The real difficulty in trying to define how Cuils increase, whether linearly, exponentially, or logarithmically is due to the basis that one must analyze not only how Cuils affect reality but also what they are affecting/changing. It is believed that there is a difference between 𝛥x‽ and 𝛥 of the Cuilian Effect (changes made by x‽ that removes a given situation from reality) on reality. At the end of this theory, the postulation will be that Cuils are linear in their numerical growth, but exponential in their Cuilian Effect.

It has already been clearly defined that Cuils change aspects of reality, as we perceive it to be, hopefully that perception is relatively close to the actual state of reality, i.e. 0‽.

It has also been agreed upon that the higher x‽ the further removed from reality the observed circumstance is. However, most examples given have simply added more and more details, that subsequently, have been altered in order to reach higher degrees of Cuilian derivation from 0‽. Which is all well-and-good if you don't mind counting an astronomical number of Cuils in order to quantify 𝛥‽. Thus, if 𝛥‽ is linear, x‽ is a direct result of the number of objects in a scenario, i.e. how "big" is the picture; does it include just you, me, and a hamburger? Or does it also involve music, you, me, creation, a song, a hamburger, and the universe (reddyenumber4's last example on Reddit). This results in the necessity for ∞‽ possibilities, since there is no, known, perceivable end to the universe. But this is not rational for a useable system used in the measuring of deviation from reality. Especially, because in this 1-detail-change = 1‽ system, any new changed detail increases the number. There seems to be no way to avoid ∞‽, which instead becomes necessary because the subject could be handed a picture of themselves being handed a picture of themselves in room full of pictures of them being handed pictures, in all of which there is an entire reality, or at least a picture of a reality, that allows for an infinite number of infinite diversions. Which would mean Cuils are completely useless as a quantifying system since they increase too rapidly to be measured.

Thus, this theory proposes that we must first define our reality (which must be subjective) in order to even begin to understand how it is being altered and to what extent. In order to do this we have to analyze our existence, not even necessarily as humanity as a species, but as constituents that are cognitive of the whole, and decide where the lowest levels of reality exist. Or at least, our idea of the lowest level. This theory then proposes that 1‽ affects the most superficial strata of reality, 2‽ the second, etcetera. This may seem oversimplified, however, if we consider the levels of reality to progress from the Epistemological (notated as E) level (at 0‽ this is the strata wherein Platonism and logic take affect, is subjective to the frame-of-reference of the viewer, and has the least affect on reality [because it is merely our perceptions/reactions to stimuli]), to the Non-epistemological (notated as NE) level (which is defined as a level consisting of concepts that are purely Euclidean or Newtonian, i.e., they rely solely on the rules of geometry and physics and require no observer to interpret them. E.g. the behavior of atoms and the bonds they form. Concepts such as, "materials' properties change based on the way atoms bond." This is a concept that is foundational for everything that is made of matter, living or nonliving. Thus, it is quintessential for the operation of everything that follows, or that is more complex than a single atom), wherein changes will be incredibly far-reaching and define everything thereafter. Finally, the Causal (notated as C) level (the changes in this strata are nigh incomprehensible as the results will be paracausal. That is, they will have no regard for time or causality, which are arguably the two most archetypal laws of our universe). For example, a Cuilian change in the NE strata could change life to mean plasmoidal, omniscient entities. Why? Because physics or geometry has changed, which could change the necessary qualifications for sentience, which could change the process of thinking or knowing [which is pretty far-reaching]. Meaning that the deeper you go, down towards the base that our reality is built upon, the more all-encompassing the Cuilian Effect. I.e., if you have a Cuilian change in the NE level it is possible to change something at the quantum level, which is an all-encompassing, causal alteration, however, changes in the C level means results that are not bound by any limitations, as opposed to any reality-altering changes in the other levels that are still bound by their own rules. Paracausal changes are not bound by rules, even their own.

It would make sense then that the strata level change wherein the change(s) occurs is x‽. In order to account for changes in different strata without running into 𝛥x‽=∞‽ this theory argues that the number of the two strata be added together. Therefore, E changes take place at 1‽, NE changes occur at 2‽, C at 3‽. Thus changes in the first two levels would be a 3‽ scenario (NE + E = 3‽). It is then postulated that the highest Cuilian value that may be applied to a situation is 6‽ (unless more strata are discovered).

Examples with the above Cuilian Laws:

0‽: I ask for a hamburger and you give me a hamburger

1‽: I ask for a hamburger and you give me a raccoon (the platonic[E change] idea of what a hamburger is has changed)

1‽: I ask for a hamburger and you give me a picture of a hamburger (E change)

2‽: I ask for a hamburger and a raccoon gives me a hamburger (something has changed in the genetics of raccoons[NE change] that allows them to develop to the point of being intelligent, sentient beings.)

3‽: A raccoon asks for a hamburger and I give him a picture of a chair (genetic change in raccoon [NE change], idealistic change of what a hamburger is [E change])

6‽: I manifest an infinite number of planets and an omniscient star-being called a raccoon asks for a kjnasdvoib (C-change allows for paracausal result of infinite number of objects and for the manifesting taking place before the request [lack of time], NE change allows me the ability to manifest objects at will, as well as the existence/ability of a being to be omniscient (the raccoon), E-change causes the idea/word "raccoon" to be an omniscient star as well as allowing for a "kjnasdvoib" to be the name of an object)

This system then allows us to quantify x‽ as well as 𝛥‽ regardless of how absurd the situation without having to count to any number up to ∞. This still allows for an almost infinite number of variations (Cuilian Effects) of the situation and subsequently a near infinite number of digressions from reality (including recursions) even in an 1‽ situation. For example, if there is a scenario where a change at the NE level causes all physics to be different, that could change everything about the scenario. I could be a dog asking a tree for a chair and be given a rock. But it would have the same meaning to the participants of the scenario because there would still be a Theory of Forms in this reality, a form of Platonics. Hence, my asking another being for something that I need or want. This is definitely a crazy scenario, but it's only a 2‽. Why? Because there is still time, philosophical constructs such as desiring, asking, and giving. So, as strange and dreamlike as it is, it's not too far removed from the concepts of our reality.

If this is true, and the levels of reality are stratified, then x‽ can increase linearly, with an exponential Cuilian Effect. This not only makes quantifying x‽ possible, but it also allows for, and solves the issue of quantifying any situation regardless of the frame-of-reference of the viewer.

Obviously this system does not allow for -x‽ in a quantifiable sense, because it seems that since the base definition for a Cuil is the degree that an instance is removed from reality, only impossible situations can be measured by Cuils. Intellectually, -‽ would arguably exist but there seems to be no way to measure something that is possible of occurring using a notation used to measure the impossibility of a situation. If true reality is 0‽, which I would agree is impossible to achieve unless everyone has the same exact perception (a change that could be caused by an E-change in a 1‽ situation, thereby creating the 1‽ = 0‽ paradox), then it is impossible for anything to be hyperreal. Nothing can be "more real than reality" if true reality is unachievable.

By these rules though, a -x‽ situation is possible in a 1‽ situation wherein the definition of "real" has been changed such that the definition of "hyperreal" is not only different from what it is in a near 0‽ reality but also possible. This is where we run into a recursive loop (for more info on recursive loops read Douglas Hofstadter's "Gödel, Escher, Bach," now we are in a 1‽+-1‽ = 0‽ (also, since this system allows for linear increments in x‽ we are able to add the Cuil values, just like when we determine x‽ of any situation). Which brings us back to the 0‽ Paradox because by definition we must be in an, at least, 1‽ scenario for 0‽ to exist.

In this system the Cuilien Effect of the deviation from reality does not have a linear relationship to the Cuilien Value of the situation. The rate of exponential growth of the Cuilien Effect of a deviation is relative to how many aspects of reality have been altered due to the original deviation.

I hope reddyenumber4 reads this and I hope you all will give your feedback. I would love to continue this discussion, especially if there are real (or perceived) flaws in my The Theory of Linear, Stratified Cuil Value.

]]>Examples of 1‽ Cuil can be found in many figures of speech - "It's raining cats and dogs" is just one example.

This also means that it doesn't make sense to talk about negative Cuil - after all, how on earth can a being understand reality more than it actually is? Positive infinity Cuil does make sense, however - this occurs when your thoughts and sensations are completely unrelated to the idea, object or world you are trying to comprehend. This point is the singularity where all other unrelated perceptions differ by zero Cuil, rather than the negative infinity Cuil named the Reddye number, which makes even less sense to me than -1‽.

I'd also like to note that, contrary to the wiki page on 0‽, the existence of reality is actually somewhat up for debate. Some people hold that reality is an illusion; which would also mean that 0‽ is a meaningless construct. However, it's still a useful theoretical point.

Also noting that the higher the Cuil you're perceiving, the more possible ways your perception can differ from 0‽.

]]>"One level of abstraction away from the reality of a situation."

What would that actually mean? I understand 'to abstract' as the act of generalizing to a simpler more fundamental thing. The given hamburger example doesn't simplify but complicate and make everything more surreal.

Wikipedia defines 'abstraction' as

"… a conceptual process by which ** general rules and concepts are derived** from the usage and classification of specific examples, literal ("real" or "concrete") signifiers, first principles, or other methods."

So basically no abstractions means reality… and the further the abstraction goes the more we have to find **general rules and concepts** with which we would express the situation. With each step we should get rid of detail and focus on the underlying concepts. So it depends on which general rules we choose in order to abstract. —> We can be creative and should end up with different results, I encourage you to try yourself!

So I'll try actually following the definition:

(speech is already an abstraction of a high degree, so it's more than zero cuil)

0 cuil: (the real situation. This text-format is unable to show it, a human brain is only partly able to understand it)

1 cuil: (my conscious perception of the situation. Again the text-format is inadequate. What happens is that you ask me for a hamburger in a park. I see the whole environment: the trees with their lush green leaves rattling around in a slight breeze, slightly yellow dry dirt making up the way we are standing on with a park bench next to us, you are standing in front of me with your hippie clothes on, a barking dog on the lawn playing with its owner, the smell of the freshly cut green grass together with the summer sunlight makes me feel whole and content. I fell the warmth of the freshly made hamburgers in the plastic bag that I am holding. I the gravity pulls them down and I counteract that force with my fingers and I feel it. I can hear and understand your question: "Ey dude… groovy, man. Can I have a hamburger, too? We're all human we should all share, I love you, man. Peace.")

2 cuil: (my imagination of the situation. Still no chance for the text-format. I imagine all of the things I described at 1 cuil.)

3 cuil: (a video of the situation.)

4 cuil: (I describe the situation with audible words, with facial expressions and gestures and with a meaningful tone in my voice.)

5 cuil: (The text description I gave at 1 cuil. I don't need to copy it…)

6 cuil: "You ask me for a hamburger."

7 cuil: Someone is being asked for something to eat.

8 cuil: A mammal communicates with another mammal.

9 cuil: Biological life is ongoing.

10 cuil: Physical laws are ongoing.

11 cuil: existence

For example-

'I ask you for a raccoon'

1‽=You give me a hamburger.

Φ‽=?

I would think that irrationals do not add to the complexity, but rather the irrationality(compared to the original statement) of the statement.

Ex-

'You ask me for a hamburger'

Φ‽=I ask you for your hamburger.

π‽=I give you some ketchup for your hot dog. You accept the mustard.

-1 cuils: i ask you for a hamburger. you, the cashier working in the small, greasy station nod, and tell me to wait in line. i ask you for a hamburger. you tell me that you have already created the order and that it will be out shortly. i ask you for a hamburger. you hand me a hamburger. i exit the premises, hamburger in hand, and head to unknown destinations.

-2 cuils: i ask you for a hamburger. you do not hear me. i ask you, again, for a hamburger. the air reeks of grease and french fries. i ask you for a hamburger. you are now ignoring me. it has been 18.73 seconds since i last asked you for a hamburger. i stare at you, and stand in the front of the line, tapping my foot impatiently. i ask you for a hamburger. you hand me a death threat. i do not move. the old, slow clock on the wall that is eight minutes and twenty-six seconds tocks slowly. time slows down. i ask you for a hamburger. you do not acquiesce. i ask you for a hamburger. the man behind me is wearing orange coveralls and is getting more and more annoyed at your non-compliance. i ask you for a hamburger.

-3 cuils: i ask you for a hamburger, before remembering that you are not there. you left a long time ago. i ask you for a hamburger. your name falls flat under the deadened atmosphere of the cold, sterile clinic. an orderly walks up to me and offers me a handful of pink pills. i ask you for a hamburger. you do not respond.

any good? or are there other accepted theories or something?

]]>(Also, as a side note, is the Cuil linear or exponential?)

]]>Think of it like those cloud diagrams you'd make in school. The big main idea is in a bubble in the middle of the paper and then you break that down into multiple sub-ideas in their own bubbles stemming from the original bubble and then from those sub-ideas you break them down into more sub-ideas and so on.

The main, original thought has a cuil value of zero because it is just one idea, but then the first level of sub ideas have a cuil value of 2 and so on. The more levels and the more complex ideas you have the higher the cuil value gets. Because after a while you'll have so many levels and sub-ideas and sects that they will have no relation whatsoever to the original idea except the sub-thoughts in between.

So, in theory you could start out with a hamburger as your main thought and then eventually, using the cuil process you would have a small dog making a chew toy out of the fountainhead of all knowledge and if you put the word "hamburger" next to the words "knowledge fountainhead" it would make no sense, but using cuil we can relate how one thought leads to another. ]]>

I stumbled of the Cuil Theory and was mildly interested in it. However, as a undergraduate maths student, one thing is bugging me: The "levels of abstractness" is not well defined. Instead I have thought about a alternative definition:

Firstly, I will tell you something about cuntinuverse theory: This is an expansion of the Multiverse theory proposed by quantum physicists in the early 1900s. It does not assume a countable (or even finite) number of universes, but instead a Infinite-dimensional universe, in which every universe, EVERYTHING exists. The Idea of it is: 3D space is where we live. Adding a 4th dimension, we have a sequence of 3D spaces, and we could call the 4th coordinate "Time". The 5th dimension combines multiple timelines, in 1 universe, with the same starting point, with the same laws of nature. Next, the 6th dimension modifies the starting point (Usually the "big bang"). In this dimension, you find 5 dimensional universes that started of with a different, or no big bang at all. This can be continued on and on and on, but I dont want to bother you. But be told that a 8 dimensional universe allows you to find a universe in which you are actually a radio wave that has a terrible, terrible headache while buzzing around a hamburger that is made out of milk.

Here we get really close to Cuil theory and we can define (integer) Cuils:

A **event** A is a subset of the infinite dimensional universe U.

We define the **embedding space** of A $\text{em}(A)$ as the lowest-dimensional submanifold S of U that contains A and the **dimension** $\dim(A)$ of A as the dimension of S. (For things we can imagine, this is just the same dimension as we would call it. A (infinitely thin) piece of paper would have dimension 2, Your dog has dimension 3 and your dog wagging its tail dimension 4)

For 2 events A,B we can now define the Cuility of B towards A (measured in Cuils) as

(1)\begin{align} Cuil(A,B):=\dim(A\cup B)-\dim(A)\\=\dim(B)-\dim(A\cap B) \end{align}

On top of that, if it is clear which A we use, we can write $Cuil(B):=Cuil(A,B)$. In most cases, A will be our 4-dimensional spacetime (where I ask you for a hamburger).

This almost holds with the layers of abstraction in general Cuil theory. If I ask you for a hamburger, that is a 4 dimensional event. If you hand me a hamburger and I turn into a dog wagging its tail while balancing on a 1-dimensional radio wave with a headache, that would be Cuil 4: $\dim A =4$, $\dim B =8$, $\dim (A\cup B)-\dim A=8-4=4$.

Secondly, lets look at alternative definitions for the dimension for an event: For example, using hausdorff dimension (or similar), a Menger sponge has dimension $\frac{\log 20}{\log 3}\approx 2.7268$. If you hand me a Hamburger in the shape of a Menger sponge, that would be either dimension 4 or 7 (depending on if its actually possible to build a true menger sponge in this universe), however, a radio wave inside a Menger sponge would have dimension 5.7268 or 8.7268, and, of course, terrible, terrible migrane.

EDIT: Continuation.

We can define Operators $+$, $-$, $\cdot$ and $/$ by

$Cuil(A,B)+Cuil(A,C):=Cuil(A,B\cup C)$

$Cuil(A,B)-Cuil(A,C):=Cuil(A,B\backslash C)$

$Cuil(A,B)\cdot Cuil(A,C):=Cuil(A,B\times C)$

$Cuil(A,B)/Cuil(A,C):=Cuil(A,B/ C)$

This highly depends on the actual events.

Examples:

A = You ask me for a hamburger. (dim=4)

B = I give you a hamburger. The hamburgers eye twitches involuntarily (dim=6, 2‽)

C = A hamburger goes for a stroll in time. I give you a racoon. (3‽)

B+C = I give you a hamburger. The hamburgers eye twitches involuntarily and a hamburger goes for a stroll in time. Then, I give you a racoon (dim=7, 3‽)

B-C = I give you nothing. (dim=4, 0‽)

B*C = I give you a hamburger. Because the hamburger is going on a stroll in time, we revolve around history. The racoon gives me the hamburger. Time twitches. I give you a stroll in time while my racoontwitches involuntarily. We see every possible happening and every timeline get eaten by you. The racoons eye twitches. I give you a hamburger. Nothingness commences as the hamburger reaches its destination. I eat time, my watch is gone. We take a stroll in a hamburger. The racoon runs to the twitching eye. It shakes. I give you a hamburger. We come to a halt. I give you a hamburger. We twitch in all directions, at the same time and after one another. I give you a twitching hamburger. The twitching hamburger gives me a racoon. I give you a hamburger. The hamburgers eye twitches on a stroll in time. I give you a hamburger. The hamburger strolls along a path in time that follows the contours of the racoon. *(… (infinite other events follow here) …)* (dim=6*3=18, 18-4‽=14‽) *In fact, every possible event that can be created by the two starting ones, happens*

B/C = The hamburger is a racoon. The hamburgers/racoons eye twitches involuntarily. (dim=5, 1‽)

A = Inside or a menger sponge, I feel pain in my head, because I am a radio wave (4.7268‽)

B = The hamburger sits on a bench, sleeping. (1‽)

C = I carefully open a book. I look at the stars. They are grains of sesame on the hamburger. The universe is contained in the sponge.(5.7268‽)

Excercise: Calculate these results: B+C, B*C, B-C, B/C. Good luck with not getting your brain exploded.

cu, CBenni

]]>The absurdity of it all could be more of a break from our own ideas. Maybe rather than trying to put it out all mathematically, the theory is intended to break us out of the walls which we bind ourselves? Maybe we are looking at this wrong.

Maybe the cuil represents more than numbers. Maybe it can't even be measured in numbers.

What i'm trying to say is that maybe the Cuil is, rather than a mathematically solvable problem, a way to allow us to put our mind into sentences.

Maybe the cuil is finding out how we think, and that the way we think is by hopping from one idea to another, that every idea we have is important, yet odd.

If you think about it, most people censor their own thoughts before they allow themselves to form words or sentences. Perhaps this could even be called idiocy, but in a captured form which we are able to really measure.

So what if the 0 cuil is what we think and monitor on a dayly basis.

And as you enter negative cuils it becomes what we think that becomes monitored up to the point where we become mute.

So possibly, the cuil theory is a way of trying to open the mind so that we can enter the far wings of our thoughts and try to understand them.

This is just my personal thought, and of course I am very open to hearing what other's think about this.

]]>*I think I read this somewhere else on the site, about the Absolute Cuil thing.

]]>The theory of Cuil details a method of quantifying abstractions from reality. "Abstractions" being the key word, indicating that whatever Cuil is made, expresses itself as a contrast sources from a given situation. This is the accepted premise. It is no stretch to state this mathematically as:

C=n/x

Where "C" is the Cuil level, "n" is the Cuil degree, and "x" is the given situation, or root, or reality.

There comes an issue of expressing C in terms of the observer's new reality experience before another layer is made clear. This is to say that upon entering "n/x," the abstraction must be re-labeled to constitute the new experience, and can be state as follows:

C+1= n

C+2= (n/n)

C+3= (n/n)

C=4= (n/n)/n

The suggestion being that these layers are not arbitrarily created, but a pre-existing inevitability which an observer makes manifest as it explores. Necessarily, for these layers to exist they must continually bounce off of the increasingly distant reality, being comprised more and more of stacking Cuil layers. I am calling this the "Echo Theory of Cuil," because the effect can be simulated in reality by placing two mirrors facing each other. If this Echo Theory has any validity to it, then the Theory of Cuil becomes something akin to peeling away layers of an onion while stacking an onion-layer house of cards on top of it. Each successive layer of Cuil reveals more about the innate nature of a given moment and situation by layering symbolic abstractions on top of each other.

Another idea:

If zero Cuil is an unreachable, perfect ideal, then why include and surpass it with negatives? An alternative to using the modern system of mathematics (in which the concept of zero is the only innately abstracted integer, presupposing a "something" for which there is a lack instead of representing a truer nothingness) involves never reaching zero. Anything less than 1 becomes a fraction, split further and further from symbolic unity. In this way we would be suggesting that there is only greater or fewer layers of Cuil to a given quantity, as mankind's hyper-realities are really just another form of abstraction from reality.

Last:

If the Echo theory holds any logical water, then the inclusion of irrational numbers might be like stating that the observer itself is also a "mirror," and as the observer crosses each threshold into a new Cuil layer, it simultaneously delves deeper into itself.

[Editor's note: For this last bit I haven't reviewed my hypothesis, so I'll leave it to the community to validate as you see fit]

?(a)…?(I am a shark)=1?

?(a,b)…?(I am a shark, I am a hammerhead)=1.9?

P(a)…P(I am a shark)=0

P(b|a)…P(I am a hammerhead|I am a shark)=0.1

Rules:

?(a)=1-P(a)

P(a)=1-?(a)

?(a,b)=1-P(a)+(1-P(b|a))

?(a,b)=?(a)+(1-P(b|a))

Bayes: P(b|a)=P(a|b)P(b)/P(a)

?(a,b)=?(a)+(1-P(a|b)P(b)/P(a)

P(b|a)=?(a)+1-?(a,b)

?(a,b)=?(a)+1-P(a|b)(1-?(b))/(1-?(a))

?(a,b)=?(a)+1-(?(b)+1-?(b,a))(1-?(b))/(1-?(a))

Problems Solved:

1)Mathematics page is incorrect; A state that would be 47% possible with two optimizations toward reality is -2.47?, not -2.53?

2)Negatives/Imaginary numbers are meaningless.

3)Multiplication: ?(a,b)is not equal to ?(a)?(b) see above equations.

4)Multiplication works as in arithmetic. 2?3?=6?

5)All additional "mystical" mathematical concepts (e.g. Negative infinity) are meaningless.

More to follow.

]]>2)Thus interpretations of mathematical concepts in cuil theory are analogous to those in standard probability theory.

3)Thus the imaginary number i means exactly what it does in probability theory…nothing.

(The same goes for negatives.) ]]>

What if at 12 cuil, positive cuil becomes negative cuil.

Could this create a paradox? Things get so weird that they become hyper-real? And would this -12 cuil reality be based on the 0 cuil default or would the 12 cuil reality BECOME the new reality? ]]>