← Back to lettersMr. Alban Nanty
My name is NABGAA 112 daughter of DORIO 34. I am currently residing in Belgium and depend on my brother AYIOA 1 son of ADAA 67, chief of the expeditionaries of Western Europe except Great Britain, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain.
We follow with interest your brothers’ discussions on the compilation of electronic messages that you publicly exchange among yourselves about our civilization of OUMMO. We sometimes wish to respond to some of your questions and are aware that we have caused a feeling of frustration by voluntarily restricting the information disclosed in our correspondences with you.
Know that we have deliberately omitted certain information that you will have to deduce yourselves. Your scientific development already allows you to do so, and we see with a smile that you sometimes brush upon certain answers without subjecting them to an attempt at objective validation.
The interest in tetravalent logic is commendable, and it is indeed a line of research for which you can rely on the theoretical developments made by your thinkers over recent decades.
The enigma that 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 is important to understand that this term is not commonly used by us, except by our specialists in OOLGA WOU-OUA WAAM (theoretical cosmophysics), comparable to your terrestrial astrophysicists. We sometimes use it in philosophical themes concerning, for example, the purpose of the OUAA (moral laws) in the process of the conformation of our BOUAWA (soul) after the disappearance of our OEMII (body).
To approach the meaning of this term, you must return to the astonishing phenomenon relating to the toric nebulae IAGGIAAYAOO, already mentioned to your brothers in the past.
A sudden drop in gas temperature within these nebulae indeed allows us to forecast future deformations or folds in the local tetradimensional structure of our WAAM (universe) due to the interaction with our anti-universe OUWAAM.
This phenomenon occurs before the apparent cause that originates it 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, figuratively, as a shadow that would be cast by the wave caused in our WAAM by the clouds of imaginary matter present in 1211 / 1373.
29/04/18 OUWAAM. This shadow would thus be the reflection of a phenomenon AÏOOYAOU whose amplitude and spatio-temporal distance are uncertain, just as it would be uncertain to retranscribe the three-dimensional shape and distance of an object - inaccessible to the senses and measuring instruments - from the shadow it casts on the ground. The analysis of data at the time of the occurrence of this phenomenon allows us to refine the parameters of the mathematical model that we will inject into the SANMOO (computer) of each OAWOOLEA OUEWA OEM (spacecraft) intended to travel through the isodynamic conditions related to the next folding. However, the model is imprecise because, while we can deduce the amplitude of the folding with a correct approximation, we cannot accurately predict when it will begin. We sometimes have to wait several months before an expedition, prepared in a few days, initiates its journey. Please excuse my digression, but it seems necessary to introduce you to this term that refers to a phenomenon observable only through its consequences but remains partially indeterminate because it is outside our inevitably limited perception and subordinate to the stochastic disturbances (Ndw: which is from or relates to chance, which falls within the realm of probability calculations) of the WAAM that necessarily modulate the information conveyed by the temporal flow. Thus, AÏOOYAOU is a term we use to describe the state of potential existence of subatomic particles subjected to quantum indeterminacy. Therefore, the state of existence AÏOOYAA is inapplicable to electrons that evolve around atomic nuclei, and we can only perceive the residual effects within a predictable spatio-temporal envelope at our measurement scales. We have also stated that the integration of the soul of your brother Sergio Vieira de Mello into your collective psyche will influence the behavior of some of your siblings. This influence AÏOOYAOU because measurable psychosocial effects will logically appear in the medium term. The barbaric act and the succession of inexcusable imprudences that led to the death of this man could thus be termed retropositive if these predictable psychosocial effects indeed occur. AÏOOYAOU can sometimes project itself onto the classical axis AÏOOYAA / AÏOOYEEDOO (true / false) if the actualization of the predicted phenomenon occurs or when the certainty that it will not occur is reached. If we must attempt to put a significance in terrestrial linguistics to this term, AÏOOYAOU would be the state of an indeterminate phenomenon whose emergence is perceptible or strongly predictable but for which multiple actualizations are conceivable depending on the various distortions inherent to the temporal flow that would modulate its concretization. However, I fear that this obscure definition may be a source of confusion for you. I strongly encourage you to reflect on the notion of retropositivity introduced above, unfortunately often dismissed by your brothers, which recontextualizes an act that could be qualified as negative or malicious in the moment, but whose long-term consequences - evaluated before its realization - would far compensate for the trauma caused at the time of this act. This notion is crucial for us, particularly in medical and educational spheres. The symmetrical notion of retronegativity is equally important. I also ask you to reflect on the specific aspect of this correspondence. You should take the statements contained in this letter only for what they logically are: unverifiable phrases of questionable origin, likely written by a joker. Any of your brothers could counter with the argument that you could have written this letter yourself and that it contains nothing transcendent or any objective element of identification. I advise you to keep this correspondence to yourself or destroy it if you find it too disturbing. You may, if you wish, attempt to expose the premises outlined in this document to your brothers while allowing them to suppose that the idea is yours or that it was inspired by a friend. Accept, Mr. Alban Nanty, that I place my hand against your chest as a token of respectful friendship according to the custom prevailing in our world. For OUMMOAELEWE: NABGAA 112 daughter of DORIO 34, approved by AYIOA 1 son of ADAA 67 1212 / 1373
(29/04/18)+( ANNEX: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON OUR TETRAVALENT FORMAL REASONING We base our tetravalent system on the formal non-acceptance of the rejection of a median term and a third term in dialectics. In this system, what is NOT is distinguished from the complementary of what IS. We accept that a phenomenon can both BE AND NOT BE or NEITHER BE NOR NOT BE. It is certain that such ontological distinctions are rarely taken into account in daily reality. However, they are not unknown to your thinkers, and you will find the first drafts of these in Platonic literature as well as in the foundational texts of Buddhist philosophy. A and B being two opposable sets of ontological realities in dialectics, this system leads to the acceptance of the following four combinations: X = {X ∈ A ∩ ¬B}, X = {X ∈ ¬A ∩ B}, X = {X ∈ A ∩ B}, X = {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 provide a simple example in the diagram below by considering the fundamental colors red, yellow, and blue. Yellow then represents state (A) AÏOOYAA (verifiable existence) and red state (B) AÏOOYEEDOO (unreal; outside any verification framework). The color orange is a compound of red and yellow, while blue is composed of neither yellow nor red. In this logic, the complement of AÏOOYAA is not AÏOOYEEDOO. Thus, the proposition that seems contradictory to you, 'X EXISTS' and 'X DOES NOT EXIST', is, depending on the context: - reduced to a formal impasse Ø: (A ∩ ¬A) or (¬B ∩ B); - reduced to a potential phenomenological reality or partially indeterminate (A ∩ B). This state AÏOOYAOU is well summarized in the paradox imagined by your thinker Schrödinger, which leads to the deduction of two overlapping contradictory potential states due to the quantum nature of the phenomena involved in the experiment; - extended to an existence AÏOOYA AMMIÈ (¬B ∩ ¬A), unverifiable outside an individual or collective field of consciousness. At this level lie the intellectual processes (S-NR20-1) associated with abstract concepts, or emotions of an empathic or compassionate nature, that many of your thinkers associate with phenomena of purely biochemical origin and which we partially 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 compels me to clarify here that an unreal form, translated as 'DOES NOT EXIST', remains an absolute form of existence in the AÏOODI which encompasses every form of existence that can be conceived by any form of thought from the WAAM-WAAM. Our limited cognitive capacity cannot define an absolute form of non-existence. Thus, we accept, during our philosophical or mathematical developments, the emergence of elements you would qualify as contradictory due to the possible coexistence of BEING and NON-BEING or the refutation of both. Therefore, the elaboration of solutions during formal calculations necessarily causes divergent branchings. (S-NR20-2) Each of these divergences must be explored to its conclusion in order to confirm or refute a posteriori through logical deduction each of the paths generated by each IBOSZOO IOUBOO (point of uncertainty) of the developed network of possibilities. I am attaching for illustrative purposes the diagram adjacent, without intrinsic meaning, comprising two of these points. Your scientists are also confronted with such classes of problems after a correctly constructed deductive process. They do not yet know how to resolve the point of uncertainty left by the theory developed by your eminent thinker Albert Einstein. This theory does not allow you to decisively choose between the three classes of cosmological models that remain admissible for you: negative, zero, or positive curvature of the four-dimensional structure of the WAAM. This stage has inevitably been reached.
29/04/18 on OUMMO in ancient times. To assert that the first solution is the only one that explains the observations made in this WAAM would compel you to a profession of faith. You must reach this conclusion by indisputably ruling out the two other models, thereby cutting the point of uncertainty and eliminating any possible doubt, immersing yourself in the fascinating properties of hyperbolic geometry to specify or redefine your cosmological model. Your scientists must—and this is healthy—follow through on the intuition that leads them to prioritize exploring one of the possible branches to develop the theory that derives from that choice. However, they should not elevate their line of reasoning to doctrine as long as the point of uncertainty remains upstream and their work has not definitively resolved the issue. Throughout the reasoning, any branch leading to the deduction of the value Ø is disqualified and reduced (cut) at the level of the last IBOSZOO IOUBOO from which it was generated. A branch generating a point of uncertainty already produced upstream is frozen waiting for the generating node to be reduced elsewhere or for the other branches to be reduced or also frozen—thereby giving the problem a non-deterministic solution. The reasoning is complete when all branches lead to a singleton (Ndw: in the realm of mathematics, a set that contains only one element) or to an irreducible indeterminacy. Thus, the formal calculation we use is not deterministic: it can generate several non-incompatible conclusions. Each IBOSZOO IOUBOO must be confronted with empirical observations to try to favor a deductive branch. Some works aimed solely at reducing a point of uncertainty by refining the predictive model sometimes occupy generations of thinkers on OUMMO. We avoid any demonstration attempt that uses the principle of reduction to absurdity. This principle, still very much in force among your scientists, renders reasoning blind. In all cases, we adopt the principle of identity or idempotence (Ndw: i
Lettre Ummite#1213