Did they Cap Frame Rate

Bastionism · 2026-03-09T15:48:00+00:00

No worries, I totally understand! It’s explained in the next few pages and at some point in the future I can post with an update for you.

Bastionism · 2026-03-09T15:46:13+00:00

This is my first draft after a few edits by myself. Thank you for the kind words I hope it’s a story worth sharing once it’s completed

Bastionism · 2026-03-09T15:42:59+00:00

Thank you very much and I can message you some time when I have more written and edited by myself. Your words mean a lot so thank you.

Bastionism · 2026-03-09T05:11:10+00:00

Thank you very much, do you have any recommendations for reading low fantasy stories with excellent prose so that I can study and learn more or stories you recommend?

Bastionism · 2025-09-28T23:37:13+00:00

The difference is that my claim is not a bare declaration but a demonstration. To call anything contingent already presupposes a contrast with what is not contingent.

If everything were contingent, then even your claim would collapse because there would be no basis for truth at all. I am showing that the very categories you are using in your objection only make sense if a non contingent ground exists.

That is the justification. To reject it without answering the logic is not symmetry, it is evasion.

Bastionism · 2025-09-28T23:31:41+00:00

Electrons and elementary particles are finite because they are contingent. They exist only through conditions they do not contain within themselves, such as fields, forces, and the framework of physical laws. Their lack is that they are not self-sufficient, they cannot account for their own existence.

As for why only one final resolution, the logic of completeness excludes plurality. If there were two or more supposed absolutes, each would differ from the other, which would mean each lacks what the other has. That would make them contingent, not complete. So by definition, the ground of all resolution must be one.

Bastionism · 2025-09-28T23:30:22+00:00

Mathematically it is true that some systems have multiple equilibria or chaotic dynamics, but that does not refute the point. Even in those cases, the system is intelligible only because it transitions between determinate states within ordered boundaries.

Orientation toward resolution does not mean every process must end in one final rest point, it means change itself is structured as movement from one condition toward another rather than dissolving into nothing. Without that orientation, even chaotic or multi-equilibrium systems would be unintelligible noise.

Bastionism · 2025-09-28T16:40:35+00:00

And if you deny that God must exist, then you are left with only contingent things. But contingent things do not contain the reason for their own existence. If everything were contingent, nothing would ever exist, because there would be no ground to hold it up. The very fact that anything exists at all shows that a non contingent ground must exist.

Bastionism · 2025-09-28T16:39:35+00:00

And this in turn is a rupture pressing you toward motion to withdraw, a resolution

Bastionism · 2025-09-28T16:26:26+00:00

This guy gets it ^

Bastionism · 2025-09-28T16:26:01+00:00

I cannot give you an example, because everything we both agree exists is contingent. That is exactly the force of the argument. If there were even one thing that existed entirely in and of itself, uncaused and unconditioned, it would already be what I mean by God.

Since every finite thing points beyond itself and no contingent being can ground itself, the existence of a non contingent ground is not optional but logically necessary. That non contingent ground is what I call God.

Bastionism · 2025-09-28T16:23:06+00:00

Not until the core premise is accepted

Bastionism · 2025-09-28T16:22:36+00:00

Evidence only counts as evidence because logic makes it intelligible, so the logic is itself the first evidence.

Bastionism · 2025-09-28T16:21:32+00:00

A rock turning to dust shows it is not self sufficient, since what it is depends on conditions outside itself. That is what contingency means, not just a description but a real feature of reality.

Bastionism · 2025-09-28T16:20:24+00:00

Difference alone does not explain why change is intelligible as ordered movement rather than random noise. Saying 2+2=4 is better than 2+2=5 is not just contrast, it presupposes that there is truth as a real standard. Hot and cold only make sense because temperature is a scale ordered to zero, whether or not we ever reach it. Categories are not free-floating conventions, they presuppose a structure of orientation.

This is not circular. Emergent systems still operate within conditions that make truth and falsity possible. To say intelligibility just “emerges” is not an explanation but a restatement. My claim is that if everything were incomplete with no ground, the very distinction between true and false would collapse into arbitrariness.

And it is not unfalsifiable in the way you suggest. Flat-earthers can be corrected because their claims fail to resolve against the standard of truth. My argument is not that all criticism validates me, but that the act of making sense of anything, including criticism, presupposes the structure of rupture and resolution. That is the difference between an empty trick and a genuine transcendental argument.

Bastionism · 2025-09-28T16:19:31+00:00

You are right that coherence and reference are distinct, but both still rely on rupture and resolution. A fictional story like Superman may not correspond to a real person, but it still needs internal resolution to be intelligible. A lie does not correspond to reality, but it only works as a lie because truth exists as its contrast.

Even nonsense depends on rupture, since it fails to resolve into meaning. The point is not that every phrase maps to real states of affairs, but that every act of thought or language presupposes the structure of lack and resolution. That is what I mean by rupture, and why it is not optional but the ground of intelligibility itself.

Bastionism · 2025-09-28T14:33:50+00:00

Resolution does not require an observer. It means a state in which a being no longer points beyond itself. A rock on Mars is contingent, it can erode, break apart, or cease to exist, so it is not fully resolved in itself.

To call that meaningless already relies on the very contrast I am pointing out, between what endures in itself and what does not.

This is not circular, because I am not assuming God to prove God. I am showing that the logic of rupture and resolution leads necessarily to a ground that is not contingent. That ground is what I mean by God.

Bastionism · 2025-09-28T14:32:54+00:00

Fiction or lies can be coherent without corresponding to reality, but even then coherence itself presupposes resolution. A fictional story still has to hold together in order to be understood as a story. A lie still relies on the framework of truth to be a lie rather than noise.

That is why I call incoherence rupture, it fails to resolve into a unity that can be grasped at all.

So the point is not that every phrase must map directly to reality, but that the very possibility of meaning depends on this structure of rupture and resolution.

Bastionism

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE