The mode of conscious differentiation is the mode of immediate sense-experience: our experience of instantaneous change in an omnipresent experiential moment (the eternal "now."

The mode of conscious integration is the mode of cumulative change over time, or narrative (a more accurate term than "language." Our perception of stories of change over time (A duration.)

The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus states that integration and differentiation are inverse operations of the same process. When applied to these modes of perception it implies that these modes of perception are mutually necessary co-equals, neither representing a more fundamental view of reality. It is processually monistic but perceptually dualistic.

A suggested answer to the question "Why does calculus integration and differentiation correspond to modes of conscious perception?" is "Because the FToC is an expression of the metaphysical nature of change, and thus necessarily expressed in every domain from mathematics to perception."
Could calculus-based phenomenology be the key to the ancient and seemingly unachievable dream of making metaphysics a science?

>>16728997 (OP)
A derivative is the rate that something is changing. An integral is the accumulation of a quantity that has changed.

There's no deep spiritual meaning behind it. They're inverses of each other in the same way that squaring a square root yields the original value.

>>16729005
>A derivative is the rate that something is changing. An integral is the accumulation of a quantity that has changed.

Yes but the question is that whether this basic necessary fact of numerical and geometric change is also necessarily a fundamental fact of physical reality itself and expressed in analogous forms in every aspect of reality.

The fact that this creates a perfect model of our conscious perception of change as being divided into these two corresponding modalities does seem to imply such.

Integration and differentiation are more than just inverses though: they both give unique information about a function or phenomenon: how it is changing instantaneously, and the cumulative impact of those instantaneous changes.

>>16729448
Try again when you're less stoned buddy

>>16729448
I want to mention that I am not implying a mathematical Platonism, that the FToC somehow "codes" reality. Rather that it corresponds to a greater fundamental fact of physical reality that is also necessarily expressed mathematically as the FToC.

>>16729450
Try again when you've made a meaningful attempt to understand my perspective.
Feel free to ask questions about it in the quest to engage meaningfully with the topic.

>>16728997 (OP)
Shut the fuck up.

>>16728997 (OP)
>>16729448
maybe there are, like, integrals in your brain?

>>16729451
Hey anon, you clued into it.
Differentiation is the Aristotelian principle of individuation (prime matter), and integration is the principle of inteligibility (form). I only figured this out recently so I'm telling you this as a hint. There's a lot more to uncover, keep investigating.

>>16728997 (OP)
If those are your definitions then it's true directly from your definitions anon.

>>16729453
I did, you sound like every stoned first year who dropped out of my physics track. So I implore you to try again when you're less stoned and have a less meaningless non-word-soup "perspective."

>>16728997 (OP)
I know this is more of an admission of my own mental inability to grasp the message more than an accusation at porr delivery, but I'm still not sure I understand the ""¿λy?""

>>16728997 (OP)
ITT: pseuds try to rationalize anything they dont understand

>>16730211
Woah look out guys we've got straight edge Quentin over here, what new discoveries have you made with all that math you ate up and vomited out? Oh right, nothing. Now go and build another bridge for Maystone construction company, ya ant.

>>16728997 (OP)
Jesus christ, using big words doesn't make you smart.

I understand what you're saying, but this is all almost implicit and could be explained in like four sentences.

Get over yourself.

Here's some pointers for how to not sound like you're trying to sound smart and just sound smart:
https://themindcollection.com/orwells-writing-rules/

Good day.

>>16732523
Seriously, but OP is also complicit in this.

It seriously sounds like he asked a chat bot to write the most overcomplicated, pseudo-intellectual, redundant garbage possible for rage bait.

If that's what you did, OP, then good job and touche.