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‽.

]]>I am here, and I am a pickle. I am here to discuss cuils, and I am here to give you a horse riding a cow.

Olleh. I guess.

]]>Bikini model.

Business owner.

Coffee enthusiast.

I have a thirst for knowledge and no concept of how to even wrap my mind around this.

Thank you for letting me be here.

]]>Any actual object can be said to exist at some positive number of Cuils relative to its Form. Any given hamburger, for example, possesses some trait which is not inherent to the Form of hamburgerness. It is impossible to have a hamburger which embodies the essence of every hamburger and nothing more. It exists at some level of abstraction (>0‽) from its Form. (Although, if the hamburger is still immediately identifiable as a hamburger, it is relatively close to its form, and is likely not even approaching 1‽)

]]>But as the video progresses, more and more abstractions from reality occur, making the video become <0‽ + >0‽, meaning it is less than zero Cuils plus positive Cuils. Can somebody count all the abstractions from the base reality in the vid?

]]>Since the central economic work conference in December 2004, the Fake Gucci Belt economy must be from relying on investment and export to relying on domestic demand big decisions, get rid of the over-reliance on the high investment and exports, increase the proportion of consumption in total output, whether the policy level, or community, will be as an important content of Buy Gucci Belt transition economy. Along with the economic development of middle income level, often become an important engine for growth in domestic demand, especially for countries like Gucci Belt Cheap. Particularly interesting is that today argued that continue to rely on investment-led economic Lin, zhang jun, in their point of view and in the paper, also think that Buy Gucci Belt total investment more than the optimal equilibrium value of an economy, fake gucci belt @ mancodebook.com also criticized the Fake Gucci Belt economy excessive investment.

]]>More thinking is required to match these two ideas in a solid and valid way, but it's definitely an interesting thought experiment.

]]>I have a functioning cuil. It works like this.

First - The yang/yin/yang harmony explained in base 2 algebra.

yang (substance) - 1

yin (not-stated substance placeholder) - 0

At the first moments of the creation of a state of substance, substance comes into being from zero; becoming 1. The 1 representing the existence of some manifestation out of the ether of unlimited potential what is uncertainty. This is yang yin, or the unexpected manifestation.

From the instance of manifestation, every 1 has impacts on an environment which it interacts with finite 1s. Those reactions create new state of substance from 0. This is yin yang, or the unexpected reaction.

As manifestation is always primary influence to reaction, the notation of each reaction must note the influence of the reaction as one cuil abstracted from it. By regarding that as not-stated cuil, it functions as a negated cuil, providing clear definition for movement within abstraction.

This exploration does not account for the potential of lateral movement within abstraction.

]]>Question:

Disclaimer: This may be a touchy subject. I simply want to probe thoughts on this matter. I don't mean to be offensive.

I keep seeing these statements "That's Dangerous", "catfishing", etc.. after images of transgendered individuals.. I'm curious how people feel about this. Do you think it should be required for a transgendered individual to reveal that to their partner? Is it catfishing? Should it be public knowledge? If yes/no, why?

Why do we care so much about intimate details of others that don't affect the greater good? Or do those details ultimately come into play?

Response:

I answer today a negative cuil abstracted from your question.

The culture understands and thus has narrative to appreciate only coercion. Thus the culture thinks in term of coercion. Thus the culture is violent.

You go to a restaurant and order a taco, only to find that at your feet has gathered enough oil to start a drilling company.

]]>"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

You can contact me here or twitter(dot)com/Net_Philosophy, let me know if you're interested in this and how willing you are to collaborate, thanks!

]]>I am a new member to this forum.

I first read about the Cuil Theory 2 years after RedDyeNumber4 posted it on Reddit when my younger brother introduced it to me.

It caught my interest and was somewhat disheartened that there wasn't a separate site for it, but I was lazy, so I didn't do anything and promptly forgot about it after copying the original post to a file somewhere with my personal files.

When I happened to press the bookmark to the original post, I noticed that there was now a site for the Cuil Theory, so I immediately joined the wiki.

I will most likely attempt to contribute from a computer science perspective since that is what I am studying.

It's nice to meet you all. ]]>

long story short, my friend sent me the youtube video the other day.

laughed my ass off.

im sure out of the loop. but it was great.

so i thought about it a lot.

what about animals and their levels of cuil?

i would assume a dog is around the same as a human.

but cat's seem to be higher up, maybe 1 to 1.5 or so?

there could be other beings as well, such as aliens, or other beasts.

another thing that i thought about, if a being is naturally in the 5 cuil area, wouldn't that allow said being to view and experience levels of cuil that we as humans cant express, experience, or really think about, lest our minds explode?

im thinking about it like dimensions a little bit, but it just seems to me, that if a being who is in the 3rd dimension, ours, we can think of a few dimensions ahead, but we don't know how many dimensions there could be, we can know that time might be a dimension, we cannot see it, or travel through it, but we know it exists.

are there similar levels of cuil? similarly to a 9th dimension, where we can never experience that level of… for lack of a better word, "cuility?". or perhaps, there may be levels of cuil that are soo abstract that we cannot even think of them, much less experience them. because we aren't living and experiencing things on level 6 on a constant basis. or any other level, i would assume this would also lessen one's knowledge of cuils that are lesser, and they would seem harder to understand.

that's really as far as i thought, but i thought i'd put my thoughts on the subject.

if you asked me for a hamburger, and i gave you this.

]]>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?

]]>How can Cuil theory be applied if reality is entirely subjective?

Although the Hamburger analogy is engaging, it would probably be more helpful to look at this mathematically, e.g., I request the integer '1' and instead receive '2'.

]]>Hello,

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

]]>Become an authorized reseller of the best anti-aging/anti-wrinkle removal product around.Start your own business with this product or integrate this unique high demand product to your own. We are signing up exclusive authorized resellers in both the USA and internationally. Applying is easy and there is no charge to become a reseller. This product is simply amazing and sells itself anywhere in the world. Watch the 5 minute demo and see this incredible product remove wrinkles immediately.

THERE IS NO CHARGE FOR THE AUTHORIZED RESELLERS.

Our Product is Taking the World by Storm, with signing up authorized resellers all over the country and in many foreign countries.

Click below to see a QUICK DEMO.

omniresearchsupply.[co]m/distributor-information

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.

]]>-1 Cuil would be, a man hands you a hamburger, and it simply falls though the floor.

-10 Cuil would be, something so impossible it is extremely difficult to image. Just think, "It is far from what could actually happen"

]]>*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]

I obviously wanted to introduce myself, but who are the head honcho's around here? What is the story of Cuil Theory, and who has really advanced the idea so far? Who and/or where do I talk about contributing to the theory?

Thanks for having me, guys! ]]>

So yay. Let's get this ball rolling.

]]>?(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? ]]>

Is this 0 cuil or <0 cuil?

]]>It will make more sense if you have some calculus background ( polar in 3d) but here's the link:

… wikidot … /polar-gmt-hep

I also put a link to it in Mathematics. Mods, feel free to mess with that and fix it or whatever. The idea is still a bit rough, but I can take some time to refine it for you guys later (if I whip out my calc/probability textbooks). Maybe I can get some sweet graphs and formulas up, too.

]]>I am Bobby Didiana. Me and my partner Robert Didiana have a restaurant called Bacci Pizza. I am completely new to this forum. I am here

to communicate to make new friends with the members of this forum and i also

would like to share my experiences with you all.

All Thanks

Bobby Didiana

of Bacci Pizza

- Base- the established point between -1 and 1 cuils from which any person functions on a regular basis and claims their reality. This number differs for each individual.
- Is the cuil scale fully linear? Much like time is linear, but history repeats itself, do you think that their may be a point where negative infinity and infinity meet and a mirror reality is established?