Topology is the turning-into-itself of spatiality.
But the restrictions that topology articulates are not spatial restrictions.
Topology articulates combinatorial restrictions over spatiality.
In general topology indicates the restricted state of the spatial in face of the combinatorial. [*]
Topology, in this sense, is a ‘tautology’. [■]
[*] So for instance the ‘depth’ [+] that indicates the restricted state of 2D in face of 3D, is not the third dimension of 3D. [-] It is the restriction of the integer assignment of D. [%]
[+] The intuition of depth is the intuition of the combinatorial. It is the intuition of qualities as opposed to quantities. It’s actually the qualities themselves. [♡]
[-] Physics has been calling this a “holographic universe”. http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2017/01/holographic-universe.page [♢]
[%] Quantum Mechanics as Quantum Information (and only a little more) mentions this question about D. See. https://yersizseyler.wordpress.com/2017/01/24/ayrimcilik-enformel-fiziki-formel-elektronik/ One should deal with the formal restriction of physics with regards to Noether’s theorem and the symmetry & conservation relation of energy. [•]
[•] The “Quantum Computer” that people cite by referring to Feynman, is an illusion. Feynman has already called it “Simulating Physics With Computers”. One should ask questions like “How does one simulate the proportionalities?” How is something “due” or “undue”? [♤]
[♤] Transference gives context to such questions.
[■] The tautology articulated in “I think therefore I am” is this very topology.
[♢] Actually they merely succeed in referring to the spatial restrictions of the screens and the ‘paper’s given to their use. That’s why colleaguehood does not issue from what they call ‘peer-review’. They merely say “Let this be issued without any issue.”
[♡] Qualities by themselves remain silent, they are only intuited. So it is possible that they speak up and make their voice heard, not probable. They may or may not be probable. They are allowed to be or not be probable. Therefore one cannot say that they are probable. One can only say that they are possible.