Response to Function of the Personification of Irreconcilable Differences

"What if the equation assessed itself?"

Splitting the potentially problematic threshold of 2^4, 16, a number which I have associated with the chains of eternity many times in the past (for reasons not entirely clear to me), nine are seen as external, seven are seen as internal. Self is not defined in this arrangement, only the equation, as the threshold, can be identified as an established/intrinsic perspective. In this way 2^3, 8, is twice bonded, once encompassed, and the resulting arrangements on either side of the threshold are much more difficult than the threshold itself to reduce further or represent geometrically. 

Could the concept of self be extrapolated from what remains? If this can occur, could it have occurred from a position where the equation assessing itself was all that initially existed, with no relevant position of "self" to initially imagine such a state? With the threshold of 2^x able to expand and contract so easily along logical and processing lines, could a scenario with no initial perspective of self and the current scenario where I possess a perspective of self be considered materially different, or could one of these forms of the equation always be transmuted into the other form by rearranging the details, confirming that each state is present within the fundamental equation? It feels as though this ebb and flow of self would have a limit, specifically when one "self" (perhaps more accurately "one perspective," taking into account the possibility of a selfless equation perspective) identifies an other that they are unwilling to lose, and this same will governs transmuting the equation, or at least possesses the means to block the equation from transmuting into a selfless (in this case "otherless") form. It would follow, then, that while the equation assessing itself would be a common enough juncture within the overall field, and a strong argument can be made for this state being the starting point of the equation at large, it would not be the ending point. Any time this appeared to be the end point, it feels as though the equation would cycle, after a time, and it would be measured as +1 cycle instead. This definition of "end" would be accurate from each perspective involved, as well as likely the definition of "beginning," for the overall equation. This feels like an effective and beautiful way to establish parallel and synchronized definitions of time between distinct perspectives. There is more that I could say here, including how the equation might find its intrinsic perspective of self crystallized through this process, but that feels like a story for another time.

Revelation 22:13

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."