NR20 Clarifications on the term AÏOOYAOU. Tetravalent formal logic.

(U-C Note: English version made from the U-C Spanish translation of the French. The original text is at NR20)

 

Mr Alban Nanty

 

My name is NABGAA 112, daughter of DORIO 34. I currently live in Belgium and report to my brother AYIOA 1, son of ADAA 67, head of the expeditionaries of Western Europe except Great Britain, Ireland, Portugal and Spain.

 

We follow with interest the debates of your brothers, from the compilation of the electronic messages you exchange publicly among yourselves concerning our civilization of OUMMO. We would sometimes like to answer some of your questions, and we are aware of having produced a feeling of frustration by deliberately limiting the information revealed in our correspondence with you. Know that we have deliberately omitted certain information that you yourselves will have to deduce. Your scientific development already allows you to do so, and we note with a smile that you sometimes come close in some answers without, however, submitting them to an attempt at objective validation.

 

The interest in tetravalent logic is praiseworthy, and it is indeed a line of research for which you can draw on the theoretical evolution achieved by your thinkers over recent decades. The enigma our term AÏOOYAOU seems to constitute for you is caused by the indication given in our reports to your brothers that this term had no simple meaningful translation in your languages. It must be clearly understood that this term is not used by us in everyday speech, except by our specialists in OOLGA WOU-OUA WAAM (theoretical cosmophysics), comparable to your Earth astrophysicists. We sometimes use it in philosophical subjects relating, for example, to the purpose of the OUAA (moral laws) in the process of conformation of our BOUAWA (soul) after the disappearance of our OEMII (body).

 

To approach the meaning of this term, you must go back again to the astonishing phenomenon concerning the toroidal nebulae IAGGIAAYAOO, already mentioned to your brothers in the past. A sudden drop in the temperature of the gas in these nebulae does indeed allow us to foresee future deformations or foldings in the local four-dimensional structure of our WAAM (universe) due to the interaction with our anti-universe OUWAAM. This phenomenon occurs before the apparent cause at its origin has actually occurred. It must be clearly understood here that the measurable consequence of the distortion - the sudden drop in gas temperature - apparently precedes the distortion itself and in no way modulates its appearance. You could interpret this phenomenon graphically as a shadow cast by the wave caused in our WAAM by the clouds of imaginary matter present in the OUWAAM. This shadow would thus be the reflection of an AÏOOYAOU phenomenon whose amplitude and space-time distance are doubtful, just as it would be doubtful to reflect the three-dimensional shape and the distance of an object - inaccessible to the senses and to measuring instruments - from the shadow it cast on the ground.

 

The analysis of the data at the moment this phenomenon occurs makes it possible to refine the parameters of the mathematical model we are going to feed into the SANMOO (computer) of each OAWOOLEA OUEWA OEM (spacecraft) intended to travel through the isodynamic conditions relating to the next folding. Nevertheless the model is vague, since although we know how to deduce the amplitude of the folding with a good approximation, we do not know how to predict exactly the moment at which it will occur. We sometimes have to wait several months before an expedition, prepared in a few days, begins its journey.

 

I apologize for this digression, but it seems necessary to me in order to introduce to you this term, which refers to a phenomenon observable only through its consequences, but such that it itself remains partly indeterminate because it lies outside our field of perception, which is inevitably limited and subject to the stochastic (*) disturbances of the WAAM that necessarily modulate the information carried by the temporal flow. AÏOOYAOU is also a term we use to describe the state of potential existence of subatomic particles subject to quantum indeterminacy. Thus the state of existence AÏOOYAA is inapplicable to the electrons that move around atomic nuclei, of which we can only perceive the residual effects inside a space-time envelope predictable at the level of our scales of measurement. We also state that the integration of the soul of your brother Sergio Vieira de Mello into your collective psyche will have an influence on the behaviour of a certain number of your brothers. This influence is AÏOOYAOU, since the measurable psychosocial effects will logically appear in the medium term. The cruel act and the succession of unforgivable imprudences at the origin of this man's death could then be described as retropositive if these foreseeable psychosocial effects actually occur.

 

AÏOOYAOU can sometimes be projected onto the classical AÏOOYAA / AÏOOYEEDOO (true / false) axis if the predicted phenomenon materializes, or when the certainty that it will not occur is reached. If it is absolutely necessary to try to give this term a meaning in Earth linguistics, AÏOOYAOU would be the state of an indeterminate phenomenon whose emergence is perceptible or highly predictable but of which several materializations are conceivable, depending on the different distortions inherent in the temporal flow that could modulate its realization. I fear, however, that this unclear definition may be a source of confusion for you.

I fervently invite you to reflect on the concept of retropositivity mentioned above, unfortunately very often rejected by your brothers, which puts back into perspective an act that might be described as negative or malevolent at the time but whose long-term consequences - evaluated before it is carried out - would amply compensate for the trauma caused at the moment of that act. This concept is crucial for us, particularly in medical and educational circles. The symmetrical concept of retronegativity is equally important. I also ask you to reflect on the particular nature of this correspondence. You should take the statements contained in this letter only for what they logically are: unverifiable sentences of doubtful origin, no doubt written by a prankster. Any of your brothers would object that you could have written this letter yourself and that it contains nothing transcendent nor any objective element of identification. I therefore advise you to keep this correspondence to yourself, or to destroy it if you find it too bothersome. You may, if you wish, try to set out the first fruits presented in this document to your brothers, letting them suppose that the idea is yours or that it was inspired in you by a friend.

 

Allow me, Mr Alban Nanty, to place my hand on your chest as a sign of respectful friendship, according to the custom in force in our world.

 

For OUMMOAELEWE:

 

NABGAA 112, daughter of DORIO 34, approved by AYIOA 1, son of ADAA 67

 

) + (

 

 

ANNEX: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON OUR TETRAVALENT FORMAL REASONING

 

We base our tetravalent system on the formal non-acceptance of the rejection of a middle term and of a third term in dialectics. In this system what IS NOT is distinguished from the complement of what IS. We accept that a phenomenon may at the same time BE AND NOT BE, or NEITHER BE NOR NOT BE. It is true that such ontological distinctions are rarely taken into account in daily reality. They are not, however, unknown to your thinkers, and you will find the first sketches of them in Platonic literature as well as in the founding texts of Buddhist philosophy.

A and B being two sets of ontological realities opposable in dialectics, this system leads to accepting the following four combinations: X₁ = {X A B}, X₂ = {X A B}, X₃ = {X A B}, X₄ = {X A B}. Here you must translate A and B as "IS NOT A" and "IS NOT B". None of the four forms of reality is the simple complement of another.

 

We give a simple example in the following diagram, considering the set of basic colours red, yellow and blue. Yellow then represents the state (A) AÏOOYAA (verifiable existence) and red the state (B) AÏOOYEEDOO (unreal; outside any framework of verification). The colour orange is a compound of red and yellow; the colour blue is formed neither of yellow nor of red. In this logic the complement of AÏOOYAA is not AÏOOYEEDOO. Thus the proposition, contradictory for you, "X EXISTS" and "X DOES NOT EXIST" is, depending on the context:

- reduced to a formal dead end Ø: (AA) or (BB);

- reduced to a potential or partially indeterminate phenomenological reality (AB). This AÏOOYAOU state is well summed up in the paradox imagined by your thinker Schrödinger, which leads to the deduction of two superposed contradictory potential states owing to the quantum nature of the phenomena used in the experiment;

- extended to an existence AÏOOYA AMMIÈ (BA), unverifiable outside a field of individual or collective consciousness. At this level lie the intellective processes associated with abstract concepts, or with emotions of an empathic or compassionate character, which many of your thinkers associate with phenomena of purely biochemical origin and which we partly externalize to the transcendent entities that are the individual soul (BOUAWA), the collective psyche (BOUAWEE BIAEII) and God (WOA).

 

The imprecision of your linguistic expressions obliges me to clarify here that an unreal form, translated as "DOES NOT EXIST", nonetheless remains a form of existence in the AÏOODI, which groups together every form of existence that can be imagined by any form of thought in the WAAM-WAAM. Our limited cognitive capacity could not define an absolute form of non-existence.

 

We thus accept, in the course of our philosophical or mathematical developments, the appearance of elements you would describe as contradictory because of the possible coexistence of BEING and NOT BEING, or the refutation of both. Thus the working out of solutions during formal calculation necessarily gives rise to divergent paths. Each of these divergences must be explored to its end in order to confirm or invalidate a posteriori, by logical deduction, each of the paths generated at each IBOSZOO IOUBOO (point of uncertainty) of the network of possibilities thus developed. By way of illustration I send you the attached diagram, without meaning of its own, comprising two of these points.

 

Your scientists are also confronted with such kinds of problems after a correctly constructed deductive process. They do not know, for example, how to resolve for the moment the point of uncertainty left by the theory developed by your eminent thinker Albert Einstein. This theory does not, in fact, allow a decision between the three classes of cosmological models that still remain admissible for you: negative, zero or positive curvature of the four-dimensional structure of the WAAM. This phase was inevitably reached on OUMMO in ancient times. To assert to you that the first solution is the only one that can explain the observations made in this WAAM would be to oblige you to a profession of faith. You must reach this conclusion by ruling out the two remaining models with unquestionable proofs and, thus resolving the point of uncertainty and even all possible doubt, by steeping yourselves in the fascinating properties of hyperbolic geometry in order to refine or redefine your cosmological model. Your scientists must - and this is healthy - follow to the end the intuition that inclines them to explore one of the possible branches first, in order to develop the theory that derives from that choice. They must not, however, turn their thoughts into doctrine while the point of uncertainty remains behind them and their work has not succeeded in settling the question definitively.

 

In the course of reasoning, every derivation that leads to the deduction of the value Ø is disqualified and is reduced (cut off) at the last level of the IBOSZOO IOUBOO from which it was generated. A connection that generates a point of uncertainty already generated at an earlier stage is “fixed” or “frozen” until the generating node is reduced elsewhere, or until the other derivations are reduced or also become “fixed” - thus giving the problem a non-deterministic solution. The reasoning is complete when all the derivations end in a singleton (*) or in an irreducible indeterminacy. Thus the formal calculus we use is not deterministic: it may generate several non-incompatible conclusions. Each IBOSZOO IOUBOO must be confronted with empirical observations in order to try to favour one deductive branch. Some works whose sole object is to reduce a point of uncertainty by perfecting the predictive model sometimes occupy generations of thinkers on OUMMO. We avoid any attempt at proof that uses the principle of reductio ad absurdum. This principle, still very much in use among your scientists, makes reasoning blind.

 

In all cases we adopt, as you do, the principle of identity or idempotence (*): X or X = X. Negation is replaced by the principle of complementarity: the result of the complement () is the set of possible values minus the complemented value. X₁/ {X₁, X2, X3, X₄} = {X₂, X3, X4}. Thus in binary logic the complement defines classical negation: True = False/{True, False} and symmetrically False = True/{True, False}. In the same way as you introduce the discrete quantities 0 and 1 into your Boolean algebra, we use four basic logical values that can be represented in this symbolization by {0^1, 1^0, 0^1, 1^0}. The exploration of the nodal graph of a problem by formal calculation consists in obtaining a reduction to one of the two tautologies among {1^1, 0^0} which validate a solution, or to one of the two formal dead ends among {1^1, 0^0} which then refute the hypotheses posed at the last IBOSZOO IOUBOO.

 

We of course use in our reasoning a wide range of restrictive logical or causal operators, which are necessary to contain the combinatorial explosion generated during formal calculation. The variables fed into the calculation are connected to one another by binding relations specific to the problem dealt with.