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.

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‽.

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"

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?

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:

[edit] Ah, the password was in the original comment. :)

If I'm walking down the street, the likelihood of me seeing a stop sign is fairly good. but quite low if I'm prancing around on the moon.

you've already stated that cuils are temporally dependent. that's fine. but what about spatially?

So hello world and as the most common programming language test subject I would like to humbly say hello, in a mid-level cuil fashion to the people of this humble abode, so obviously populated by people of the highest mental states in mid-level intelligence boundaries so that we can react together.

Thank you, and may you have great coffee tomorrow.

TS

specifically, i'm for a unified attempt at visually showing the interaction between two situations of different cuil value.

yeah?

I thought that a perfect literary example of low-level (2-3‽?) cuil activity under mind-altering but non-hallucinogenic drugs would be the poem Kubla Khan by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, which was reportedly written under an Opium-induced haze.

Do you guys agree? I think it's a useful illustration of the theme.

cats in cuil

it seems that cats are some kind of invariants in cuil space like a rose is a rose is a rose.

Things that are constant (e.g., "Gravity draws things with mass together") seem to posses 0‽ over time

But what about things that are likely but not constant, for example, someone visiting reddit (event r). r appears to have a fluctuating cuil over time (t) such that Cuil(r,t) is in (-1‽,1‽). In this case, its always very close to 0. I believe the function is tangent to 0‽ each time someone logs onto reddit, although it could cross… this is where the d‽/dt would be interesting to look at.

For an overview, skip to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Multi-domain_universes_.28Ellis.2C_Kirchner_and_Stoeger_sense.29:

There are basically 4 levels:

1. The physical constants of the universe (whatever they may be) are set, but all possibilities exist.
2. Same as 1, but now we also have all possible variants of the universe (by varying constants)
3. Reality does not consist of different universes realizing all possibilities - but instead the universe itself branches for all possible quantum variations.
4. Different mathematical laws = different to anything we understand reality to be.

To me it felt like there was a certain amount of overlap with the lower levels, in that semi-plausible values of Cuil (say, below 3, though some of that would be very unlikely) could exist within levels 1 and 2 of Tegmark.

Tegmark 3 is very powerful in that it states that no matter how unlikely, if there is even the slightest chance of an event happening, it's realized.

Tegmark 4 would pretty much cover anything else.

Thoughts?

Also, eight gods and such.

Going back to the original inspiration for this, imagine searching for 'end world hunger' on the cuil search engine and getting back 'eat a juicy steak now!' as one of the top results.

Thus there is a certain amount of ethical/moral incoherence. Obviously, there is a certain amount in each person, and cuil theory would be a good way to measure that. The same kind of thinking can be applied to political candidates and their statements. Cuil Theory can measure the level of abstraction between a candidates platform and their actions/attempted actions.

This would be more than a simple check of how many campaign promises they've fulfilled four years after. This would instead be a check of whether the candidate is who he says he is. Cuil Theory would be a useful tool to measure levels and amounts of flip-flopping, pandering and outright lying. A campaign where the candidate moves from centrist-maverick to right-wing panderer would have a few cuils. A campaign where the candidate clings to his fringe beliefs regardless of how unpopular or how crazy they make him look would be closer to 0.

Going back to the ethical coherence measurement, I think it would also be great if cuils were used as a measurement of each action to each ethical viewpoint. For example, if someone were devoted to the three ideals of
A: Ending World Hunger
B: Becoming a Doctor
C: Banging lots of Hot Chicks,
he could measure each action he took in terms of cuils to see how far they help in reaching those goals. So, his expensive, sit-down dinner with a hot chick is 2 cuils away from A, 1 cuil away from B and 0 to 0.5 cuils away from C (the dinner doesn't make the hot chick materialize in his bed, but it does increase his chances of getting laid).

Cuil Theory can help measure one's progress towards achieving one's goals.

If I am in a clothing store and state "I am looking for a sweater", there are various responses that I would get that fall within the 0 to -0.999… cuil range. These responses vary from 'Right this way sir' (0 cuils) to 'Here is a fat, hairy man who sweats a lot' (-0.999… cuils).

The reason why I started thinking about this kind of thing in terms of Cuil Theory is because I have two coworkers who constantly break linguistic continuity in my conversations with them. One of them goes towards positive cuils. He will respond to things with complete absurdities.
"I want to eat there for lunch."
"White horse head."
"What the hell?"
"What?"
The other one goes towards negative cuils, hyper-reality, literal meanings. She will respond with statements that could fit, but simply do not.
"You can borrow my pen. But give it back, it's special to me."
"Special? What, do you stick it up your ass?"
"What the hell?"
"What?"
Perhaps Cuil Theory has a place alongside Wittgenstein's language games, and can be a useful tool in measuring how far one has become assimilated into another groups game.

an exospore will hit earth.

the spore will lay dormant for aeons.

it will germinate and grow mushrooms.

a semi-carnivorous ape will munch a few down. a mandalic pattern will form as the alien indoles arrive at the synaptic receptors in unexpected numbers while he listens to little maggie by the stanley brothers.

the aliens come but they're not physical entities. their ufo opens and he is greeted by seven balls of light and bill hicks. they go for a ride and crack fivefold pun jokes about being "imaginations of ourselves".

he'll write about it on reddit.

trhaynes 2 points 5 hours ago[-]

3 Cuils!

xmc 2 points 5 hours ago[-]

the world fades to sepia as the realization dawns on him he is a hamburger. the kundalini rises through his cheese and pickle chakras as syntactical intent drips out like special sauce.

panamaspace 1 point 4 hours ago[-]

The raccoon tells a lie about it.

xmc 3 points 4 hours ago[-]

the raccoon will lie. he doesn't want scientist to discover that the psychoactive in mushrooms is the only four phosphorylated indole known to occur in nature. raccoons know nature always builds on what has previously been accomplished. raccoons know this is a red flag signaling that at the molecular level this looks like an alien artifact. raccoons, sneaky fucks with built-in hamburgler mask, are an ancient monastic order conspiring to keep scientist from searching for alien fingerprints on earth's biology.

i discovered this in an underground temple at eleusis.

If Cuil does not gain more content/references quickly the page will be deleted, it only narrowly avoided speedy deleteion. Please help

Any semi serious contributions will help

d‽/dx: You ask for a hamburger, and I hand you one. As you bring it to your mouth, you realize that you no longer possess enough strength to lift it. When you look at the hamburger, you see that your hand is resting gingerly under a cow. You attempt to tell me that I've just handed you a cow, but the only thing that comes out of your mouth is a resounding "Mooooooo!"

~Norla

I'm wondering what process one goes through in determining the appropriate level of Cuils.

Also wouldn't one person allocating a situation a Cuil level be extremely biased and seeing as it's impossible to get every perspective of a situation and a measurement how can Cuil ever be accurate?

Someone needs to write a procedure on determining Cuil.

Another potential use.

Psych wards could be numbered by the level of Cuil and the patients treated accordingly.

Professions of the mind could benefit, "Patient X is X Cuils, treatment X has proven to have a X Cuil deduction."

Treatments could be categorized by the level of deduction for a certain level of Cuil.

Crude ideas, hopefully helpful.

My perfect hamburger:
A large angus patty cooked somewhere between medium-rare and medium. Topped with onion, jalapeno slices, bbq sauce, lettuce, ketchup, mustard, bacon, and slices of pepperjack cheese. Served on just a standard burger roll.

Anyone else care to share their favorite burger? Or perhaps bring me my perfect hamburger (I will not accept a picture of my perfect hamburger, nor will I accept a raccoon)?

Enjoy.

For ‽<0. As the number of cuils in a situation decreases, the number of possible objects and events decrease as well. Therefore, when the number of cuils is negative infinity, the Universe is reduced to a single point.

Does that sound right to anyone? Have any corrections? Care to discuss?

I would suggest that -‽ would be defined as even increasing levels of concreteness. The problem with this is that it will eventually become positive cuil as we reach the upper heights of negative cuil.

Example.

-1‽
I ask you for a hamburger, you give me a hamburger. The hamburger you give me is unusually to my preference.

-2‽
I ask you for a hamburger. You cross reference all human speech to find out the universal definition of hamburger. Upon finding out that most citizens of the world, until recently, thought of something else when they said hamburger, you give me a citizen of Hamburg.

-3‽
I ask you for a ha…
You give me a hamburger.

And so on…

If you want to check it out, you might find something out here: http://interglacial.com/~sburke/pub/Borges_-_Tlon,_Uqbar,_Orbis_Tertius.html

Cheers!

OH THE MEMEANITY!

I know that this is my take on Cuil, and everyone will pull something different out of it.

But, consider one of the few situations where you in life experience something far from reality- after ingesting hallucinogenic drugs. I believe drug induced trips would greatly benefit from being measured on a Cuil scale, and that the Cuil scale could benefit from considering one of the most realist examples of experiencing something far from reality.

The calculation for cuil would then be obtained by attributing the initial observer a cuil value of 1, and the final observer a value of N
Think about it this way. You start out with an observation. The final statement has 3 jumps between you and the final observer.
This attributes a cuil value of 4 to the final observer.
A simple delta calculation yeilds the distance between initial and final observers. ‽f-‽i=Delta‽ 4-1=3. As stated before, there are 3 jumps between initial and final observers. The calculation of distance from the initial to final observer is ‽i-‽f. This would yield -3‽. The -3‽ represents the number of abstractions from himself the initial would have to take to reach the level of abstraction of the final. One explanation of 0‽ is that it represents true reality. I would like to consider it as an observer which is in fact the system (the universe, god, the planet, etc). This means that for the 0‽ observer to reach our initial observer, they must move 1 level of abstraction towards the observer. It was also stated that a negative cuil value may represent hyper-reality.
the -3 cuil value between the initial and final observer represents the number of abstractions that the final observer would have to make to reach the level of the initial observer, thereby decreasing their level of abstraction by (in the example), 3‽.

I think that to make meaningful statements about a situation of statements, we must first define some variables. These are by no means complete, but may act as a groundwork for a future entry on the axioms of cuil.

To perform a calculation of a cuil, you must first define the expected reality of the conscious observer. You must also have a defined "true reality" or some meaning for 0‽.

From this, it should be possible to observe abstractions and assign a cuil value based on the relationships between these abstractions.
For something as complex as a statement of reality, and percieved reality, these should ideally be stated sets of equal size. It would b possible to create an infinite set of statements about absolute reality (if such statements were possible… we shall assume that they are). This may cause a branching of cuil into several seperate but related mathematical and philosophical models.
I feel that we should have a name for these sets of information about the real world and the expected world. For now, I will use vector notation <i,j,k>.

As an example, I shall use the following statements.
You see a goldfish. You feed the goldfish. You observe that the goldfish eats the food.
You expected to see no goldfish. You expected to feed the goldfish. You expected the goldfish to not eat the food.

The difference between expectation and reality is <1,0,1>

This is not to say that cuil is the expectation of one observer rated against another, but that it may be possible to do calculations using the concept of a cuil with multiple types of problems.