With the conception of momental space comes the concentration on order.
Order however is mysterious.The concept is not divisible from motion.
If we are to explain order we need to explain notion as a priori.
I made motion axiomatic to the set FS because i did not want to have a motive "force" as a separate wntity to get things going, So i have no explanation of motion, only the observation that it is apprehendable. Momental space means that motion is apprehendable moment by moment.
Sequence is following the natural motion or imposing a motion that may or may not be "natural", or inherent in the momental constructs.
It mat have been a misconception that momental constructs are memories. They are really data constructs, or data sets of current information .
Further consideration of order and motion brings me to sequence, as stated, but no prior notion or motion indeed. Sequence cannot be divided from motion nor motion from sequence. They arise therefore from the same empirical experience and the same innate processing, from the same matrix : Shunya.
Shunya is the foundation of all actuality, all possibility,all probability and all consistency and all symmetry, but it is the summetria of all things not the cause. Causative paradigms are inadequate for Shunya.
With an axiomatic basis of ceaseles motion i can derive all else, but i cannot found all things on anything else more general. Shunya thus consists in this attribute of ceaseless motion and the implication is of "space". But space here may be substituted by any substance one can conceive as long as it is entire in its substitution. Thus i do not allow for anything more fundamental than"space" and that "space" to be in ceaseless motion.
So locked deep in my axiom is a motion of space relative to some region or regions in itself. Whether i can emirically find this state of affairs is the question. Whether it is , independent of any conscious finding of it is another. But certainly the two are indivisibly linked in any exposition, both the axiomatic necessity of it and the innate apprehension of it.
This being the case it is inescapable that the axiom and the apprehender both adduce within motion relativity, sequence and comparison with distinctions able to be compared. Thus i cannot advance to any more fundamental foundation than this construct which has many attributes, and to which more may be attributable.
Thus region of any scale, relative motion of any scale, relative density of any scale all seem to be attributes necessary to the derivation all things.
Consequent upon region is boundary whether hard or softly delineated. Consequent on motion is sequence, and freedom of order in sequence. And with such things immediately come comparison of regions and motions relative to regions and sequences relative to sequences, and degrees of freedom of sequence order by comparion with freedom of sequence order.
We begin to see how dynamically the axiomatic conception begins to multiply in attributes from these foundations, as a consequence of an inquiring and dynamic comparing of "what needs to be" , and what "deduces from".
The induction of motion reduces to 3 sorts: Rotational, Rotational and expanding/contracting and reflective in a region. From these all other motions may be derived, and thus they are deemed consequent to motion in the foundation of Shunya. The dreadful summetria of Shunya consists in these sequences inherent in motion.
So at any scale i can expect relativity of motion and sequence in motion, periodicity in motion and sequence, and a stochastic consequence to this structural set of attributes in Shunya. Far from chaos i perceive a potential for complexity.
I have been advised By Brahmagupta after the chinese philosophy of Yin and Yang to expect aanti symmetric summetria from Shunya, and that being the case to expect nothing returning to shunya until it rejoins with its antisymmetric partner. But this implies either the same sequence of motions resulting in at least 2 antisymetric outcomes or two sequences antisymmetric to one another producing outcomes.
The question of synchronisation arises naturally, with the first case presumably being inherently synchronous and the second being questionably synchronous except in a statistical relation.
At this level some recent investigations into the second law of thermodynamics allows me to conclude that there is aan arrow of heat flow but no particular arrow of "time" as time has no sensible universal properties. Heat flow is a case in point for duration rather than chronology. Equilibrium is achieved and the arrow of heat flow disappears.
Equilibrium is also a factor of reality requiring opposing and exact aggregations of sequence and motion to effect. Thus in shunya regions may appear as regions where motion and sequence exactly conflict, and the occurrence of this synchronicity may also be as a result of statistical densities of motion states, more than a common origin of this relation, as his would presumably have not required any motion or sequence in the first place.
Thus gradually observations are brought into the attribution of the foundational characteristics of Shunya, in ordr to thus proceed logically to the description and explanation of all things.
This is surely tautological, but that in the end is the nature of all models. The question is does the Tautology give insight and technological advantage over any other tautology?
In reading Hamilton's Essay on "the science of Pure Time" i find myself making the same points and considerations as he did.
We disagree on a few points at this stage but nothing fundamental, well except i do not accept the common notion of "time", preferring sequence and motion which are fundamentally spatial conceptions, but not static ones. There is no doubt that in all but name we describe the same things, but i am less hindered by a conception i do not have empirical evidence of, and which in any case i can construct from motions as and when needed.
This leads to the first aggregation structure being an inate sequence. However there are also constructed sequences and these are distinguishable by the inherent motions with which they are perceived and constructed.
Thus i may perceive a sequence of momental data sets and adopt their flowing order o adopt some sampling of that order or some sequence of my own devising. In so doing i move from a more "objective" mensuration to a more "subjective" modeling or manipulation of the data. The more objective the more my model the set FS measures the set notFS.
The first action is to choose and accept or construct a sequence of data. This appears to be the very first step of aggregation.