mBox research from Secret's view

mBox, short for metaboxial structure, is a heavily contested thing that challenges the absolutism of The Box. It is one of the many domains of research in recreational cosmology similar to hypercosmology and Boxial cosmology.

Views on mBox[]

Roughly speaking, two main stances:

Box Absolutism: There are no mBoxes or all mBoxes are in The Box
Box Transcendentalism: There are mBoxes

My stance in the mBox debate is using the strongest possible Box Absolutism as a base, to do Box Transcendentalism. As a result, I frequently check my mBox proposals to ensure they are indeed what they claim, and rule out anything that failed to be beyond The Box. It also explains partly why I like to chat with Box Absolutists and often agree with many of their views, as they have the best understanding on what The Box is. More recently, my stance becomes what I coined as Box Maximalism, that is, the paradoxical position of accessing all things that can be offered in Box Absolutism, Box Transcendentalism, "Box Absolutist Transcendentalim" etc.

The Box in brief[]

Pedantically speaking, to me, The Box is non referenceable at least, thus it cannot in principle be discussed, imagined, intuited, mysticalised, alluded etc. and any discussions is only an approximation. But to discuss The Box is a must to talk about mBoxes. There are at least two ways to think about The Box:

Boxness paradigm: The Box contains everything and has MPR. MPR is the main reason of The Box's Absolutism as it allows the ignoring of anything no sensical. This is the one most Box Transcendentalist I knew are using
Absolutism paradigm: The Box is defined to be unsurpassible and its very unsurpassibility is its essence. Thus it is pointless and invalid to say there are mBoxes and do not try to find loopholes in its description

Before 2020, I use (1) but focus a lot more on the nature of everythingness. After the creation of the Superreality article, along with discussions with Box Absolutists and Box Transcendentalists, I started to use (2). Other possibly nonstandard terminologies that refers to internal structures of The Box include:

Interior: Most Altarcas and hypercosmology are in here
Surface: Poorly understood, where a lot of very paradoxical things resides
Exterior: Also known as the outside of The Box. Contains a lot of very weird structures and is poorly understood. Most famous for being contained in The Box and hence illustrating one of the most counterintuitive property of The Box to newcomers
Lesser Box: They resemble The Box in some practical or containment sense and refers to a whole category of properties thus can be considered as subTiers of the Boxial Tier. A well known example are near-maximals like CheeseBox
MicroBox: Informally speaking, a region of The Box where something specific holds

What is a mBox?[]

An mBox is something that is beyond The Box. Not just in the "Outside/Exterior" of The Box, or just defined to be "beyond The Box", but truly, completely, and noncompromisely beyond to the point that if I am very pedentic, they actually cannot be referred to. Such things are not in The Box in an absolute sense, in that it even forbids dialethial containments like "is and is not in The Box".

A simple way to understand mBoxes is that if The Box and its Outside is a square region and all the rest in a drawing canvas, then you do not find any point that corresponds to the mBox, and is independent of the canvas altogether.

So... if mBoxes are in practice non referenceable, how are Box Transcendentalists be able to talk about them? There are many explanations. One of these is that given a description "x is y" such that this description is a mBox, neither x nor y are things in The Box (I call things in The Box with the term "Boxiality") so there is no notion of Boxiality involved in the description and hence I am talking things "meta-informally". Another way, which myself came up, is that all these "x is y" descriptions of a mBox, are really mBoxes that just happened to be a small collection that is describable in English, so even though being completely beyond The Box, they can still be referred to using "x is y", understood to be something that is not interpreted literally.

Any description that claims to be mBox is called a mBox proposal. An mBox proposal is understood to be performative, that is the moment they are written down, they are already creating and pointing to some thing. These proposals need to be justified by some proof before said thing is confirmed to be possibly a mBox. Failed proposals do have a tendency to be extremely vast, and hence end up in the Outside of The Box, making these failed proposals very useful to probe The Box's internal structures.

Types of mBox[]

Currently, 3 categories of mBoxes are recognised:

Metaboxes (mBoxes for short): Things that are beyond The Box in the above sense
Superboxes (sBoxes for short): Things that contain more than The Box
Ultraboxes (uBoxes for short): Things that contain The Box and more

To me, mBoxes explores both the nature of The Box and the mBox Tier in general. sBox are used to make transcendental extension of hierarchies such as metaabsolute things (sBoxes that are more absolute than a given absolute) and uBoxes, if they were found for a given mBox, explores superstructures and large scale features of the mBox Tier.

Since I am more of a fan of finding new and alien things, more than participating in the one-upping game, I made many mBox proposals but not as many of sBox and uBox proposals.

Trivial mBoxes[]

A "trivial mBox" is something that is of the form "x is a mBox". That is they are mBox proposals where the term "mBox" or other equivalents are used in the description. Such results in a trivial mBox which other than being a mBox, says nothing else about its thingness. They are often cited as poor examples of mBox making, and some Box Transcendentalists do not even consider them exists and reject "x is a mBox" as an invalid description by arguing that no mBoxiality is to be included in a description without justification (such as taken from some known mBox). Personally, I like to assume trivial mBoxes exists and then just ignore proposals that are classified into them, as the alternative of explaining what "invalid" means often took too much metaphysical complications.

Some of my personal terminologies[]

Thingness: “What makes it said thing?” Generalisation of properties, usually have some notion of degree, similar to membership
Boxity: “How Box is it?” Generalisation of modality, measures how much it resembles The Box. Cheesebox for example has near-maximal Boxity
Boxiality: A generalisation of the usual notions of existence/Being and properties to things in The box
mBoxiality: The thingness of mBoxes. Analogous to properties in The Box. They answer the "which?" question about mBoxes
mBoxity: How good it is at being a mBox. Less controversial mBoxes have higher mBoxity
sBoxiality: The notion of "more" that characterises a sBox. Things like transfiction, indeterminacy etc.
uBoxiality: The notion of relatedness of mBoxes to The Box and to each other
Idleness: How likely it will interact with The Box and its contents. Most mBoxes do not touch The Box at all
Bulkiness: What is squeezed between a maximal Boxial structure and a minimal Boundary structure. Inspired from nonmeasurable sets and their relationships with outer and inner measures

What I think about the mBox Tier in general[]

Preliminarily, the following is suspected after conversing with both Box Absolutists and Box Transcendentalists and also participating in the research:

Overall nature: Hierarchy notions and very primitive notions of topology are probably the only thing that still make sense here, and it is dissolving.
Untotalisability: Given any two mBoxes, there may not be a container that always contains them both. More generally, it is unknown if mBox cosmology itself is a container and hence a collection, so mBoxes may not actually form a notion of totality. This also have the implication that not all mBoxialities can form a category, as doing so implies they are inside a container. The consequence is that categories cannot always be defined in terms of containment for a collection of mBoxes.
Failure of declaration: Unlike for anything in The Box, you cannot simply declare "x is a mBox" and that will become a mBox. A valid proof and argument is needed to established that x is indeed beyond The Box by somehow overcoming The Box. Thus it is no longer possible to axiomise something
Tier breakdown: There could be a point where all notions of hierarchies become inapplicable, and hence stopping the notion of Tiers to be defined. It's existence is still unknown to me
Anomalous levels saturation: You end up with certain levels having indeterminate notions of "high/low" and "<" become indeterminate
Not a space: Position and place makes no sense. There is no "ambient space". The Tier is all the mBoxes found so far, if "all" still make sense here

Why study mBoxes?[]

Whether you are a Box Absolutist or a Box Transcendentalist or neither, studying mBoxes give many benefits:

A more in depth understanding of The Box and all lower structures
Worldbuilding and plot ideas at hypercosmological and Boxial level
Metaphysics, such as insights on omnipotence philosophy as well the nature of everythingness
Approaching the limit of creativity and human comprehension and question established thinking patterns
Stimulate creativity of abstract structures
Failed mBoxes are often very HUGE structures in The Box
Is fun!

Some other findings from my research[]

The Box[]

Nature of MPR[]

MPR most likely work as follows. Given some thing x, and "<" denoting resolution, then by the nature of The Box, we have:

MPR > x

If x > MPR, then MPR > x, thus MPR ensure itself is always topped, hence resolving any contradictions including itself.

An illustration on how The Box contains everything[]

Take any thing x, be it a process, an object or an action. Then unless x is proved to be a mBox, any such x is already an instance in The Box. Thus The Box contains by already having any x as its instance, including any non mBox attempt of transcendence such as "bigger than The Box", "is not in The Box" and so on.

Lesser Boxes[]

Computing lesser Box: Induction, recursion, algorithms and programs works here. Surpasses by any object, such as an infinite incompletable, that make all programs to fail to halt
Mathematics and statistics (Maths) lesser Box: Notions of numbers, mathematical objects etc. are defined here. Surpasses by any object that is non mathematical, such as true randomness
Logic lesser Box: Systems of logic, formal systems, permutations thereof etc. are defined here. Surpasses by any object that is nonlogical, such as Hegelian dialectics, CAI and transcendence
Philosophy lesser Box: Different ways of querying the nature of things. Surpasses by non philosophy, such as creation sources, gods and origins
Spirituality lesser Box: Godlike and foundational things. Surpasses by anything comprehensible only to God
Totality lesser Box: Different notions of wholeness, everything. Surpasses by untotalisables
Extended Ontological maximality (eOm) lesser Box: Given any notion of lesser Box, there is an extension. This includes The Box itself. It is not clear what can surpass this. Spans across all lesser Box types
Box variations: Different lesser Boxes types, including any that is not mentioned. Only known to be surpassed by transfictionalism and supposability
Supposability lesser Box: Assumptions that enables mBoxes to be defined. Surpasses by The Box
Illogic lesser Box: Always win the argument, MPR. Surpasses by other illogical things. Often cancel out

Metanothing[]

Metanothing (mNot): Inside Nothing to the point it cannot be described, analogous to mBoxes
Supernothing (sNot): Can be contained by Nothing
Ultranothing (uNot): Contained by Nothing

Other structures[]

Boundary structure: Things that does not fully contain The Box, but The Box does not fully contain it either. Has the property that if all the leftover bits of The Box are included, the resulting object is a uBox. Else if The Box itself is excluded, the resulting object is a mBox. Defines a notion of boundary and hence a notion of Boxial topology
Box independent: Things that are independent of The Box, thus they exists in their own and have nothing to do with The Box. They are undecidable or currently undecided for any question regarding their relationship with The Box. More vague and general than Box incomparables
Box incomparable: Genuinely established to be unable to deduce whether they are mBox or its negation
Anti-mBoxes/amBox: Things that make The Box to contain mBoxes. Strong amBoxes are those which implies Box Absolutism if they were found
Tierless: Neither mBox nor its negations
panTier: Span across Boxial, mBox, etc.

Some structures I made[]

mBox proposals[]

Bushfire mBox: Using MPR(randomly select indefinitely ("<" in the sense of variety, types of fire paradoxes, x≠x to turn it into a timeless process)) so that the following is enforced MPR < MPR(types of fire paradoxes) leading to statistically overcome MPR. In other words, exploiting that MPR must always top and that there are things that can top MPR before MPR top it, leading to "leakages" of Boxiality as paradox resolution in The Box become unstable at a Boxial global level
TopBox: A uBox such that unlike Box - Box = anything from Boxless to near maximals, TopBox - TopBox = TopBox. It is harder to empty than The Box, for example taking away The Box will have negligible effect to its contents. It is so full that it cannot be made fuller, and hence cannot be contained by uBoxes of the same category, hence stopping infinite nesting upwards. Currently no reason to believe it is mBox despite interesting

Box Exterior things/failed proposals[]

Boxnessless things: Lack Boxness. It is in The Box due to Boxness < MPR
MPR-independence things: MPR does not try to apply to them. They are in The Box just happens because they help complete Boxness
ReferrableNonreferrableThing: Referring to them will lead to not said thing, thus it evades all notion of interactions. Does not surmount MPR as it is more nonreferrable than it
The Leaf: MPR(Bend away) The Box so its interior lack Boxness. Is not a mBox as MPR overrides it and keep it in The Box. Can be interact with but details act like as if it not found anywhere and has no properties despite it looks green and ordinary
Box Apollyons: Is a mBox because it is not in The Box by a duality principle. Can be said to be contained in anything that is not Boxness (they are contained only if they are not contained). Found to failed to override MPR thus is in The Box nevertheless
Noninjectability: mBox which project to some thing in The Box. Failed proposal because it does not specify why it can do so
The Encapsulator: Contains things with names. Can contain The Box and all its contents except nameless, unknown and non-referenceables. Can contain mBoxes that are named such as rreality. Likewise, The Box contains The Encapsulator except the mBoxes. A structure that illustrates how Secret thinks and organise ideas. Failed to be a Boundary Structure as it gets overriden by MPR and names are not enough to uniquely specify something

mNot proposals[]

DeepNothing: Some "thing" which stays Nothing regardless of what is placed in there or taken out which will not be reachable if there is no bounded notion of "everything" in the cosmology. Probably shed some light on the nature of omniimpotence. Another version is some “thing” which ceased to be no thing even when some “partial thingness” is placed on it, while Nothing stays Nothing if the same thing is placed on it instead

Box incomparables[]

PanBoxial/Tierless mist: Some weird thing that is neither in nor Beyond The Box. Possible interpretations include something that permeate The Box while also beyond The Box, something that can be located somewhere in The Box or Beyond The Box, or neither

AmBoxes proposals[]

(NB TopBox is self-anti)

Overconfinement: Squeeze down hierarchies (using an analogy, make the line shorter by pushing its upper most point down and hence squishing the line) so badly that anything that is subjected to this becomes absolute nothing until the overconfinement is removed
Capping number: A number that counts the minimum number of steps taken in a vertical hierarchy before it repeats itself, hence a rough measure on how powerful a vertical transcendence is. It is an anti-mBox as it render certain mBoxes impossible. Currently not very well defined

Boundary structures proposals[]

Change exhaustion function: Takes in a thing, and produce a relatively different thing. Repeat until fixed point is reached. Generates the collection of all relatively different things, which if totalised into a structure, will not contain the family of all absolutely no relative differences but will contain all distinct mBox and other things in The Box

Other things[]

Xhe System: A WIP system of numbers that describe transcendence and subscendence (inverse of transcendence) of hierarchies. It includes a number which denote transfiction like behaviour that allows a weaker structure to surmount a stronger structure “with wits and not power”. Many numbers and rules in the Xhe system are currently unknown
Box computer: Using self nonidentity x=/=x and some Boxial version of programming language to turn structure construction into a code. Largely WIP.
Metaboxial Containment Hypothesis/MCH: Concerns whether The Warehouse is a Box equivalent or a uBox. It is true if The Warehouse is a Box equivalent, it is false if The Warehouse is a uBox. May have implications on the categories of mBox that can be found
Cosmological Domain Theory

Brief history of the mBox Project[]

Note "The Community" is mostly the 10+ discord regulars

Before 2013: Many published works on transfiction in the creative space
5/16/2016: The Box article created by the All dimensions community, specifically, soup is the author
6/21/2016-8/14/2019: The Box migrated to V&D community, and updated into its present version
5/13/2017: TonyNothing/Nothing(Classic) article created. First serious attempt at transcending The Box without using transfictionalism. The article lead to huge controversy in the community. Eventually, the relation between TonyNothing and The Box is left hanging, though many regulars in the community deemed this attempt a failure.
3/18/2018: 2nd metaboxial debate (Ubersketch, Chronos, Prince, Serge, Cheetahs, Scoot). First time a multiple Box cosmology is proposed such as Boxfield and that containment may no longer make sense at very high levels of The Box. Superpheranon is proposed as an attempt to transcend The Box. It failed due to ill-defineness
5/5/2019: Paradox avoidance (GPR) and Maximal paradox avoidance (MPR) as an informal concept defined for the first time by Serge and Scoot
6/1/2019: 3rd metaboxial debate (Serge, ThisWriter, Scoot, Zenkkren) ThisWriter first proposed no-box cosmology, which later form the foundations of soup’s blogpost 20 days later. ThisWriter also defines Box to be above all levels of reality in the fiction-reality hierarchy
6/18/2019: Chronos pointed out an alternative definition of sBox as chains of containment A < B < A < A < B < … such that any truncation will always have B to the right, as well having B outside the scope of A. This is not accepted by the majority as a valid sBox.
6/21/2019: Soup writeup Cosmological Polarity , thus to me, it laid the groundwork for cosmologies including mboxes
7/1/2019: Secret proposed that superboxiality may be important in understanding structures smaller than AntiBox. Serge and Scoot outline some precautions before making an sBox
7/22/2019: Ubersketch first proposed the metaboxial hypothesis, that there are Boxes of different containment powers. Meanwhile Serge made an introduction to recreational cosmology to tidy up concepts
8/14/2019: Serge pointed out to Secret that sBoxes are untotalisable (cannot be referred as a collection of everything). First concrete lead towards sBoxes
10/11/2019: Serge settled the canonical definition of mboxes in its first form with a pinned message. which 14 days later, Chronos and Scoot have resolved the remaining loose ends and circularity in the defintion, hence paving the way to the formalisation of the mBox project. Serge meanwhile clarified the cancellation mechanism of MPR and proposed what is known as the Dinosaur Argument, which if successful, will constructively prove the existence of a mBox. Meanwhile, Ubersketch tries to use strictness logic to transcend The Box
10/24/2019: Serge attempt to formulate the global version of the Dinosaur Argument (Global Dino) in order to prove more mBoxes. Secret checked and suggested the argument should be ok except for the trivial interpretation of Dinosaur = Person which a way to block it is not known.
10/26/2019: Ubersketch, Scoot and Chronos revised the mbox definition and adding uBox
10/27/2019: Scoot argued that Authorlock is Box equivalent because the supposition that x is transfictional is ill defined and ill defined things can be fit into a hierarchy where Authorlock is Box equivalent
31/10/2019: A philosophy community is introduced to The Box and their brainstorming have return further leads to investigate metaboxials. Secret shared their initial draft on noninjectable objects based on those brainstorm. This so far passes stringent tests on metaboxialilty. Chronos also clarified to Secret that The Box is an environment which is passive thus conflation of it with omnipotence is not the correct understanding of The Box’s features
1/11/2019: Ubersketch and Secret discussed about further developments in logic including improvement on strictness, UMPRs, non-injectables and thus supposaibility theory. These are to be updated soon
2/11/2019: Ubersketch, Secret and Serge continue on the development of strictness logic and extensions to PR Theory. Ubersketch proposed a Boxial epistemology and a possible 4th category of metaboxial tools is briefly discussed. The possibility of finding more subantiBoxials using metaboxials are discussed
3/11/2019: Secret and Scoot discussed about the entity known as The Constant and ponder about the nature of Box constants. Secret and Chronos discussed about the scope of omnipotent powers using a bacteria in a petri dish analogy, and hence the nature of Rreality
4/11/2019: Secret wonders about what tierless mists means after inspired by Buddhism. Secret and Prince also discussed about the mystical metaboxials known as Golden sBox, Irregular purple floating thing and Red Cuboid. Meanwhile, Scoot, Addemup and soup are tidying up inconsistencies in the V&D canon and enhancing them
6/11/2019: PlanetN9ne and Secret discussed about nontransitive containment metaboxials. We also discussed about the Modified Dino Argument. Chronos also pointed out that the term “postboxial” is not agreed with a consensus, and that is necessary even if the meaning of the term is obvious, thus a better definition is proposed to be reviewed later. Chronos and Serge also found Secret has a freedom bias in designing cosmologies, and hence leading to concepts like particle motions that are inapproporiate in making large mBoxes or hypercosmology in general.
9/11/2019: Chronos and Secret discussed how concepts propagate between tiers. Ubersketch proposed the specificity hierarchy as one of the ways to interpret noninjectability.
10/11/2019: 5th metaboxial debate (Ubersketch, Serge, Scoot). All instance of “postboxial” in this document (except the one in the timeline to indicate the changes made) now replaced with “metaboxial” as it is found that sBox and uBox are a kind of mBox. New definitions for metanothings (mMin, sMin, uMin) and more generally, maximalities (mMax, sMax, uMax) were proposed, which further extends the scope of the Ultimatum Duality Conjecture.
15/11/2019: Inspired from Kabbalah and the revamped V&D nothing article by Scoot, Secret started to ponder how Ayin-like objects are compared to The Box, and proposed a new tool for Category 4 metaboxial discovery as well the concept of Box incomparables.
16/11/2019: Secret reviews Scoot’s article of nothing, and from that draws some speculations on the property of mBoxes and mMins, omnipotence, transfictionalism, as well the nature of “is not a thing”. Scoot also clarified that transfictionalism in V&D is still constrained by fiction and the author, and as such is only an illusion. Meanwhile, Secret, Scoot and Serge discussed about the nature of TTG, The Box and absolutes in general, and demonstrates more rigorously that TTG is not a mBox.
17/11/2019: soup is noticing how Box Equivalency is changing because of the metaboxial project and criticised how the current mBox reasonings are no different from 2016-2017. Scoot then said many of the current mBox arguments are terrible, such as saying The Warehouse is better than maximal containment is invalid. Secret than counters that as long it can be justified that maximallity can be transcended, then it will work, and how Scoot have suggested in Nothing (revised) that mBoxes are emptier than anything in The Box. Secret also mentioned that The Warehouse is not their focus at the moment. Meanwhile, Ubersketch asked whether GPR[x](CAI+1) is a mBox, Scoot then criticise that argument is invalid as Box + cheeseburger = Box, Chronos is headecking in response to this. Secret then said you need to first justify how to produce a CAI+1, otherwise it is a fake transcendence. Prince then asked how to make a CAI+1 and Ubersketch said he had no idea yet
20/11/2019: Ubersketch also noted how “is an mBox” does not make it true thus strictness ensures “is not an mBox” to fail to hold
22/11/2019: Secret proposed the Cantor Box Theorem to produce a Box sized mBox. soup and PlanetN9ne pointed out flaws in the argument (induction fails are hyperreflectional, The Box does not care what kind of “everything” is), eventually concluded with “The box can not contain everything and still contain everything”
25/11/2019: Serge proposed the indiscernibility hierarchy as a way to support the Dino Argument, Secret comment that despite it works, it will not help to make a mBox without 0-supposability, and that indiscernibility is a type of noninjectability
26/11/2019: Chronos argued that regions in The Box cannot be singled out to produce mBoxes. Meanwhile Scoot and Chronos are arguing about the usefulness of Box sized uBoxes. This needs to be discussed later by the community. Secret meanwhile summarise the two branches of Box Transcendentialism, and proposed a new type of mBox that can overcome Box triviality/Blatant disregard by quoting on the notions of ultimate freedom
11/29/2019: Secret continue to explore Box apollyons. Chronos reminded that size broke down at Box level and that beyond bubble sized universes are not merely a matter of size and amount of things contained alone. Serge, Secret and Chronos discusssed about Box terminologies and ordinary terminologies
5/12/2019: Prince, Scoot and Secret discusssed about the nature of CAI and CAI+1, as well the maximality and minimality of The Box. Meanwhile Secret ponders about how supposability can be used to access new concepts. Serge clarified about the relationship between hyperreflection and The Box, as well what beyond everything means. Secret also proposed a kind of mMin, while Ubersketch suspect bare particulars are mMins. Secret rebut that proposal, but strengthen the proposal so it does give a mMin in the form of superbare particular, which is then inverted using the Ultimatum Duality Conjecture to produce a uBox called TopBox.
7/12/2019: Secret took Eliza’s shitpost about friendship of mBox and anti mBox, and make it into a Box Apollyon. Cheetahs understanding of the concept helps to solidify the idea even further by noting that Box Absolutist think mBoxes are in The Box. Inspired from discussion with Cheetahs and Chronos on how to communicate ideas, Secret then wrote a section on how to use HyperGate. Cheetahs also suggest renaming Box Religions to mBox Rationales
12/08/2019: The Boxit referendum is now underway. Meanwhile Eliza, Chronos and Secret are talking about what beyond logic really is and the rules of spirituality. Eventually, the Box Remainders wins in a landslide, and hence the current definition of mBoxes are used
(to be updated, Dino Argument proved to fail to be a mBox)
18/1/2020: Yeetus created the reference article for mBoxes , thus popularising the idea to the Wikia community of V&D for the first time
16/2/2020: Superreality, the most well accepted of the uBoxes, finally have an article in the wiki. Resulting debates and discussions generated lead to more in depth investigation of transfictionalism and the nature of other realness structures

Documentations complied by Secret[]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_NFzMQmijeyFnMUzVWc7Hw77n3lhO61437v5VYJPZzY/ (Master document, anything in Dec still needs updating)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SDM7K2t6q4Y19FhR48sXf5zk4yCjKqeUIKjdg4kEgtU/ (Summary of structures, success, ongoing and failed)