If we keep moving factward, we will eventually return to where we started.
There exists some point which is both maximally more factish, and also, simultaneously, maximally less factish, than our current position.
Any point which is factward of us, is also, at the same time, antifactward of us. Any two positions are either equally factish (i.e., they are the same position), or they are both factward of each other.
I am not asserting that those aspects of “westward” apply to “factward”.
Analogies typically assert a similarity between only some, not all, aspects of the two analogous situations. But maybe those aspects of “westward” are so salient that they interfere with the analogy.
By this analogy, these things are true:
If we keep moving factward, we will eventually return to where we started.
There exists some point which is both maximally more factish, and also, simultaneously, maximally less factish, than our current position.
Any point which is factward of us, is also, at the same time, antifactward of us. Any two positions are either equally factish (i.e., they are the same position), or they are both factward of each other.
Intended? Or not?
I am not asserting that those aspects of “westward” apply to “factward”.
Analogies typically assert a similarity between only some, not all, aspects of the two analogous situations. But maybe those aspects of “westward” are so salient that they interfere with the analogy.
And moving factforward long enough we will go back to fact that earth is flat and then analogy does not work any more :/