NOTE: THIS ENTRY ORIGINALLY AIMED TO SURPASS OBL, HOWEVER SUCH HAS BEEN DONE ON WHAT IS NOW A MULTITUDE OF OCCASIONS. IT IS BECAUSE OF THIS THAT THIS ENTRY'S FOCUS HAS BEEN SHIFTED TO A MUCH MORE BROAD TOPIC, BUT WAS NONETHELESS INTENDED FOR IT AS WELL. BECAUSE OF THE KEY POINTS AND CLARIFICATIONS PROVIDED FOR THE OBL SECTIONS, I THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO KEEP THE OBL REFUTATIONS IN THE ENTRY, HOWEVER KEEP IN MIND THAT, ALTHOUGH ORIGINATING IN THE CONTEXT OF OBL REFUTATION, THE PRIMARY INTEREST OF THIS ENTRY HAS DIFFERED AND WILL BE AIMED AT A HIGHER SUBJECT: The Negation of Collapsing
NOTE 2: THIS ENTRY HAS NOT BEEN FINISHED. PLEASE DO NOT JUDGE OR CRITIQUE IT UNTIL IT IS FINISHED.
Author of entry: Someone Who Was
The basic premise of Observational Limits is that all things fall under observation. This, of course, we've dealt with in the past, and what am I talking about? I am talking about a concept/meta-concept encompassing things, yet not controlling them. Observation (no matter what way you think of it), obviously does not control things such as conceptualization, interpretation, question, knowledge, epistemology, etc. Just because something is encompassed does not at all mean it is restricted. OBL is overrated and I now realize it should have been put to rest a while ago, but apparently, like many times before, everybody either lacks the will to act on this or simply does not understand well enough. In effect, in order to transcend something it must be understood in its entirety, for if you were to surpass one point of an entry it would not immediately be superior, merely imperfect, as an entry is influenced by more than one variable factor. In this entry, I will introduce my concept of Conceptual Difference, and then explain how each and every facet of Observational Limits is inferior to this somewhat supposition.
Firstly, Conceptual Difference is a concept I have designed to distribute all things within isness and all meta-concepts (I mean concepts like observation, interpretation, conceptualization, awareness, consciousness, etc.). Observation (for example) is not tied to any other concept/meta-concept, so if we were to make something like OBL, which attempts to encompass everything humans could ever be conscious of by means of "observation", it would not control things like conceptualization. Say that, for some reason, OBL was a focus on interpretation. In this case, the same public stance and acknowledgement of it would come, since there would be some tangible explanation behind the entry. The whole misconception is that things, the way they are now, are immutable. Examples would be OBL or IIUUIITL, which are entries which thought they could tie the entirety of the cosmic conceptual web behind our minds. They both failed miserably. It is evident, this far, that things are not objective to us. Let us propose for a moment that I saw a lion sitting in the corner of a room. This would be standard observation. Now, suppose this lion was there, but I did not know. The fact that I didn't know means I couldn't have observed it. The possibility of observation relies on an awareness factor which is necessary to pass through real observation (at least according to the completely inaccurate and twisted definition of observation in OBL). The fact that the lion exists objectively does not depend on whether or not I can observe it. Note that when I say "observe" I mean to observe by the definition of OBL.
Moving forward, OBL contains a sort of legislation which it attempts to hold immutable, it says the following:
"The Observational Limit is the axiomatic upper bound for all theoretical logical constructs that can be observed in any form, regardless of fallibility, possibility, formality, ineffability, subjectivity, or any other quantity that can be theorized under the basis of observation"
What problem is there with this? Well, the way the author twisted the definition, I might as well say the same for a "Conceptual Limits" entry. The rules dictating all possible entries moving forward that are present in the OBL entry are genuinely just a paraphrasing of all other entries which attempt to be a limit to everything. IIUUIITL attempted this and failed, Creationlock attempted this and failed, UFF/UFL attempted this and failed, Post-Writing/Potential did this and failed, TEL did this and failed. I could go on forever. You cannot bound anything, something must always exist on the outside to bound it. The paradox we have all failed to escape here on this Wiki is the Limit Paradox, which is that nothing is bounded, as I just explained, yet that is the only limit to us. The only limit to us is that we cannot limit anything. I want to highlight this boldly to refresh everyone's memory. We figured this out about a year ago, so there is no use in changing it.
I would also like to address the arrogant claim that OBL is even close to the minimal scope of HG. HG is quite literally the most advanced field possible (or even...impossible...) in the world. Many of the members there have colossal levels of understanding in areas such as philosophy, science, set theory (and mathematics in general), and more, and are at a conceptual and abstract level far more elevated than most people here (or anywhere else) could ever have. HG is a much more mature field and I don't think many people from FG could really survive there. I myself risked my chance to learn HG just because of the negative effects I carried on from this Wiki. Turns out FG stigma is dangerous... But wait, what even is Conceptual Difference?
Conceptual Difference - the one concept that humans directly stole[]
Conceptual Difference implies the division of concepts/meta-concepts. For example, something observation ignores and surpasses, such as (for example) fallibility, is independent from OBL itself. If it wasn't then we would have discovered OBL before fallibility since it would be a direct source from OBL. Essentially, unless a concept/meta-concept is introduced newly in an entry, regardless of any presuppositions or previous remarks, it is not attached. As to how this surpasses something like OBL, well, let's take a look.
Let's assume any knowledge is part of [OBL defined] observation. Then, as discussed many times in the past, the unobervable would be that which is impossible to know, and since it is impossible to know it is impossible to know the concept of that thing. For example, to an ant, the concept of reading does not exist, and so it is not aware that it cannot read since it doesn't even know that reading exists and/or that it can or cannot read. Instead of having missing information mark unobservability, we have the concept of not knowing something which you don't know. An example of this would be not knowing what a mountain was and also not knowing that I didn't know what a mountain was, because the concept of a mountain does not exist to me in this hypothetical scenario. And so, up until now, anything the likes is considered an unobservability. The idea of unobservability on its own was quite intriguing, but it still doesn't motivate meta-concepts the likes of which I will describe here. Take, for example, the concept itself of something you don't know which you don't know on its own. It is extremely complex to try to define this, because the concept of "impossibility" is literally impossible to think of, yet we can talk about it freely. Why is this? Well, there are three main implications:
- That any description or conveyance of the impossible is incorrect and always inaccurate and/or completely invalid
- That the concept of impossibility truly does not exist to us, as whatever concept we can make to think of the impossible (even though we can't, which is why it is a meta-concept) is still not the impossible. And impossibility is, well, literally impossible because:
- At every level of conceptualization there comes with it a placeholder for impossibility at that measure.
- No matter what level of conceptualization we are at, regardless of whether there is a cap or not, the impossibility placeholders are limitless
- Impossibility is a vague misrepresentation of another concept which we have no yet/cannot at all examine or analyze at the moment, one which is completely and totally obscure to the human race.
The observational underpinnings of unobservability are such that if you were to notate impossibility with respect to an observational acknowledgement, the underlying principle of subjective unobservability would crumble. As such, even the prospect of objective unobservability as a possibility is an unlikely discovery for future research. Objectivity is subjective, as we cannot define anything outside of our subjective mental/conceptual confines, so pretty much anything objective is not really objective, and are at best imperfect dysphemisms for impossibility.
Considering this, the branches past the confines of observability themselves are retroactively nullified.
Imagine you took the contents of a package out and seperated each of them, including the box which was the package itself. The contents of the package do not belong to the package itself, the package is merely a safe medium for the items, which are, at most, only correlative with the package itself. Now alter each an any one of the contents without respect to the original container. Essentially, make them completely logically and philosophically free. This is what Conceptual Difference entails.
Refuting OBL - Part 1: The Old Observational Limits[]
Observational Field-Limit[]
It is either analogous or self-evident as to why Conceptual Difference refutes the first few, but I will summarize nonetheless.
This is where the field of observation breaks down. Easily transcendable by any bypassing rule phenomena.
Observational Extensional-Limit[]
The methods of logic and definition are inconsequential anyways, so this limit does practically nothing as far as we are. Undefined properties have been around for a long time.
Observational Notion-Limit[]
Methods, notions, laws, concepts, ideas, properties, attributes, and terminology are all subjective standpoints. You can see where it goes from here.
Observational Z-Limit[]
These beginning limits are extremely simple to surpass. Pretty much the same thing. Subjective rewiring easily defeats them.
Observational Absolute-Limit[]
One part of this vaguely refers to vision, which is either a casual mistake or a criminally undermined flaw which could tear apart the entire basis of the original OBL. It is trans-unobservable as itself, but as I explained, unobservability is a subjectively modified respect to the subjective absolutism of impossibility which, as such, occupies any and every empty spot at each level of conceptualization/observation/interpretation/awareness etc. wherever it caps out or transitions into the next layer, always leaving some "empty" space. We are currently at a linguistically imperfect/impartial phase of explanation, yet within the appropriate bounds of absurd conceptual language. As such, we can still finesse this section with relative ease.
Observational 球-Limit[]
Any and all of the aforementioned subjects are likewise extensive in their own respect, leaving little conceptually strategic differentiation. Exposing a contradictory hole in this narrative, we can perform the same tricks as prior to transcend this.
Observational 边界-Limit[]
This limit is apparently self-mirroring and "indubitably" omni-mirroring and nonscriptable. We have surpassed nonscriptability in previous entries. Assume the same strategies if not more advanced variations inclined to the outline of this entry.
Very jargony to say the least. Again, very shallowly extensive. It is likely that the old version is going to be the easier version to refute completely.
As for mirroring, this can be thought of some sort of permitted contradiction. Whether or not it ignores this contradiction is futile, because mirroring only reiterates past conceptual structures. In the linguistic medium, this section proves to be comprehensible only to the slightest degree. Anyways, we can again surmount this through likewise extensive subjective reiteration.
Observational 不成文-Limit/Observational 不成文-Domain[]
It is literally just jargon at this point. It is curious how, even this far into the old version, not a single one of the limits so far were > subjectivity. They are all < subjectivity so far.
The Smallest Unreferenceability Limit[]
This really makes no sense because it can either be turned subjective or is just already so contradictory as there is still much reference happening further down in later sections. Thus far, subjectivity still surpasses it. This is boring.
烤宝贝 Omen-Limit[]
"...the least non-anyscriptable, incorporative limit" all -scriptability has been surpassed in previous entries. As for "incorporation," I don't really get what he was trying to say here. Incorporation? That literally changes nothing.
Extension 1[]
It attempts to assert itself as the "largest" limit. This stuff is literally rudimentary, I think many implications here were just very mistaken and/or misconceived. We already know why "largest" is impossible and also "size" has been surpassed, so this is invalid. Yet again, subjectivity is superior. I am beginning to think the community has gone mad for ever proclaiming this entry as the greatest. What a comedy.
Extension 2[]
Ignoring the fact that this extension is also known as "pvp boss" (*me dying inside*), this extension is also pretty much useless. Seriously, did people just skip to the end or something? Also:
"It extends over scriptability types, thus being beyond all scriptable forms. this is a much more important extension than 一袋干草 extension because it is way bigger."
I am sorry but this is divine comedy. Not only the fact that "size" was an interest of 2021 on this wiki, but also the sheer vagueness.
Extension 3[]
I am not quite sure what Aaerex means exactly by "apophasis" here, but I will explain both of the definitions' refutations.
Firstly, if by "apophasis" he means the theological version, then that literally makes no sense and means that he is deliberately contradicting his own entry. Because of this, it is likely that he meant the other, more known definition. The second definition which is not used in theology is a rhetorical method used to mention a subject while denying that it would be mentioned. This isn't really helping anything, but regardless, in this case, we may use linguistic reworking in order to misalign logical language, a tactic used in many practices of rhetoric which is known as kataphasis. This ensures that linguistic negation or apophasis of any sorts becomes a logically contextualized affirmation. This pretty much negates what is said here.
Yu Limit[]
Dubbed the "limit limit," this limit is just a previous basis limit for incorporative limits/constructs, as is said in the entry.
Extension 1[]
This limit extension is the end of higher extents of all types of limits below or equal to incorporative limits. Incorporative limits as a whole have been surpassed countless times in this entry, so unless they mark a large difference from previous incorporative limits, I will not go into full detail again.
Extension 2[]
It is an incorporative "limit limit." Yet again surpassable by the same means.
Extension 3[]
Another nonsensical "limit of all limit limits" which is completely meaningless. It is < incorporative refutation as I have described.
Contribution Limit[]
X-Limit[]
Entities, references, unreferenceability limits, limit limits, bin limits, yu limits, nonscriptability etc. have all been surpassed thus far. They allegedly "cap out" and are all contributors now. Apparently there exists nothing which can escape "contribution," not even "non-contribution," but non-contribution is not the same as Nothing. Nothing can surpass this because it already fundamentally lacks whatever it is that there is nothing of. Contribution is still nonexistent in a Nothing where it lacks contribution. Quick and easy transcendence of contribution.
There is no explanation as to how this even holds as the terms here are on the means of "X" which is very vaguely defined. Also, reference is of no importance here, as singular existence, as well as the undefined and the unknown, can easily break this rule. Additionally, it notates the correlation and causality between the concepts described which are defined under "X" and the rules that apply in a way in which they must be defined under "X" or any other symbol/letter/character. So just don't define it under that, it is as easy as that. The claims made about the interlinking of the concepts such as entities, references, nonscriptability, etc. that it mentions and the tagging of "X" to them is just a demand which doesn't necessarily have to be met, and the claim that all things exist and are referred to under "X" because they are allegedly always a contribution of sorts is a Textbook No Limits Fallacy (NLF).
X-Lock[]
It literally has no explanation nor practically any definition as it just says that X-Lock is when anything under the X-Limit is affected by X-Lock. This explains literally nothing and therefore is immediately surpassed, just by the fact that it has absolutely no real definitional explanation. Even then, it is still an extension limit of either/or the X-Limit extension or the Contribution Limit as a whole.
Singleterm Limit[]
Extension 1[]
This makes literally zero sense. It is literally just another repetition of the "end of limits of limit of all limit limits etc" nonsense. Not even worth the explanation. You can guess by now.
Extension 2[]
More useless jargon. Surpassable simply by definitional transcendence/manipulation. What is even happening anymore?
OBL+[]
Some things here are simply untrue. Objectivity has nothing to do with observation, nor does subjectivity. Potential also has nothing to do with it. If I observe a peanut, does that make the potential for it to be eaten any different? No, that's dumb. And subjectivity? I can eat the peanut whenever the heck I want, it is not dependent of the observability nor the conception. Observation doesn't encompass all of understanding either. I can understand that I am sitting if I am sitting without thinking twice about it, otherwise it is just thought, or situational acknowledgement.
Interpretation does not really depend on observation either, however if the public is so desperately convinced of it, then fine, I will use their fallacy. If someone tells me there is an apple sitting on a plate in the room across from me, I can interpret that without having to observe any part of it. I may interpret it as them offering something to satisfy my hunger, or reminding me to put it back if of no use, or maybe it was someone else's and I ought to remind that individual of it. Interpretation is subjective as well, which is not at all part of observation.
"OBL+ uses is "UNOBSERVATION+", which is what ever is beyond unobservability, and we cannot define such a [] because we would have to be the reality below it(unobservation)."
This is actually incorrect. You would need to be in a reality above it to possess a higher level of observation since at the previous reality layer we don't possess such an observational capacity. The same can apply to impossibility, or the unknowable, or anything inherently outside of our capabilities whatsoever as humans.
"This time it is not half and half, it is you 100% do not know what I am talking about but branching does get this far and beyond."
This makes little sense, since if we don't know what he is talking about or even implying then you don't even have a basis for conveyance of any idea the likes in the first place. Then, he says that branching gets us that far and even beyond. But how does the one method of surpassing the alleged inexplicability of such extensions outweigh this seeming "impossibility?" Oh, it does not. Not only are all of the things which are free of observation a medium for surmounting OBL+ as a whole, but they also prove OBL+ to be likely definitionally invalid, and so pretty much any of the things which Aaerex claims where encompassed by OBL but that weren't actually encompassed by it can transcend OBL flawlessly.
I am going to let the countless flaws and misconceptions in this entry (all of which the community somehow missed) slide since this has already been deemed pretty outdated and obsolete.
Refuting OBL - Part 2: Updated Observational Limits[]
I enjoyed reading this one, I am just going to put that out there.
Some of this has already somewhat been shown in entries which have already surpassed all of OBL, and this entry is a bit outdated but I had WAY too much going on to finish it in time. I will highlight some key points which transcend this OBL:
- "...theoretically beyond the absolute breaking point of all informationally reliant patasystematic and metasystematic systems." Here, it is said that it theoretically transcends this point, however there are media on which this assertion can be even more absolute, such has been shown in both past and present entries and events on this Wiki.
- Observation, conceptualization, interpretation, etc. are all either formal or informal (always of some form) in humans, such is scientific truth. All of the things stated in this entry which we cannot do in order to conceive of the "Observational Limit" are not things we cannot do per say, but rather things which no "amount" of will ever satisfy the conceptual OBL demands. But one key factor which has been either neglected or known but not confirmed and clarified time and time again is the factor of us. No amount of conceptualization, observation, and interpretation will ever help describe this OBL entry to us, this is evident.
- To add on to the "formalities" of humanity which I mentioned in the second note, there exist notions of agents which can moderately describe human validities and invalidities in a context lacking any formalities/informalities at our level, such has been done in HG. This, to HG, was a mere foundation for the non-formalizations which were going to be pseudo-conceived in the future. This is all to say that, while HG is very hidden (although it will be exposed to me soon), there do exist points and placeholders at which humanity itself can be logically self-philosophically-analyzed, which solves the issues and controversy here and in years to come (if it even lasts) instantly.