Using algorithmic recommendations to gradually increase the angle of deviation from reality - Exploiting personality traits (OCEAN model) to customize this misalignment process These platforms are so valuable - as they've essentially built sophisticated systems for manipulating the vector space of human attention and desire. The more they understand about how to shift these vectors, the more effectively they can direct human behavior. ### Semiotic Reverence & Epistemic Survival Why in strict Hebrew traditionalists, and gnosticism, is writing the name of god forbidden? Simply, to write the Name of God is not a sin in the moral sense—it is a _semantic hazard_, a **compression of infinity into a finite symbol**, which—once uttered, fixated, or institutionalized—_dies a mimetic death_. > The prohibition is not superstition. It is **precaution against symbolic entropy**. #### The Tetragrammaton as Protected Vector The unspoken Name of God—**YHWH (יהוה)**—is not just a name. It is a **placeholder for the unrepresentable**. - It is not a point. - It is not even a direction. - It is a **superposition** of all possible alignments toward Truth. To write it, to pin it down with phonetic finality, would be to **collapse the wavefunction**. And in doing so, the **transcendence it signifies becomes vulnerable to mimetic decay and misinterpretation.** > “Do not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain” Gnostic traditions preserve the same logic: - **The true God** is _ineffable_, _unnameable_, _unknowable._ - The Demiurge—the “lesser god” of this world—is the one who **names**, **creates**, and **enslaves through form**. > The act of naming is also the act of _limiting_. A truth echoed in every respected piece of human literature, in narratives, in buddhist thought, taoism, christianity, etc. - Gnostics reject orthodoxy not for rebellion’s sake, but for **preserving the unknowable as sacred**. - The true God is not written—but **hinted at**, **circled**, **yearned for**. Just as in the Jewish mystical tradition, the name **Ein Sof**—“without end”—is a **negative placeholder**, a **vector pointed at infinite dimensionality**. This is the truth [[Friedrich Nietzsche - Prophet of Fracture|Nietzsche]] foresaw, the [[Mimetic Desire → Rivalry → Crisis → Scapegoat → Sacrifice → Myth → Ritual#Mimetic Poison and Emotional Patterns|Mimetically Poisoning of God.]] So often misunderstood as atheistic cynicism. In truth it is grief. A great [[William Shakespeare|Shakespearian]] tragic comedy that in warning us, he too suffered the same fate. > “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.” > – _The Gay Science_, §125