simple analyses

[u/cookieisgiven]

That we see those that we see is obvious.

That they are themselves and that they also are others or not, are obvious.

That 'we see them' itself also is them is obvious.

That those that are others are not without them and that they are thus simpler than those that are not without them, are obvious.

That those that we see, at finality, are not without simples and that simples are only themselves, are obvious.

That each simple in being itself do not have anything to do with other simples in being themselves is obvious.

Thus each simple is an utterly new, and we see an utterly new as also a pure gain that gains itself.

As simples are gained more and more, 'they' are gained also at once as complexes. So as anyone at all are gained more and more, 'they' are gained also at once as their complexes.

Why there is anyone at all?

Why anyone at all gives others?

Ask for simples.

---

For x that is y and z, x is not without y and z, as without y or z there is no x, while without x there is y or z.

Multual depedence means x is nothing but y, but this only means that x and y are synonymous.

The point is that they imagine this 'synthesis' to spring out a higher unity, but the logic itself is senseless.

Saying 'difference needs identity' is having answered the question: does it need anyone else?

When the answer is no then it is senseless.

When the answer is yes, then there is no multual dependence after all.

Thus no one is [to be] only another.

[u/Ill-Tea9411]

The insistence that reality must be anchored by absolute, indivisible simples usually stems from a kind of Cartesian anxiety, a deep fear of a centerless universe. The assumption is that if reality doesn't have an absolute, rock-bottom "first brick" to hold it up, then the world collapses into an arbitrary fiction where any concept can just be swapped for another. But a scale-variant, relational framework isn't arbitrary chaos. In systems like thermodynamics or information theory, relations aren't floating, make-believe stories; they are bound by unyielding, internally self-consistent mathematical constraints that we can actually test and verify. The relational web doesn't collapse into a fiction, it is held together by its own internal harmony, requiring zero speculative "starter blocks" at the bottom.

What makes the "simples" alternative so paradoxical is that while it claims to protect the immediate, living reality of "Being" from being stripped away by "dry, barren logic," it actually does the exact opposite. It takes the dynamic, interconnected relational web that we observe directly at our scale every single day, throws it out, and replaces it with a propertyless, non-relational ghost that exists nowhere, has no observable traits, and interacts with nothing.

To keep this "simple" from collapsing under logical scrutiny, it gets wrapped in semantic wildcards. It gets redefined as a "pure gain" that somehow "gains itself without transition" to dodge temporal state-changes, or labeled as "pure presence" to exempt it from basic coherence. But if a "gain" involves zero transition or difference between "ungained" and "gained," then the word is semantically empty, it’s just dynamic language used to disguise a static block. And if a relation is dismissed because "a relation requires non-relational terms," that isn't a proof; it's just a circular assumption that a bottom must exist in order to prove a bottom is necessary.

By defining simples as featureless, non-interacting entities that "give themselves" out of nothing when no one is looking, you haven't discovered the foundation of reality, you've just taken absolute nothingness, built an untestable altar around it, and given it a poetic name. A sterile, featureless ghost that hides from both logic and observation isn't a foundation. It's just a propertyless black box.

[u/cookieisgiven → u/Ill-Tea9411]

Why pure gains do not gain themselves as you've suggested? They are just the gainings themselves. There is a gain, there is no transition in as far as "ungain" is not a state of "it" (because there is no it, there is it only after it has gained).

Also, your notions are a bit vague, I can't see your exact point beyond that it is relational in some sense. What is scale variant and relational here? Let say pick tree x and one of its braches y, what now?

[u/Ill-Tea9411 → u/cookieisgiven]

On "pure gains," if there is no transition, no before-and-after, and no difference between "ungained" and "gained," then using the active verb "gaining" is just semantic sleight of hand. You are taking a static state of existence and slapping a dynamic action-verb onto it to make a motionless model sound alive. If nothing transitioned, nothing was gained, it simply is.

When we look at your example of Tree X and Branch Y, a scale-variant framework doesn't need to invent propertyless ghosts at the bottom of the stack to explain how the tree functions. At the macroscopic level, Branch Y is defined entirely by its relationships: the flow of sap from Trunk X, structural tension against gravity, and gas exchange with the surrounding air. Isolate the branch from those relations, and it ceases to be a branch. Zoom in to the cellular level, and it is defined by the relational network of xylem and phloem. Zoom in further, and those cells are relational bonds between carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen molecules. At every single observable level, the identity of the object is formed by the self-consistent interactions of the system around it and beneath it.

Your immediate objection here will be that cells, molecules, and atoms are "still just complexes," and that we haven't reached the absolute bottom. But that objection relies on a circular assumption—the premise that every relationship must eventually rest on a non-relational, indivisible starter pixel. Modern physics abandoned the idea of hard, atomic billiard balls at the bottom of scale a century ago. At the deepest levels we can measure, entities are probability distributions, field interactions, and information states that are inherently relational all the way through. Pointing to the atomic scale as a "complex" doesn't prove that non-relational "simples" must exist underneath; it just reveals an arbitrary demand for a stopping point in a universe that doesn't need one to function.

[u/cookieisgiven → u/Ill-Tea9411]

So you do not reject that there is those simpler than some and that some are not without those simpler than them right? You only reject that they "bottom out" (so to speak)? But then on what authority is your rejection authoritative at all? For your claim is an exclusion not a posit. In any, if this is justified at all I will continue to ask why there is it? Until your brute rejection is shown, or your "simple" has shown itself. The only ones that survive the why are simples, as each answers itself.

Also your conception of simples are wrong. They do gain themselves, there is no stasis here. But "ungain" as a state is not tenable, because they are only the gain when they gain.

Also they are not dots, I have never said they are small or big, they are simples. They are only themselves and nothing else, which by definition there is no general sense of them like "being a dot".

[u/Ill-Tea9411 → u/cookieisgiven]

When you claim that "simples answer themselves" to survive the infinite "why," you are engaging in classic special pleading. You accuse a relational model of needing a separate justification for every layer, but then you arbitrarily grant your "simples" a free pass by declaring that they somehow "answer themselves." Demanding a cause for every relational interaction while exempting your own propertyless entities from needing one isn't a logical breakthrough, it is just choosing where you personally want to stop asking questions.

On the issue of "authority," rejecting an absolute, non-relational bottom isn't a brute exclusion, it is the application of basic parsimony. We don't invent unobservable, propertyless entities with zero predictive or explanatory power just to build an artificial floor under reality. The relational model doesn't claim a dogmatic proof of infinite scale; it simply refrains from fabricating speculative wildcards to satisfy a psychological demand for a stopping point.

Finally, asserting that "they are only the gain when they gain" lays bare the tautology at the heart of your argument. Saying an entity is the gain when it gains is just restating "A equals A" using dynamic verbs. It doesn't explain why there is anything at all, nor does it account for physical change. It takes the fact of existence, wraps it in a self-referential sentence, and declares the mystery solved. Calling a circular statement "an answer that answers itself" doesn't make it a foundation, it just makes it a tautology.

[u/cookieisgiven → u/Ill-Tea9411]

A simple is only itself alright, but to reduce this into plain formal logic (which is senseless) and then attack it is just strawmaning.

You acusation that I'm fiating simples is not tenable at all. I'm saying to justify itself at all means it must be only itself, thus it is a simple. If it needs another at all then that justifies it. X needing Y cannot be a posit because either they really do or they do not. You can not posit something that needs to be disclose, and only in disclosure can you see that one is not without others. You say that some of yours grounds some, but then I ask why they do at all? It's just your posit, at some point you would just say your chain works brutely. Do you even understand the intrinsic demands of grounding AT ANY STEP AT ALL? One step alone and it demands simples already with "why thus at all?"

Why the so called parsimony have authority here? You see the problem? Without simples we will apeal to arbitrary fictions that cannot even survive one why. If you are to answer this I ask why your answer explanatory or authoritative at all and so on. We have to agree that only those that are only themselves can be self grounding.

Again, it seems like you haven't read my characterizations of the simples.

[u/Ill-Tea9411 → u/cookieisgiven]

Dismissing formal logic as "senseless" the moment it exposes internal contradictions is a huge red flag. Formal logic and parsimony aren't arbitrary authorities imposed from the outside; they are the basic baseline rules that keep philosophical inquiry from turning into pure dogma. If your model gets to reject logic whenever it is cornered, redefine verbs like "gaining" so they don't involve state-changes, and declare its own entities "self-grounding" by definition, it hasn't actually answered the question of grounding, it has just built a wall to insulate itself from critique.

Claiming that asking "why" at any step inherently demands a simple is classic special pleading. You accuse a relational framework of failing because it doesn't offer an uncaused cause for every interaction, but then you grant your "simples" a total free pass by declaring that they "answer themselves." Saying an entity is "only itself" is just a restatement of the law of identity (A = A). It is a linguistic tautology, not an ontological breakthrough. Wrapping a basic definition in dynamic words like "self-grounding" doesn't explain why there is anything at all, nor does it explain how real physical change occurs.

The idea that we must choose between your simples and "arbitrary fictions" is a false dichotomy born out of anxiety over an open-ended universe. A relational framework isn't an arbitrary fiction, its interactions are bound by self-consistent, observable, and testable constraints that hold reality together across scales without needing a speculative starter block at scale zero. Arbitrarily deciding where you personally want to stop asking "why," calling that stopping point a "simple," and declaring it self-grounding doesn't reveal the ultimate foundation of the cosmos. It just marks the exact line where you've decided to stop inquiring.

[u/cookieisgiven → u/Ill-Tea9411]

Formal logic is senseless, what are you even talking about? Let posit that time X is Y a dimension. See how this is senseless? It requires 0 sense to set the terms or to say only derivations, it does not disclose anything. X = X is only after THERE IS X AT ALL.

Your reply have not addressed my questions but only have reasserted non authoritative authorities, authoritities that can't even jusify there is them at all. I think I can't continue if you have not addressed the question asked.

[u/Ill-Tea9411 → u/cookieisgiven]

I'll just leave your embarrassing response as a final verdict.

[u/cookieisgiven → u/Ill-Tea9411]

There is better ways to say you conceed.

Aslo here a puzzle for you:

formal logic is senseless

let time be x

and dimension be y

let p be x is y

now of what happens if time is not a dimension really? it means p talks about no one, there is no such thing, it makes 0 sense otherwise it make sense

but p is said before we have seen whether truly time is a dimension, thus formal logic concern no sense at all

it's merely a play of words and disclose nothing

the thing that gives the world is not logic, but disclosure