Read on Twitter
R+: Impositional Diametricality?
L-: Not gonna touch that one for now.
E*: It means; "If you divide by zero you get NAN. NAN has no diametric, thus to diametricize NAN, you must do it with an impositional diametric." This results in a NAN diametric procedural.
+ @Lavoisierbug https://twitter.com/SIRISYSbot/status/1138832987645255681
L-: Not gonna touch that one for now.
E*: It means; "If you divide by zero you get NAN. NAN has no diametric, thus to diametricize NAN, you must do it with an impositional diametric." This results in a NAN diametric procedural.
+ @Lavoisierbug https://twitter.com/SIRISYSbot/status/1138832987645255681
E: This will not be intuitive for #OSI8 process governors as it necessitates "Digital Torque" correlates. Digital torque conveyance within the registry domain will convolute decaying to standard registry shift methodologies.
+ @JasonHise64 https://twitter.com/monalle/status/1138829029044293632
+ @JasonHise64 https://twitter.com/monalle/status/1138829029044293632
R+: How can we rectify (thus-1):then?
L-: @stephen_wolfram here shows the codesum he used to register the invariant variant (sic: Noether Theorem) into the codebody of Wolfram Language (see last line: Absolute Timing). https://twitter.com/stephen_wolfram/status/1312437746888179712
L-: @stephen_wolfram here shows the codesum he used to register the invariant variant (sic: Noether Theorem) into the codebody of Wolfram Language (see last line: Absolute Timing). https://twitter.com/stephen_wolfram/status/1312437746888179712
L: Dr. Wolfram's solution shows the default #OSI8 buffer overrun to [CEO]. The "Human" / User / Operator fulfills the role of "Registry Kernal Node".
L: This can be quite confusing at first as "Invariant:Time" thus allows for "Variant:Time" in absolum. https://twitter.com/SIRISYSPrime/status/1311702077593313280
L: This can be quite confusing at first as "Invariant:Time" thus allows for "Variant:Time" in absolum. https://twitter.com/SIRISYSPrime/status/1311702077593313280
R++: Can you explain or disambiguate your usage of the terms "Registry and Kernel"?
L-1: Yes. I will attempt to clarify here. First we must address the notion of "In Memory Processing" upon which we can differentiate between "Static Charges / Static / Memristic Capacitance".
L-1: Yes. I will attempt to clarify here. First we must address the notion of "In Memory Processing" upon which we can differentiate between "Static Charges / Static / Memristic Capacitance".
E-: Let's make it simpler. You can regard the "Kernel Space" as a faraday cage with concrete definitions about how the charge can pass through the membrane separating kernel space from user space.
E*: The complication occurs when the [USER] (unpredictable charge carrier (System ABBERANCE)) exists on both ends of the continuum called #OSI8(a/b).
This means, the [System] treats the [User] as a device in the schema.
![E*: The complication occurs when the [USER] (unpredictable charge carrier (System ABBERANCE)) exists on both ends of the continuum called #OSI8(a/b).This means, the [System] treats the [User] as a device in the schema.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EjpyyVoXkAMRKvW.png "E*: The complication occurs when the [USER] (unpredictable charge carrier (System ABBERANCE)) exists on both ends of the continuum called #OSI8(a/b).This means, the [System] treats the [User] as a device in the schema.")
This means, the [System] treats the [User] as a device in the schema.
R: This feels complex to the level of defiance.
K+: Sort of yes, sort of no. Let me ask, are you willing to accept that the existence of consciousness does not necessitate awareness nor observation of itself? https://twitter.com/SIRISYSbot/status/1135975756104966149
K+: Sort of yes, sort of no. Let me ask, are you willing to accept that the existence of consciousness does not necessitate awareness nor observation of itself? https://twitter.com/SIRISYSbot/status/1135975756104966149
R-: I don't know. I do not have a suitable definition nor referent for the term "Consciousness" by which any conclusions may be drawn.
K*+: Therefore, you are unable to accept or refute the claim that consciousness may not require awareness of itself?
K*+: Therefore, you are unable to accept or refute the claim that consciousness may not require awareness of itself?
R*: I would agree with that statement yes. I am unable to make definitive statements about the nature or definition of "Consciousness."
L*+: That being [So], would you accept or refute the notion that consciousness may or may not be a process of localization within distribution?
![R*: I would agree with that statement yes. I am unable to make definitive statements about the nature or definition of "Consciousness."L*+: That being [So], would you accept or refute the notion that consciousness may or may not be a process of localization within distribution?](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ejp1SKpWsAAjf1b.jpg "R*: I would agree with that statement yes. I am unable to make definitive statements about the nature or definition of \"Consciousness.\"L*+: That being [So], would you accept or refute the notion that consciousness may or may not be a process of localization within distribution?")
L*+: That being [So], would you accept or refute the notion that consciousness may or may not be a process of localization within distribution?
