Cnoöns

In current metatheorics, cnoöns are described as the ideal, non‑spatiotemporal objects that proofs are about. Advocates within Protism place them in the Hylaean Theoric World, holding that minds can in some way apprehend these perfect forms. Critics—often identified with the Procians—counter that what counts as, say, a prime number is fixed by human definitions and culture; on that view, talk of a separate realm adds nothing testable.

Several arguments for cnoöns have been aired alongside present events. One line holds that the simplest way to account for the same theorems being proved, independently and without contradiction, across eras and even across different cosmi, is that the cnoöns really exist and are not of this causal domain. A related claim points to shared recognition of classical results: the Adrakhonic Theorem is true here and, by all indications, true for the visitors called the Geometers as well—reinforced by a widely circulated image of a geometric proof displayed on their craft. A previously floated suggestion that such an image had been forged into a phototype has since been withdrawn in light of clearer observations.

A historical gloss known as Clathrand’s Contention—attributed to Fraa Clathrand—links these ideas to the way information flows. In that reading, “givens” about the cnoöns reach us one‑way, like influences from the past: they can shape our thinking, but nothing in our present can alter them. Teachers illustrate the point with light‑bubble diagrams and, in broader expositions, fold it into Complex versus Simple Protist schemata.

Status and usage remain contested. Some speakers insist that only contact across worlds could ever bear on the question, while others take ongoing convergences in proof and shared mathematical signage as practical evidence. The term “cnoöns” is used in discussions that aim to keep the ontological question open while still giving a name to the ideal objects that proofs appear to address.

In later debate, some theorists recast perceptions of cnoöns as effects of a Hylaean Flow that percolates through a one‑way network of “more Hylaean” toward “less Hylaean” cosmi. On this account the Flow acts on matter generally but is only noticed when it perturbs nerve tissue, where it shows up to us as insights in pure theorics; the ever‑present Flow is compared to starlight at noon—always there, rarely seen.

Another line connects cnoöns to the behavior of closely neighboring worldtracks in Hemn Spaces. Conscious systems may selectively amplify faint inter‑cosmic “signals,” creating feedback that pulls related tracks together. In that telling, durable theoric structures—including familiar cnoöns—are attractors that recur across cosmi. Cautions were voiced that most feedback produces howl or chaos; stable attractors would be rare and highly tuned.

These proposals keep the ontological question open: cnoöns remain the ideal objects that proofs address, whether they are glimpsed via a Flow, stabilized by feedback among Narratives, or framed as conventions by syntactic skeptics.