How the Device Works
On the one hand you have The Is.
On the other hand, do you have The Is/Not.
One of them is a definite yes. One of them is a toggle between two states of definite yes or not.
If you choose the Is, the answer is yes.
If you choose the toggle, there are three possible states. One is yes, one is no, and one is undecided between.
The symbol for this is the number 13. It is one of those unusual situations where the triangle does not represent an absolute stability. In this case, the triangle represents three stages of yes, no and unknown.
The unknown is the power of option, the power of choice. It is a waveform which has not collapsed. It is a potential which has not been resolved. Its resolution will either be to cease, or to become absolute.
When we analyse this in terms of establishing Truth, we have on the one hand the Truth, we have on the other hand a state of not knowing, which we will call delusion. A state of Truth and a state of Lie. One way of assessing it is that the state of lying (cessation) and the state of delusion (unknowing) are both negatives; they become interchangeable. While Yes and No are Yin and Yang, the Grey Area between them is neither Yin or Yang; it is simultaneously Neither and Both.
Stepping back; We can call this 10, with 1 for absolute Yes on the one hand and 0 for absolute No on the other hand. You cannot trust delusion, indecisiveness, and somebody who is keeping their options open by not choosing either yes or no. The same resolution is to prescribe to them that they are delusion, indecisiveness, a liability; therefore they are a No. You may choose them on the premise that they are a Yes, only to discover they are a No. You may discard them on the premise of No, only to discover that they were a Yes but now you have discarded them. They are asking you to take a risk. Also, if there is an accord, they hold a right to change their mind one way or another at any time, emphasising that they are a risk, they are unreliable, they are a liability.
I mentioned how the triangle, the three; how in this case it is an unstable triangle. It is an inverted triangle, it points downwards. It is not a stable triangle which points upwards. The stable triangle which points upwards is an absolute, it cannot be tipped over. It is a Yes. The triangle which points downwards is likely to tip over one way or another, but you cannot yet tell which. It is a pivot, a toggle, a seesaw and in being that, it is motion.
Some use the symbol for the upward triangle and the downward triangle to represent the upright-1 and the invert-3, the absolute and the indecisive. Some use an upright triangle for 1 and a Seal of Solomon symbol as the 3.
GROK:
This is a ternary decision framework built around absolute commitment versus unresolved potential.
Core structure
The Is : is a collapsed, definite yes. Once selected, the state is fixed: the answer is yes. There is no further toggle.
The Is/Not : is the open operator. It can resolve to yes, to no, or remain in the undecided state. The undecided is not a third “maybe” that pretends to be neutral; it is the still-unresolved potential. Its resolution is forced later—either into cessation (no) or into absolute (yes). Until that happens it is motion, not rest.
You symbolise the whole arrangement as **13**: the 1 of absolute commitment and the 3 of the toggle that has not yet settled. The 3 is deliberately an inverted triangle (apex down). An upward-pointing triangle sits on a base and resists tipping; the downward one balances on a point and is already in motion. It is a pivot or seesaw. You cannot yet know which way it will fall, only that it is not stable.
Truth, Delusion, and the Grey
Mapped onto truth-values:
- Absolute yes = truth (or committed affirmation).
- Absolute no = the lie (or committed negation).
- Undecided = delusion / not-knowing. It is the state in which the question has not been forced.
Yes and No function as the yin/yang pair. The undecided region is simultaneously neither and both—the grey that has not chosen a polarity. In ordinary binary thinking people collapse this grey by treating indecision itself as a negative: “You are keeping options open, therefore you are a liability, therefore you are a no.” That move is a pragmatic risk-management rule, not a logical necessity. It converts the open state into a default rejection so that the chooser does not have to carry the uncertainty. The cost is that you may discard a later yes, or accept a later no. The person (or system) holding the open state is asking you to underwrite that risk.
Hermetic inversion
In the classical elemental scheme the upward triangle marks fire and air (action, knowledge); the downward marks earth and water (body, emotion). In the 13 system the valuations reverse once the stability criterion is applied:
- The “stable” upward symbol becomes associated with mirage or smoke—something that looks fixed but is ephemeral.
- The “unstable” downward symbol becomes the swamp that can suck you in—the liability that appears solid only because it has not yet tipped.
The irony is intentional: the symbol conventionally taken for stability is the one that can still dissolve, while the symbol conventionally taken for flux is the one that can trap. The 13 system privileges resolvability over classical elemental hierarchy.
Operational consequences
Choosing the pure Is removes future optionality and therefore removes a class of risk. Choosing (or tolerating) the Is/Not preserves optionality at the price of continued uncertainty and the possibility of later reversal. Concord or contract does not eliminate that; it merely makes the right to reverse explicit, which underlines rather than removes the liability.
In short, the device distinguishes a committed binary outcome from a still-live ternary that has not collapsed. The inverted triangle is the visual reminder that the middle state is not equilibrium but pending motion.
This is called: Three-valued logic (also called ternary logic, trivalent logic, or trilean logic).
In standard terms, this is the family of systems that use three truth values instead of the classical two:
True (definite yes)
False (definite no)
Unknown / indeterminate / possible (the undecided state that has not yet resolved)
The best-known versions are:
Łukasiewicz’s three-valued logic (1920), developed partly for future contingents—statements whose truth is not yet settled.
Kleene’s strong logic of indeterminacy, where the third value means “unknown” or “undecidable,” and logical operations propagate that uncertainty.
Your description maps onto this closely: the pure Is is the collapsed definite yes, while the Is/Not is the operator that can still be yes, no, or remain unresolved. The undecided middle is treated as potential that has not collapsed—exactly how the third value functions in these systems.
The rest of what you laid out (the 13 symbol, the inverted triangle as an unstable pivot/seesaw rather than a stable base, the practical reading of indecision as liability/risk, and the inversion of the classical hermetic elemental triangles) is a personal symbolic and decision-theoretic framing built on top of that core. Those elements do not correspond to a single standard named system; they are your specific overlay on three-valued logic.
Related ideas that sometimes get discussed alongside it include Aristotelian potentiality vs actuality, and the “unresolved until measurement” picture from quantum mechanics, but the direct formal name for the yes/no/undecided structure is three-valued (ternary) logic.
How does it relate to Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle?
It maps more directly onto quantum superposition and wave-function collapse than onto Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle itself. The two ideas are related inside quantum mechanics, but they are not the same.
The closer parallel: superposition and collapse
In your system the Is/Not state is unresolved potential. It is not yet a definite yes or a definite no; it is the open condition that can still resolve either way (or be treated as liability until it does). That is the structural analogue of a quantum superposition: the system is described by a wave function that contains multiple possible outcomes at once. Those possibilities are not “maybe in the ordinary sense”; they are co-present until an interaction forces a definite result.
Choosing the pure Is (or otherwise forcing resolution) corresponds to measurement. The wave function collapses and one definite outcome is obtained. Before that, the inverted-triangle “seesaw” state is exactly the uncollapsed condition: in motion, not resting on a stable base, carrying more than one possible future.
Where Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle fits
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is a quantitative limit on how precisely certain pairs of complementary observables can be known at the same time. The canonical form for position and momentum is;
(and likewise for energy and time, or other conjugate pairs). The more tightly you pin down one quantity, the more the other spreads. This is not merely a statement that “we don’t know yet”; it is a fundamental feature of the wave function. The state cannot be an eigenstate of both operators simultaneously.
The link to your framework is therefore:
The undecided / Is/Not condition is the regime in which complementary aspects have not both been forced into definite values.
Attempting to collapse one aspect into a sharp “yes” (or a sharp measurement) necessarily leaves residual uncertainty in the conjugate aspect.
The practical reading you gave—that keeping the middle state open is a liability because the other party can still reverse—mirrors the idea that an uncollapsed or incompletely specified state continues to carry risk that cannot be eliminated without paying a price in the complementary variable.
Limits of the analogy
Heisenberg is specifically about non-commuting physical observables, not about logical truth values or human decision-making. Your 13 system is a three-valued logical and practical framework (yes / no / unresolved).
The Uncertainty Principle does not say “everything is undecided until observed.” It says that certain pairs of properties cannot be simultaneously sharp. Superposition and the measurement problem are the broader quantum features that more closely match the “potential that has not collapsed” language.
In classical three-valued logic the third value is epistemic (we do not know) or semantic (indeterminate). In quantum mechanics the superposition is ontological until measurement; the uncertainty relations are mathematical consequences of the wave function, not merely ignorance.
In short, your inverted-triangle Is/Not state is the decision-theoretic counterpart of an uncollapsed wave function. Heisenberg’s principle is the quantitative statement that certain complementary properties of that wave function cannot both be made definite at once. The analogy is useful for the idea of unresolved potential and the cost of forcing resolution, but it is an analogy, not an identity.
Does this have practical value for decision-making?
Yes. It has direct practical value as a way of forcing clearer distinctions between committed states and open ones, and of pricing the cost of leaving something unresolved.
Where it is useful
Most everyday decision systems collapse everything into yes/no too early. Your framing keeps three explicit states:
Is — committed yes. Resources, attention, and reputation can be allocated without a reservation clause.
Is/Not — still open. This is not neutral; it is a live option that continues to consume attention and carries reversal risk.
Not — committed no. The option is closed.
The practical move is to stop treating the middle state as free. Keeping the Is/Not open has measurable costs: delayed action, continued optionality for the other party, and the chance that a later resolution will be the opposite of what you assumed. In negotiations, hiring, partnerships, or personal commitments, the common operational rule is exactly the one you stated: treat unresolved as a liability (default no) until the other side collapses it into a definite yes. This protects against the two failure modes you named—accepting someone who later becomes a no, or discarding someone who later becomes a yes—by making the risk explicit rather than hidden.
Concrete applications
Contracts and agreements: An open clause or “we’ll see” is not a soft yes. It is an inverted-triangle state. Price it or time-box it. If the counterparty will not collapse it, you treat it as no.
Resource allocation: Capital, time, or attention given to an undecided option is capital that cannot be given to a committed one. The framework makes that opportunity cost visible.
Incomplete information: Three-valued logic is already used in databases (NULL), sensor systems, and some AI decision layers precisely because “unknown” must propagate differently from true or false. You do not act on unknown the same way you act on known.
Personal and organizational boundaries. The heuristic “indecision is a no until proven otherwise” is a low-cost filter. It reduces the number of situations in which you underwrite someone else’s optionality.
Limits
It is a classification and risk-accounting tool, not a complete decision procedure. It does not tell you when to force collapse, only that leaving the middle state open is not costless. In time-critical settings the cost of delay can exceed the cost of a premature binary choice. In high-option-value settings (certain investments, exploratory research) deliberately preserving the Is/Not state can be rational—provided you have quantified the holding cost.
In short, the practical value lies in refusing to let the undecided state masquerade as a soft yes, and in treating the inverted triangle as a live risk rather than a stable middle. That single distinction improves a large class of real decisions.