i think maybe we choose to increase their likely hood aswell

mike burbiglias latest special is called "Than God for jokes"

in which he says his bother sang "christ will come at 10:00" instead of "christ will come again"

(news at 10:00...)

so i reserved at 10:00 last night right after he posted... as PCB personal confirmation bias, which is a term that applies to synchronicity, which he brought up in his textiness. which is basically fair game for me to respond to since im the deafault expert per my title as "Oh" derp

(we've talked about God alot. from logical comparitives to divinity such as infinity and "everything" and "truth" and cause and effect, self awarness, perfection, equalites and mathematica patterns, our own experiance, language, and any other intermediary mental device for acertaining such a notion as "God" or omnipotence and reality end personal experience including synchroniciteies and their significance as well as the implications of a clandestined synrcronicity mandate conspiracy in popular music and films as it pertains to prophecy and weather such a system would require metadata (pandata) databases to control or weather the effect is inherent to intervalic comparison (ive seen thousands of them. with functioning closed captions) (ie "Oh, my God!" etc.))

In my character as the Oh the protagonist of absolute conviction of intentional industry synch as a "They LIVE" paranoid paraiah in the eye of the hollywood illuminatie's secret test to determine who should be king of the earth or some sht right, Mike tends to play devils advocate and we consider things like probabilitie and language functionaity as baselines for synch probability, and basically understanding the fundemental laws of synchronizing audio and video from a naturalist perspective.

so im proposing a hypothetical natural or unbiased baseline of synch events would be an equally probability of the number of catergories of interpreting an event.

in this hypothetically non-intentional synch there are 2 categories of events, mundane and significant. they must have the same probability.

the category of significance is then devides into equally likely positive and negative correlations (good synch moments versus bad synch moments)

it doesnt even matter if this relationships value is tru anywhere, its hypothetical. it only exist because its scientifically possibel that everything everwhere has been programmed to synch intentional. or just would. or that its completly subjective and based on the observer perhaps there is no accounting for it.

it doesnt matter the point of the hypnat kiss kind like hoe "I" is the square root of negative 1 its imaginary.

what it says thats really important is that positive = neagitive. that for ever good synch point or informational match theres one that is negative or condradictory or dumb or gross or what ever would be considered a disqualifications vias persoanl or standard confirmation bias. for most synching there are certain combos the disqualify a synch like an out off bounds or fould or non-truth. or imbaressing combo like.."this is right" = [no]. (lol!)

when you take what has been proven true in another synch theory, "error theory" which basically say that every possibility is in synch excpet the ones that are disqualified by PCB or SCB...

then you understand that a synch isnt just positive matching data but also avoided error data.

since the hypnat says that pos and neg are equally likely, and error theory say that a synch is a series of positives without a negative, then you can determine the probability of a series of positive with zero negatives of equal likelyhood occuring.

but all that really says is that the more error frre positives you have, the less likely. exponentially.

theres nothingto compare that to.

so finally in an act of are fkn joking cosmic bs

the only other probability to compare it to is 1 out of all number of possibilites, which is a stupid arbitrary value. it syas that the likely hood of a synch is somehow correlated to the length of the sources, or the number of potentially different positions.

its potentially false approximation. total field potential is used to set up the interval at which you would do a nested loop scan of data. it depends on margin of error. when it comes to error wedges, or a fk-up directly in front and inback of a synch position, the moe is fundementaly zero. when it comes to mathicng positive data, the margin of error is approx = to the attentiaon span or information-absobtion rate of the observer if not the actually rate of information output of the sources.

so the point ther is that errors are used to isolate singulare errorless positions that also synchronize positve data between sources.

its based on the theory that to synch anywhere wihtout a mistake regardeless of the positve outcomes is better than to "gain the world and lose your soul" or to you know get a great series of positives but then get some aggregious or imbaressing error lik ethat you love cock or you know want to kill puppies or some sht. it could say hitler is your granpa i dont know its just get that sht out of here nuh-uh.

so.

anyway total field theor is just like how many different intervals of comparison.

my instruction lists have start times that are quater second specific.

if im doing a nest ed loop scan of actuall dat for an error count i only use a 1 second interval.

so the runtime aritrary of one is 4 times bigger than the other, you see?

so if you if the hypothetically natural appex of error frree positive data chains based on equall 25% probabilites is 15p0n, thats a baseline

but since it is theoretically possible that if i let my proofing probability progaram keep running it could hit an infinite string of positive. ie it will always go up over a huge amount of iterations, we have have another comparitive, because we have no idea what a normal amount of possibilities is UNLESS we compare it to the arbitrary runtime probability. which is bullshit, BUT becuase we have seen nested loof error countong PROOF of singularly error free positions in a total field, that is to say exactly ONE right answer/startpoint that produces an error free synnch, proven by totally field comparison at 1 second intervals, the number is relavent to certain situations.

in the case of Repoman + Kid A+ (kid copied cd version(+2 seconds per track) there is exactly one position in the entire field of possible combinations that is error free, using an [Oh] personal confirmation error rulebase, when checking all possible positions thru nested loop anallysis of lyrical and closed caption data.

at a 1 second intervals, its say that the position is at least as unlikely as 1/2400. its a dumb way of looking at a synch, even tho the this process is extrememly accurate at locating synchs.

its also only as valid as the optimal position rule which has that obviosly one position is better than the rest. its a topological argument. did you know if you have to pieces of paper numbered with the same grid and you crumple on of them up and throw it on the other that mathmatically one number is always above itself? its like that.

so if you figure that this version of the hypnat as ive proven in the qbasic program at 25% hits a exponential improbability at about 15 positives zero negatives...

at 25% that means that our average song is about 60 increments. so at a conveniant/arbitrary run time of say 200 seconds, we can say our event time, our increment for the total field, is 3.5 seconds. its a decent number. can you count in quarter seconds? no. its just the interval that gives the hypnat an even distubution over the (song)runtime average

but we can use that against the total field to get the total field probability at that interval.

so if have an aavg 90 minute film thats 5400 seconds right? that 1/1542 3.5 second events.

i like 100 minutes as an avg. or 6000 seconds. at 3.5 = 1/1,714

SOOOOOO, IF! 1,714 hypnat iterations top off at 9-13 maxp0n, then, any synch, with more that 13 positive corelaries, with zero errors, could be considered improbable, rare, or potentially manmade, intentionall, or the product of a cdedo proxy/ hypercombatible system or intvalaic/mathematical rulebase.

dude.

not gonna proof read