G.O.D - From mathematics to culture

[Ostronomos]

There is no denying that we have a subjective nature. It is often in dispute about which is real - objective or subjective? But this distinction is in actuality illusory which has lead to a great deal of conflict in the sciences and philosophical discussions. The mind-matter dualism for example holds that only one of the two is the real reality and the other is the illusory "reality". Such a definitive conclusion would require mental gymnastics the likes of which humanity has never seen. I am proud to have been part of the contribution to the new science of G.O.D. Your nature is identical to the universe's syntactic structure.

As we see in the following music videos, G.O.D is pervasive in our culture. Despite His elusiveness.

 

[dybmh]

Your nature is identical to the universe's syntactic structure.

What do you mean: "Your nature"?

 

[Ostronomos]

What do you mean: "Your nature"?

Your innermost being.

 

[dybmh]

Your innermost being.

It's a lovely platitude. But that could be anything and/or nothing in unlimited different proportions.

I would expect a more detailed answer from someone who has thought this through.

 

[Ostronomos]

It's a lovely platitude. But that could be anything and/or nothing in unlimited different proportions.

I would expect a more detailed answer from someone who has thought this through.

It ranges from the physical to the spiritual, with a virtually non-existent barrier between the two in a higher dimensional reality. I previously interpreted your response as an attempt to cast doubt on my near axiomatic definition of "nature".

 

[dybmh]

It ranges from the physical to the spiritual, with a virtually non-existent barrier between the two in a higher dimensional reality. I previously interpreted your response as an attempt to cast doubt on my near axiomatic definition of "nature".

I just want to understand your point of view. We can't discuss anything if we aren't relating to each other. If we aren't relating to each other, we're not communicating. It will be unlikely that your words will convey a meaning in my mind which you intended, unless I'm lucky, I suppose, and I guess correctly.

Maybe I understand what you mean, but, I still cannot map that onto the "universe's syntactic structure".

Syntactic like syntax?

 

[Ostronomos]

I just want to understand your point of view. We can't discuss anything if we aren't relating to each other. If we aren't relating to each other, we're not communicating. It will be unlikely that your words will convey a meaning in my mind which you intended, unless I'm lucky, I suppose, and I guess correctly.

Maybe I understand what you mean, but, I still cannot map that onto the "universe's syntactic structure".

Syntactic like syntax?

Yes. Reality is a language of languages, a powerful one at that. It thus implies a syntax all its own. Any attempt to perceive reality would suggest that syntax inheres in reality. Otherwise it would result in a world of false objects (see my post titled: God reveals Himself to anyone at any time?), as syntax allows us to create meaning.

 

[Ostronomos]

Atheism is a failed attempt at reaching a logical conclusion on the existence of God (however one defines that).

My philosophical musings have lead me to the conclusion that God is real. They have been backed by the "smartest man in America", Christopher Langan. I even contributed to three of his papers. Providing the fundamental premise.

The so-called "cruel cosmic joke" is due to atheistic self-deception. We live in a simulation which displays intelligence on occasion, depending on whether one interacts with the higher dimensions, which contain the separation, thus effecting the non-separation.

My goal is to prove the existence of God and then unite the theory with science. In what can be called a perfect mapping between theory and reality.

 

[dybmh]

Yes. Reality is a language of languages, a powerful one at that. It thus implies a syntax all its own. Any attempt to perceive reality would suggest that syntax inheres in reality. Otherwise it would result in a world of false objects (see my post titled: God reveals Himself to anyone at any time?), as syntax allows us to create meaning.

Agreed. To confirm I understand what you mean, a practical example would be very helpful. Thank you for the reply.

 

[dybmh]

My goal is to prove the existence of God and then unite the theory with science.

I love it. Best wishes.