https://reciprocal.systems/phpBB3/viewt ... f=12&t=783,
it is needed to try Mr. Larson's / RSoT2's "Nothing But Motion" postulate(s) for limitations.
As implied by the observation problem: one can not see past ones own limitations. For Mr. Larson, as Bruce indicated, he was a "yang" thinker.
It is thus necessary to inquire *if* (& if so, *how*) Mr. Larson's own limitations might be reflected in/as (the roots of) his own theory.
(With due respect to Mr. Larson, as I regard him to be one of the most important/relevant scientists of millennia for having discovered reciprocity).
Please indicate if these RS2 polstulates are not current / precise:
Barriers1. The universe is composed of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time.
2. The universe conforms to the relations of ordinary mathematics, its primary magnitudes are absolute, and its geometry is projective.
The "universe" is hitherto undefined. This is "fine" for now, however it will be needed/necessary to formally define "universe".
Unlike Larson's original "physical universe" stipulation, if RSoT2+ is dropping the "physical" aspect, Larson's original postulate was/is "more correct".
The universe (as a whole) is not only composed of motion, as one must be careful not to discriminate against the alternative to motion: motionlessness (more to follow).
Motion and motionlessness are two discrete aspects (concerns: discrete units) of a binary.
This means that in the presence of motion (eg. gravity), a relative absence of motion may "act on" motion. How can "not motion" act on "motion"?
This happens all the time: physical objects are "motioning" as some displacement(s) from unity, however light can/does apparently:
i. reflect off of physical bodies, thus change direction with respect to "space",
ii. be absorbed/channelled (ie. Miles' charge field) by motioning bodies, and/or
iii. relatively speed up / slow down if/when in the presence of a medium (such as water).
With the recent extraction of the binary (of definites) viz. {ALL (that which is) & (that which is) NOT},
"motion" must now be applied/subject to both aspects: all motion & not motion viz. "motionlessness".
As such: what yang would be to "motion" (viz. Larson), yin would be to "motionlessness" (viz. Larson's limitation).
Mr. Larson's yang-based "motion" postulate(s) discriminates against the equally valid alternative state of "motionlessness".
It is for this reason the "physical universe" stipulation is more correct: the physical universe is (of) motion, only for being in relation to motionlessness.
The equality 1 = Φ(π/4)² practically implies this very state of "motionlessness" for being naturally normalized to (ie. contained in/as) light.
Light (ie. photons) not otherwise trapped/bound "progresses" relatively "motionless" with respect to itself and/or "unity".
Metaphysically: that which is "true" can/does not "change" - truth must indiscriminately apply to all spaces & all times for it to be "universally true".
Φ, π & indeed reciprocity are examples of such static "universal" constancy(s): they do not move from their "truth" value/magnitude -
however, ignorant/unconscious/displaced bodies such as human beings do (!)
Rotational motion(s) of unbound photons (as carried by the progression) cause no "change" in the distance(s) between.
That which impedes/reflects light is owing to the former being of material/physical (ie. "displaced") nature.
If an entity can channel light without impedance, the entity practically satisfies the "unity" condition.
Impedance & ("gravity" of) ignorance are thus related: both imply something less than light or s/t ≠ 1.
To close: any/all attention/significance hitherto placed on "motion" should be duly (re-)directed to reciprocity.
The fundamental principle of reciprocity is vastly more important than "motion"
esp. in light of there being a valid counter-part to motion viz. motionlessness.
Opportunities
RSoT may want to consider focusing entirely on drawing needed attention to the fundamental reciprocity mechanic underlying space & time.
This is achieved by way of a/the correct measure of π, recalling reciprocity can be shown to emerge as a natural consequence.
Such a correction would deliver a "scientific" basis/imperative for reciprocity to be consciously recognized as a "universal" property.
In other words: pursuing the correction to π is not only in RSoT's best interest, it is also in the best interest of humanity.
No widespread conscious acknowledgement of "reciprocity" can occur so long as the incorrect measure/value of π endures.
The deeper underlying problem relates directly to human consciousness:
the hitherto endorsed deficient π of 3.14159... is the practical "measure" of this unconsciousness/ignorance.
The correct measure of π reveals whence reciprocity emerges as a natural consequence viz.:
√2(1+√5) / 2 = √Φ
becomes
2 / √2(1+√5)
via. reciprocity, viz.
1/√Φ = π/4
Proving/demonstrating the above equality is advised to be the most important/relevant undertaking RSoT can possibly pursue at this "time".
Any/all time spent elsewhere (by comparison) is time mismanaged so long as reciprocity is locked behind the incorrect measure/value of π.
If/when this equality is established, as human beings become conscious of reciprocity more & more, planetary consciousness can/will rise.
To close: I propose RSoT considers formally trying/testing/falsifying any/all hitherto deficient methodologies endorsed/employed for measurements of π.
That is: to clearly indicate/demonstrate the very "root" of the deficiency(s) in the form of a false basic underlying assumption(s)
& further prove π/4 = 1/√Φ implying π = 4/√Φ. This barrier is the iron door behind which the corpus of RSoT remains dormant.
If anyone else sees the need to precipitate this correction: please post and/or pm & we can collaboratively discuss ideas on how to approach/plan/execute.