Is everything ideal or is it idea (word)?

Is the word "ideal" in "ideal minimum geometry" consistent with idealism, in this case that the constructive parameters that they are, are ideal (not idea, but ideal, or what something or someone thus—paradoxically constructive—by integration emergently produces or has)?

#n01.01

re. "44" p.11 "... ideal minimum geometry, the one that defines the minimal possible self-persistent stage, is responsible for setting the stage of physical reality—and for giving it all of its constructive parameters."

#n01.02

What superfluid molecules spin in the hyperbolic figure eight knot vortex? Is it necessarily action? Or is such necessity the normal or natural ontological archetype mythology?

#n01.03

Thad Roberts

Pierre Rousseau I mean ideal in the minimal geometric sense. As in this arena divides over the minimal possible volume complement boundary.

#n01.04

Yes, I know that you mean ideal in the minimal geometric sense. The question is, given that everything is always now, to any derivative, is the story that it is verb rather than noun, not the redundancy? Is it not the terrible breakdown of the ideal, at every level?

#n01.05

I don't want to get rid of the five dimensions or the figure eight knot vortex, only of the idea that it is not idea, but action, or that it exists.

#n01.06

The error of the verb explanation as if it is not noun, for noun, is the error at every other scale also, not only Planck-scale.

#n01.07

A key idea for the figure eight knot vortex is persistence, which is a noun, i.e., the temporal dimension of the geometric form of five dimensions. The idea that verb explains any of it, or that it means that the figure eight knot vortex persists, is the error.

#n01.08

Point-i is an idea utterly counterintuitive to the idea existence. So, point-i is not that the five dimensions are elements of idea, or phenomenon or qualia (which it would be if it were ontological), but are what it is, space, time, mass, charge or temperature, any or all of it, or any geometry derivative to it, is word (more mere words to explain word are nonsense).

#n01.09

And that last little bit, "word," is what is ontologically absolutely counterintuitive, because word is indeed supposed to be mere meaning as incomplete reference to "existence," which as existentialism is endlessly open to essentially solipsistic rationalizations and heated debate between them.

#n01.10

If everything is word, because of the error existence the strawman (exclusively ontological) follows that I am thereby saying that word is everything, and that it consists of the five dimensions as its basic elements. Not true. The point is that everything is word.

#n01.11

And so, entangled in ontological debate, the idea point-i goes around in circles.

#n02

The geometric derivative form of noun, i.e., verb, explains it as its deconstruction.

Verb "exists" as the personification of everything, for instance, the ontological explanation that every part of something is as if a person, whether as player, instrument or music, instrumental in its existence.