DISCLAIMER: The conceptual framework described below operates within the confines of human observation, conception, and interpretation. It is important to note that the concept being explored, while framed as an unobservable object, is itself a construct of human thought and understanding. In essence, it represents a recursive interpretation of a hypothetical unobservable object, which itself may not exist as a tangible or perceivable entity. This recursive nature underscores the inherent limitations of human cognition and the recursive nature of attempting to conceptualize the unobservable. Therefore, while this conceptual exploration aims to illustrate the boundaries of observability and comprehension, it ultimately remains a subjective product of human interpretation rather than an objective representation of any external reality.
Preface[]
We have reached the center of the storm.
The concept we're exploring is that of an inherent contradiction, something that cannot be fully conceptualized without undermining its own definition. In this case, we're considering an entity or state of existence that defies observation by any means, including conceptualization or description.
The concept is inherently paradoxical, as defining it in any way would violate its fundamental nature of being unobservable. Any attempt to describe or define it would lead to logical contradictions. This entity or state does not exist in any conventional sense. It is not a tangible object, idea, or phenomenon. Rather, it represents a theoretical limit beyond which observation or understanding cannot extend. The concept lies beyond the boundaries of human cognition. It cannot be understood, conceptualized, or reasoned about, as it defies all attempts at rationalization or description. This interpretation serves as a theoretical endpoint beyond which human knowledge cannot progress. It highlights the inherent limitations of our understanding and the boundaries of what can be known or comprehended.
In summary, we're exploring the idea of a conceptual void, a state of existence so fundamentally paradoxical and incomprehensible that it defies all attempts at observation or understanding. It exists purely as a theoretical construct, illustrating the limits of human knowledge and perception. And yet, acknowledging the limits that are placed on defining an entry such as this makes it more delusional to question why one would conceive of an entry like this. Much more for the Fictional Googology Wiki: a place that is derived from a community that has unfathomable amounts of spare time, that they use to bend their minds and fabricate incoherent numerical, mathematical or philosophical milestones that only sparks insignificant debate on the superior definition.
Inherently, we're stepping on a controversial and inconsistent topic that roots readers into one opinion or the other: those that claim to believe that observation is the paramount apex of the human mind and beyond, and those who perceive that observation is inferior to other fields of logic, such as subjectivity. We cannot assert an absolute truth that assures one opinion prevails over the other, as the cognitive field of view is just limited to the concepts they can observe, alter, and apply.
"So far. And we still got nowhere. All of those pretty words... Why do we even need them? Words. Words stopping us from true observational limits, because words ARE observation. Let me just skip all of those countless empty, pitiful, pointless words for you." - Yundai
The Observational Limit[]
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. At the edge of our understanding lies the "👁L" limit, where observation becomes impossible across all sensory modalities, cognitive processes, and technological advancements. Traditional methods of perception, including text, vision, cognition, or illusion, fail to yield results, leaving us where the fundamental concept of observation breaks down. Moving forward requires embracing a "transobservational" approach, one that goes beyond conventional understanding to explore the mysteries that lie beyond the boundaries of observation. A perception of a transobservational object would require endless amounts of explanation to describe the idea of how a non-observational entry or concept works.
SECTION I: Definition of "Observation"[]
Observation is defined as the ability to infer, conceptualize, interact, or perceive another concept or object through any theoretical sense, whether the possibility of perception exists within the human limits, can only be possible through "incremental apophasis" and inhuman methods, or does not exist within a static limit like Post-Potential. Methods that cannot be perceived in language would be defined as "loosely non-observational" because the use of language to describe something unobservable would either render what they are perceiving as observable, or they are not perceiving this unobservable object and thus are incorrect. However, incorrect perception also extends to these objects and would not cover what we interpret to be a non-observational object. All concepts that have ever been formed are within the bound of the flexible consciousness, or a collection of all thinking minds that can infer things that are not within their possibility, and change according to the observations they perceive. However, as observations are external and must be assimilated into the mind through conception to understand such stimuli, one could say that a person who is brain dead and cannot think other than basic life responses can still observe. They are interacting with the air and the objects around them, however, they cannot conceptualize any object or infer subjectivity to it, regardless if this article contains subjectivity in the sense of interpreting such a scenario. Plain observation is without bias, without a medium to change the view.
SECTION II: What a theoretical Observational Limit would entail[]
IIa: Constraints of the Observational Limit[]
The Observational Limit represents the threshold at which the field of observation collapses, rendering anything detected from any observational field inaccessible. The foundational concept of observation itself undergoes a profound collapse, transcending the limitations of mere emptiness or vacancy typically associated with the term "void." Instead, the Observational Limit denotes a state directly representing the cessation of observation. This is regarded as the limit where all methods or related concepts to observation, whether it be by standard logic and definition, or otherwise through definitions outside of standard human language (interpretation/perceptions included). We cannot extend an observational field to properly define a property/number within this field, because all actions and results break down at this field, including where reasoning applies (+ the case with this article not properly defining an interpretation or definition of a number in this field regardless of its descriptive quality).
All entries can be broken down into its individual concepts. It can contain anything or constrain anything, regardless of the evidence given in other contrasting entries. Most of these entries do not use axioms, or mathematical or philosophical humanly perceived truths, correctly or at all. In the case of what truth we use here:
- Observation is not regarded as the limit of the human mind. Interactions can be subjective through the perception of the human mind, and thus conception would be supreme in the brain because the field of the "brain" in conception is limited to the brain. One can say that observation is reliant on how we perceive things, but someone who is virtually braindead can interact with the environment. Or an apple. An atom. At its basest form, without anything applied to it, observation does not require comprehension. It is just there, a reception of information/form, without anything on the other end.
IIb: Constrained by the Observational Limit[]
One must imagine that all qualia can be perceived as a portion or representative quantity of any sort of value or variating system as it is derived from. This is a truth that permeates all logical systems and conceptual models or methods. One-way or two-way transmission of information (regardless of method) can be easily contained by this limit as indirect observation, and while direct observation is a loose field that is ambiguous when measured, it can be approximated by the interaction of objects, or their corresponding conceptual theorizations under the local observational system. It is assumed that all qualia can be defined by a protologism and ineffable or incomprehensible constructs can be summarized as apophatic. Cataphatic reasoning can be limited at the end of all unbound numerical/conceptual extensions and apophatic reasoning can be limited at their corresponding limit of knowledge.
SECTION III: Derivatives of the Observational Limit[]
Observation and definitional concepts or qualia can be changed as properties to give numbers or concepts other meanings or the absence of such.
IIIa: Nonscriptability[]
Nonscriptability can(not) be defined as a property where the object it is attributed to cannot be defined nor accurately described in any sense to a higher extent than any other form of apophasis. As this is contradictory one can assume that nonscriptable objects are unbound to definition, but such objects can be interpreted or denied to exist, containing them under normal logical standards.
IIIb: Unbranchability[]
Unbranchability can be defined as a property whose object cannot be reached by any qualia whatsoever. This is prevalent in other concepts like Nonexistent Capacity Point where the supposed interpretation of a unbranchable object (regardless of accuracy) cannot be described by any amount of logical systems or qualities. This is impossible to propose under varying levels of linguistic hierarchies and unbranchability terminates somewhere around the point where continuity as a system breaks down, as these defining concepts are similar.
SECTION IV: Understanding lower and higher "observational limits"[]
Lower observational limits usually appear to be a nonconforming limit for a field direct observation or the knowledge of a object through other fields, and do not require excessive levels of interpretation, denial, pataphysical or solutional variation. However higher levels of observational limits do apply the aforementioned methods and can reach "concealed" concepts under layers of meaning, at the point where the interpretation of a meaning is congruent to the actual statements, properties and actions of the said interpreted object. Under a system where statements are the literal essence of an object or concepts, this process can be made easier as there is usually no inferred meaning behind concepts in Fictional Googology or likewise.
SECTION V: Contradictions[]
IVa: Imperfections of this article[]
Non-observation (Beyond the Observational Limit?)[]
"By the way this is the only way my mind can actually understand this because im biased and dont listen to anything else, and when i think about it my brain disintegrates and shatters into a 0928089234 pieces trying to understand how something cant interact with anything without contradicting itself. Maybe i have a perpetual headache but this stuff does not make sense in any way. How do you people stand this without dying or something, because i know you love working with information but here is the absence of information... we cant understand the absence of information without finding some way to refute it because our brain loves information but melts down when we don't have it and just argue away with subjectivity or branchability or continuing or possibility or blah blah.. its likje the mind has an instinct to hate something that just doesn't work within the conceptual model of itself oh wait is that what this entry is all about? I'm about to go insane just wait until i have motivation to complete this entry instead of doing TEL or making 3254 ROBLOX games (this means that this paragraph is NOT about OBL+ cry about it) ok bye" - Istamtae