While discussing reality hacking and theory pertaining to ξ, a question that has come up a a few times now has pertained to the state of ξ when it performs self reference. Specifically, these questions often come from a programming perspective that percieves ξ's self reference as creating a new "instance" of ξ within itself. This understanding thinks about ξ as something that is executing its contents. However, this would be a misunderstanding of what sort of structure ξ is. ξ is not a computational thread or equivalent structure that executes instructions contained within it. Rather, it describes a mathematical set.
A set is a collection of unique elements. These elements can be anything that can be said to be in a collection, but the set does not describe any actions upon them. It only describes a collection of unique contents. The unique nature of these contents is an easily brushed over, but very important, detail. A set of numbers could look like {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, or contained any other numbers (ordered or not), but a set could not look like {1 1 1 ... 1}. As a result, ξ's self reference means it does not contain another version of itself. Rather, it contains its own state as it exactly appears in the same set that contains it. This means it also preserves all of its properties, such as the number of contents it contains.
ξ being a set rather than an instance loans it another property of value to reality hackers: Every element that appears in it appears uniquely, despite being referenced in multiple symbols. Everything that can and does exist has a symbol within ξ, and that symbol forms additional symbols through subsets describing relations between those symbols. That means when you change the way something is connected to other elements in ξ, you aren't simply creating a scenario where those connections are changed, but you are rendering a new symbol in ξ that directly modifies the relations to that thing, and thus the ways its relations can be made real. From the programmatic perspective, this is more akin to changing the class definition of ξ rather than creating a new ξ.
In the predominant modern set theory, Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, such recursion is explicitly forbidden due to a number of paradoxes related to self reference. For example, a set of of all sets that do not contain themselves exists in a state of both containing and not containing itself by definition. Indeed, my theory describes an inherently paradoxical pool of symbols ξ, and only through that paradox is able to perform its acts of self modification. Since ξ necessarily contains all sets that can exist, and structures within ξ can depict ξ, it is constantly being reshaped, and is volatile to change by any real instances of its ideas.
All of this can only be the case if ξ is a set rather than a thread. Some reality hackers may argue otherwise, and indeed, these philosophies have their own merits, and this site presents one methodology of understanding the way of everything. But if ξ is only a paradoxical set of ideas, and not actual instances of them, then how do they come to be? While I have not reached a strong conclusion on how symbols in ξ become spawned, I do know of one that has had profound impact on it: The Universe. The Universe is a collection of instances of the things that are described in ξ. It does not contain ALL elements of ξ, but a subset that it operates on with a system of rules that can also be represented as symbols. In this sense, the universe behaves much more like a processing thread than a mathematical structure like ξ. While I do not know the origins of the universe, its very existence allows for a startling amount of transformation to ξ as every element manifested in it interacts. It has, however, slowed down substantially since humans began mass modifying ξ through complex planning, and establishing a fairly fixed universe through an overflow of similar conceptualizations to manifest.
Because of these factors, it is important when reality hacking that one be able to render symbols accurately to how they currently appear in the universe. While your forms being shaped through their construction places them in ξ, and the solidification of them ensures that their power can not fade, the universe seems to follow a set of state rules that are resistant to large transitions. As such, providing a pathway of minimal transitions from the current reality into your desired outcome greatly facilitates the process of its reformation.
Back to ξ index