Remember to keep the organs inside at all times.

An equation for infinite recursion:

Z <=> Z^2 + C

Where Z is a compex number (a + bi)
And C is some integer

In the case of Cuil theory, perhaps Z could represent a real situation, Z^2 could represent the degree of abstraction and C could represent additional parameters for abstraction.

Just something I thought about. Feedback?

An imaginary cuil may represent a contradiction in a given scenario. i‽ cuil represents one contradiction. for example:

You ask your waiter for a hamburger…
0‽:Your waiter hands you a hamburger.
i‽:Your waiter without hands, hands you a hamburger.
2i‽:Your mute waiter without hands, hands you a hamburger and says, "Thank you for your patronage."

It's important to note that although these might seem to be abstractions they don't pose any deviation from expectation as you still receive a hamburger from your waiter. Although contradictions might be considered abstractions by some people, these can't be some form of abstraction as it is impossible to conceive of their occurring. A mute by definition can not say anything, and a hand-less person can not by definition hand you something (we will assume for our purposes that handing something entails giving with hands). In examples of real number cuils there have never been contradictions of definition. All scenarios have been possible on a theoretical level even if they were impossible on a substantial level. an imaginary cuil represents any theoretical impossibility.

If a scenario entails some abstraction along with a contradiction then it can be represented as having a complex value for a cuil.
for instance:
You ask your waiter for a hamburger…
(i+1)‽:Your waiter without hands, hands you a raccoon.

a non integer imaginary value would represent a scenario in which there are multiple contradictions but there is an overlap in the contradictory definitions
for example:
You ask your waiter for a hamburger…
1.5‽:Your waiter without hands, hands you a hamburger and gives you a high-five.

The act of handing someone something contradicts what it means to be without hands, and the act of high-fiving someone also contradicts this. this is represented by one and one half i ‽.

and finally any negative imaginary cuil would represent a specification that renders contradiction impossible.
for example:
You ask your waiter for a hamburger…
-i‽:your waiter, who has a hamburger, with his hands, hands you a hamburger.

this added specifications insures that there is no possible contradiction from the word hands (as a verb).

Please let me know what you think of this interpretation of imaginary cuil, Tell me your own interpretations, and tell me if there is already a standardized interpretation of imaginary cuil.

Since ‽ is measuring levels of abstraction, ‽ may only be relevant when at least 2 beings capable of observation are present. My world of perception is all I can know - I can hone that perception over time, or degrade it, but without some other being of perception, my world is right to me.

For example, try as I might, I can never argue with coffee cup. I can hit it, throw it, eat it, whatever, but it will never change my mind. My actions on the cup may cause me to change my own mind, but then everything in my world perception alters to fit. Another person however, can try to convince of a fact about the cup. If we both agree, the relative ‽ is 0. If we disagree, the relative ‽ will be the amount of "reality" separating our world perceptions.

Which brings me to: there may be no way to have a negative ‽ value without a corresponding positive. You and I cannot do more than agree on something - there is nowhere to go after that, our worlds have merged at that intersection.

I think negative ‽ values can only exist in equilibrium to positive ‽. If 0‽ is absolute reality, -1‽ would be essentially the same as 1‽ in that it demands a level of abstraction. Further - if there is an absolute reality, everything hinges around it. If negative ‽ cannot exist without positive ‽, the reverse may be true.

Example: Joe gets really drunk, and his perception of reality hits .5‽ Eric takes responsibility for Joe, attempting to mitigate the consequences of his level of ‽. Although Eric is at 0‽, he must redirect some of Joe's actions, injecting a -.5‽ dose of reality into Joe's subjective reality.

Continual build up of ‽ over time would cause a bubble of instability. Small bubbles collapsing could equate to annoyance or a hangover. A large bubble could be much worse - imagine having your faith (in whatever, not trying to start an argument :)) shattered or breaking an addiction to a mind altering drug. All the excess ‽ collapses back to 0‽, and your mind/body must deal with it.

It could also help explain how one can slowly build up minor levels of unreality over time (small delusions), and then have emotional emptiness/pain when they are broken or exposed.

Example: You spend ten years pronouncing the words "rhetoric" and "rhetorical" the same way, gaining certainty that this is correct. You then learn that you have been doing it wrong, and have the sudden weight of 10 years of ignorance smacks you in the stomach.

Thoughts?

They seem to be under the impression that cuil theory is simply limited from 1-6 cuils, due to reddyenumber4's examples being the only tangible and directly defined posts.

I have done my best to educate, but many seem to be resistant to such education. The higher applications of cuil theory seem to be too difficult for the general public to grasp.

It was suggested to me by a fellow redditor that posts and comments should for all basic purposes be limited to a scale of cuil from 1-6. This would then allow for a simple scale in which the common rabble could partake in the theory. In many respects I know this can be seen as pandering, but until Cuil theory is accepted by the public, I daresay that we will not be able to properly educate them.

"0‽ is that it represents, philosophically, the absoluteness of all things(god, the universe), or mathematically, the base state for a system, from which the other values are based."

Taking this definition; could the idea of Enlightenment as expounded upon in Buddhism and Hinduism be actually a simplistic attempt to explain cuil? I submit that these cultures have been attempting to define 0‽ for some time, but lacked the proper theory to give it any true realization.

That being said; I think that 0‽ is what the Eastern religions have come to call "enlightenment", where all parts of reality are understood.

Meditation as a means of reaching 0‽ is most definitely an exponential endeavor. As one works to encapsulate reality and approaches 0‽ from either the negative or the positive*, one must relinquish the logic and basic mechanistic processes that allow us to properly deal with the world around us.

*As a meditative practice, reaching 0‽ from the negative spectrum would involve pretending that you are, in fact, a tree. Your experience as a tree trying to come to terms with the fact that you are conscious that you shouldn't have consciousness then forces you to move towards 0‽.

0 cuil would be the complete experience of the world that you are aware of, with no sense of surreality. As you increase in cuil, you naturally become less oriented with your environment, and things become more surreal.

For instance, I am writing these words in a space that neither exists physically or imaginatively. My words are being represented by select pixels being turned off or on, which you can interpret as words. The complete and total understanding of this possibility is impossible, yet it exists. To gain that understanding would be the attainment of 0 cuil.

Negative cuil would then be not only the understanding of one's own reality, but also of other persons, organisms and non-living entities.

I believe it has been previously stated that we experience life in a range between .4-.7 cuil, with isolated outliers ranging far in both directions; especially within instances of hallucinogenic drug use.

Minus infinite cuil requieres absolute knowledge, and since is unattainable (like all infinites).

But then again when you leave reality behind, rules and constants with it, should it not be impossible to ponder, let alone discuss the topic using our brains which rely upon forces like electromagnetism lest they turn to super fine dust..?

Did I leave more questions than I answered?

In that respect and with Nadieestaaqui's post.. there actually can't be a hyper-real situation. There can only be 0 ‽. However if you are in a state that an outside observer would label as 2 ‽, there is still a possible -‽ to bring the ‽ level back to its stable 0‽ state. I assume 0 to be equilibrium of ‽ based on the observation that if I do ask for a hamburger I expect a hamburger in return and perception of my query will match that of my idea of a hamburger.

That being said if we had |0‽ - 1‽| which would have to be forced, again assuming 0‽ to be stable, then you end up in a 1‽ state.. as observed from the outside reference. And natural universal equilibrium should take effect adding another -‽ to balance to 0.

What we need is a unit of ‽ time now, because if you are unlucky enough to reach 6‽, then the universe apparently does reassert itself but how long does that happen, in what time frame.. and how long would it take to return to 0‽.

0‽ can be defined as normal, un-augmented reality. I ask you for a hamburger, and you give me what we both agree is a hamburger.

-‽, then, would be the measure of reality necessary to return a situation to 0‽.

As an example: I ask you for a hamburger. You are about to hand me a raccoon (1‽), when I suddenly point at a man from the city of Hamburg (-1‽). You then hand me a hamburger (0‽).

I suppose that this example illustrates that -‽ is not necessarily hyper-real on a situational level, just as positive ‽ is not necessarily hyper-strange. ‽ is a scale of abstraction, which makes -‽ a scale of literacy literality.

Another way to look at the relationship between ‽ and -‽ is to describe the life cycle of an average drug trip. You ingest an amount of drugs sufficient to bring you to a 1‽ state at the peak of your experience. From that peak until you once more reach 0‽, your situation is being influenced by -‽ (in this example, the phrase "Naught Cuil" might also apply). We can further postulate from this that avoiding things that are "Naught Cuil", such as being arrested by the police, might increase the amount of time you spend in a positive ‽ state, while a sufficient dose of Naught Cuil (the afore mentioned police arrest, perhaps) might bring about a very abrupt end to said ‽ state.

However, as to the matter of a branching universe, this model seems inconsistent with reality. Does Tegmark level three imply that each quantum event produces a new universe? or is it a temporal branching that occurs? Insisting that each time a choice is made, even a "quantum choice" (if you will indulge my creating terms), both possibilities are realized undermines any type of moral imperative and, indeed, eradicates the idea of free will (in that choice is essentially an illusion when all possibilities are actualized and "equally real.")

Definition: Let zero cuil be defined as the singularity of zero abstraction. To obtain zero cuil one must know everything to zero levels of abstraction.

Hypothesis: Zero Cuil is unattainable.

Proof: The answer is intuitive through the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. To know something at zero abstraction, one must know all of its components. Since everything in the universe is composed of particles this demands that at zero cuil the person knows everything about all of the particles in the thing the person is observing.

Assume the person holds a hamburger at zero cuil

=> the person knows everything about the hamburger

=> the person knows simultaneously the position and velocity of all the particles in the hamburger.

but by the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle this is impossible. => contradiction => a person cannot be aware of all reality

=> the person cannot hold a hamburger at 0 cuil

In laymans terms: 0 cuil requires one to be aware of all reality, by the heisenberg uncertainty principle this is impossible, therefore any observation of anything requires some level of abstraction greater than 0.

Hypothesis: Zero Cuil is unattainable.

Proof: The answer is intuitive through the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. To know something at zero abstraction, one must know all of its components. Since everything in the universe is composed of particles this demands that at zero cuil the person knows everything about all of the particles in the thing the person is observing.

Assume the person holds a hamburger at zero cuil

=> the person knows everything about the hamburger

=> the person knows simultaneously the position and velocity of all the particles in the hamburger.

but by the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle this is impossible. => contradiction => a person cannot be aware of all reality

=> the person cannot hold a hamburger at 0 cuil

In laymans terms: 0 cuil requires one to be aware of all reality, by the heisenberg uncertainty principle this is impossible, therefore any observation of anything requires some level of abstraction greater than 0.

I think maybe there is a way that one person viewing something can observe it to have a different level of cuil than another person viewing the same thing. This could be an effect of their state of mind or possibly their level of education or something else.

At this point in the field I am uncertain whether absolute Cuil (or the level of 0 abstraction) is defined as -infinity Cuil or just zero Cuil, but in this post I hypothesize that absolute Cuil (be it 0 or negative infinity) does not and cannot exist.

I hypothesize that it is impossible to reach an absolute Cuil where there is no abstraction. For this to be possible everything inside and outside our universe would need to be simultaneously described and the properties (locations, speeds etc) of every particle predicted for infinite time into the future, which as we know through quantum physics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is not possible. Therefore absolute Cuil DNE.
Consequences: Everything has some level of cuil, in any given situation describing something must be done with a certain level of abstraction greater than absolute Cuil.

Call it "Jeremy's Non-Existance Hypothesis"

ie. -1 Cuil: you ask me for liberty and I give you a picture of the statue of liberty.

Liberty is already an abstract concept, but I somehow manage to give you something that makes it concrete.

As you state:
If it follows that -∞‽ is a reality to unifying in its very nature that it explains everything at all times and in all places. Then ∞‽ should and must, unify and encompass nothing at all times in all places.

I would argue however, that due to the relative duality of infinity, -∞‽ and ∞‽ must by definition nullify one another in a glorious conflagration of reality. It is accepted that -∞‽ is a reality so unifying that it explains all things at all times in all places, but the dual opposite of this, which would by its existence stand as -∞‽'s undoing, would be a reality so chaotic and surreal that it segregates all things at all times in all places.

It would then lead into your second statement much more fluidly that:

"2) If one further believes that -∞‽ reduces the universe to a single point of absolute existence in the platonic sense, the absolute true form of an object, then ∞‽ expands the universe to an infinite number of points or objects. These infinite points or objects must encompass every subjective concept of everything in the most specific sense."

To then lead into your dinner plate example:

A table set with plates of -∞‽ would be the singular existence of all foods upon a single plate, and that plate itself set upon a single plate, which is then upon a single table, all within the same singularity of existence layered upon all realities, causing Leibniz's Identity of Indiscernibleness much discomfort.

A table set with plates of ∞‽ would be the separation of all foods onto all plates, such that all plates contain all foods, and simultaneously rest on all tables which exist within all realities. One could argue that the pure act of infinitely separating reality into unique parts would lead to the negation of those parts; which is in fact oddly enough what your assertion is about ∞‽ in the first place, that being:

∞‽ should and must, unify and encompass nothing at all times in all places.

Such a coincidence is not one of small consequence. I believe the solution to this Greendye paradox is that indeed, the existence of all things spontaneously in all realities spread upon all infinities leads to the nullification of reality, and the decent into a chaotic mess of surreality*.

I look forward to further discussion of this paradox. I hope my terms were closer to 0‽ than what I usually write. I believe that by knowing our limits of cuil, we can more thoroughly come to appreciate the subtleties in its existence.
__

*Cuil theorists surmise that Sarah Palin winning the 2012 Presidential election will in fact bring this to result. We can only pray for salvation.*

I would say that:
1am - 6am : 1 to 2 average cuils
8am-12am: -1 to -2 average cuils

http://xkcd.com/68/

If there is such a thing as a unified theory of everything, it is represented by the absolute negative lower bound of Cuil, as it is the most all-encompassing real thing possible.

1) If it follows that -∞‽ is a reality to unifying in its very nature that it explains everything at all times and in all places. Then ∞‽ should and must, unify and encompass nothing at all times in all places.

2) If one further believes that -∞‽ reduces the universe to a single point of absolute existence in the platonic sense, the absolute true form of an object, then ∞‽ expands the universe to an infinite number of points or objects. These infinite points or objects must encompass every subjective concept of everything in the most specific sense.

At ∞‽ no single thought, idea, or object can be applied to explain another though, idea, or object as every thought, idea, or object exists in a single plane of reality as it does in the infinite number of planes of reality described in Mesh Theory.

For example, if 5 dinner plates represent the infinite planes of reality in the Mesh:
Plate 1 has a pea on it
Plate 2 has an onion on it
Plate 3 has a steak on it
Plate 4 has a bone on it
Plate 5 has an egg on it
A plate at ∞‽ would have a pea, an onion, a steak, a bone, and an egg on it. And only on a plate at ∞‽ could all these things be on a single plate at a single time. What this means is that only at ∞‽ are all things everything at all times.

This is the basis of the Greendye Paradox Theory. How can ∞‽ unify and encompass nothing at all times and at all places, as shown in (1), but at the same time encompass all instances of everything in all the planes of reality, as shown in (2).

A possible solution comes from the next inference:

3) If one also believes that 0‽ cannot be attained because it is always moving towards -∞‽, then 0‽ or perfect reality is constantly moving away from ∞‽.

The first two observations combined with the third lead to a revelation that Cuil must operate along a space in which ∞‽ = -∞‽ yet simultaneously ∞‽ != -∞‽ (think of a mobius strip). This means that ∞‽ can be everything and nothing at the same time because its very nature means that is must be. The space along which Cuil operates can also be interpreted as chiral, in that it has two opposing sides: one where ∞‽ = -∞‽ and another where ∞‽ != -∞‽, this also fits with the idea of a mobius like formation.

Therefore, The Greendye Paradox Theory states that Cuil must operate along a space in which ∞‽ = -∞‽ yet simultaneously ∞‽ != -∞‽ and that ∞‽ can be everything and nothing at the same time because its very nature means that is must be, the same must be true for -∞‽.

Note: If this theory is accepted as credible, albeit in need of refinement, I think it could be the basis of a much more in depth theory towards a General Theory of Cuil.

Furthermore, could most modern art be placed on the Cuil scale? Or would Cuil require a reworking/combination of existing pieces?

Wouldn't your perspective of the universe and other people alter what you think their current cuil level is? An example would be two people watching one of the "a man asks for a hamburger" scenarios come up with different cuil levels, even if only slightly different? And even if they were the same, wouldn't it be irrelevant because they still perceived different views of the events that took place, therefor making the whole cuil system useless? The only way to counteract this would be to somehow unify the cuil system. Unless you do that, the cuil theory is only useful for your own perspective, and would be independent from anyone else's cuil theory; Unless you can unify the cuil theory, you cannot use it to improve a search engine. Since (as far as I believe) you cannot unify the cuil theory, you cannot use it to improve a search engine.

On another note - is this cuil theory in any way related to the search engine except for the fact that "The idea was to lampoon the terrible search engine capabilities of the Cuil search engine"
- do the people who run that search engine even know that this exists? And don't you think that there would be extraordinarily simpler ways of improving the cuil search engine?

lol

It seems to me that k‽(x) is an infinite set (when k > 0), in which case the N-Cuil Problem is not decidable, but is recursively enumerable. This is trivially true for N = 0, and is easy to see for N = 1. I suspect this also to be true for all N >= 0, but I am not positive. Thoughts?

What would be an acceptable ‽ range to ensure the response is trustworthy within the context? Is a value returned with ‽>0 not only abstracted but hashed irrevocably?

If you asked me for a hamburger, and I gave you a hamburger.

The accumulation of Cuil as time progresses:

∫ t‽ dt

So that you can measure the amount of Cuil that is abstracted (or created? I don't know how Cuil is formed) from reality into surreality. This would have many more applications than simply differentiation; since you can refer to the level of Cuil that occurs without being part of or manipulating the function of Cuil in itself.

ex.

You walk into a gas station to buy a candy bar. The manager walks toward you, and you begin to think that Saturday would have been a good day to stay home. You pick up the candy bar, only to realize your clothes have turned into a Twix wrapper. The manager; as he gnaws on your caramel-crunchy-cookie center, informs you that if you want to purchase something, you must first inform the bar that is hiding in your clothes to wait outside. You; ashamed of what this chocolate is doing to your hips, return to your box and wait for Monday to come.

(Note: This is a similar function of ‽ as Noria's in that the original reality is reversed from perspective of consumer to product; this was intentional in order to correlate the idea of integration to differentiation.)

The ∫ t‽ dt of this would then be equal to the amount of Cuil which occurs in the situation. Since it can be observed that Cuil theory usually applies to individual situations; there will always be a finite amount of time; and therefore, a limited domain. Cuil usually occurs in integers, so this means that we can estimate the accumulation to a fairly accurate degree; using geometric representations of area.

The level of Cuil sustained for each increment of time is multiplied and then repeated to each level obtained within the function.

This would give us an estimate of the accumulation of Cuil for each situation presented; which could possibly have applications to 'scoring' Cuil theory.

Cuil 0 – I ask for a hamburger.

Cuil 1 – I ask for a hamburger, you give me a hamburger.

This is a very basic sentence involving no complications. There is a request present and a granting of a request without any misunderstanding or noise. It is still one level of abstraction away, as there is another level of complexity in that there is a completion of the request.

Cuil 2 – I ask for a hamburger, and you give me a picture of a hamburger.
Alternately: I ask for a hamburger. The person in charge of granting my request does not consider a Big Mac a hamburger, and thereby decides that only a hamburger cooked by the greatest chef in the world is the true approximation of a hamburger, and gives me one of those.

This I'm fairly certain is still Cuil Level 2, as there is initial request, an acquiescing of the request, and a granting of the request in an increasingly complicated fashion. A picture of a hamburger or the greatest hamburger in the world are essentially interchangeable in terms of complexity, as they are a further level beyond the base assumption of a hamburger. This finding also shows clearly that there are multiple ways to add complexity to a given statement, as Cuil Theory is such an excellent indicator of.

What I hoped to accomplish by explaining these examples is that current Cuil theory is only touching on the surface of what it ought to be. Abstraction towards or away from reality is not deep enough to fully encompass the idea. Cuil Theory really is a definition of the complexity of a given situation, but with a specific focus on noise in communication. Noise in this instance is defined as anything that causes interference in communication of an idea. In this essence Cuil is currently only a measurement of noise, when it ought to be a measurement of all aspects of a situation.

Help me expand this thought.

Now what we need is some notation for them.

You see, we have a problem. Abstraction is already a term used in mathematics, in some ways referring to the opposite of surreality. It's almost a definitely of hyper-reality, reaching further into the preciseness of things and away from the normal experienced reality.

I suggest we go with the positive Cuil being a unit of surreality and leave the 'abstraction' for the general idea of separation from normal reality, whether it be positive Cuils (surrealism) or negative Cuils (mathematical abstraction, hyper-reality).

Perhaps what these forums need is a bunny competition. I challenge you to find a cuter bunny than this: