• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The True Origin of Reality

Quadrivium

Member
I've responded to a few threads with this information, but want to make an official thread dedicated to this topic.

The notion of not being able to describe or define reality clearly is no longer an issue. The recent advances in various fields have unknowingly shed light on the truth of our origin. There's definable and provable information, and once someone understands it, it naturally becomes very intuitive and enriching.

I welcome anyone to ask questions at all regarding this, and hopefully I'll be able to point you in the right direction to understanding. So here it is...

The truth of origin and reality actually is known, describable, and provable, but requires understanding some things that are not easy to grasp for everyone.

First it helps to understand a fundamental limit of reality. Exact duplication of information is an impossibility, everything is variation otherwise there's no coherence to distinguish definable identity. If an essence were to be an exact duplicate of itself it would just be the original essence leaving no difference for variation, hence no relative change and no synthesis of information. Kind of like how two things cant occupy the same space without some sort of collision.

Next we quickly define "nothing", (which it's okay to not "believe" in) we understand any true origin of something must be understood as being of beyond the horizon of being something, hence the term nothing. Nothing agreeably isn't anything at all though that's an understatement, to maintain this identity of having no identity, is still to maintain an identity. This is a recursive self-reference paradox.

Trifold synthesis is the foundation for what makes interpreting and expressing information possible.

A good analogy to understand this (and appropriate for this topic) is the religious trinities. In Christianity god is constructed of three elements but not divisible by them. The father, the son, the holy ghost. These are all 3 very separate things, but together god is expressed. In Hinduism this same concept is described as Trimurati. Here we have Brahma being constructed of Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu, but all are Brahma. These gods are personifications of creation, destruction, and maintenance. So this 'bits of three to make one' concept is the main point of this analogy. Means nothing right now, I'm just trying to begin the illustration.

The second analogy which is more immediately related is injective function. It's a logical concept that describes a way to preserve identity. It requires 3 elements, (x) = x ≠ y. Or this can be described in words, we say a functions' domain can never be mapped to it's codomain. There's 3 elements required here (1. function, 2. functions' domain, 3. functions' codomain) To preserve identity of functioning or coherent information there must be something comparably unique to allow for any identification to be possible.

So in the hypothetical case you are left with nothingness, have no fear because it's impossible. This paradox of nothingness actually manifests a trifold synthesis of information. Fractal inflation then occurs from the recursive inverse deduction of an absolute identity (specifically absolute nothingness). And we can prove that nothingness is real.

Since you are an occurrence, a set of information, an existence of some sort, absolute absence is irrational as there's at least been you to compare to. However since there's always at least the essence of your occurrence to compare to, an absolute absence of absolute absence is actually rational, and not just a linguistic mishap, rather an intensional paradox of nature.

This is how you get everything from nothing. To understand beyond that, to visualize the evolution of space, and eventually our cognitive minds from this intangible information you have to study quaternions and monads, and read up on Kant, Dirac, Schrodinger, Hamilton, Hofstadter, Hegel. You need to understand the principles behind holography and the wave structure of matter. Then with all that understanding just look at the world, the cosmos, the microcosmos, the nature, and you'll see the true origin of fractally recursive self-reference resonant in all things even in our behaviors and cultures, etc...

Only a handful of people probably grasp this, and even the ones that know this don't quite know they know. Its hard to accept nothing is actual when it actually isn't. It's difficult to think backwards and invertedly about the same thing. It sounds insane to some because it's like redundant nonsense, nonetheless its why you get infinity when you divide by zero. Its why we have any self-reference paradox or any measurement problem.

If you want to read a recent philosophical paper that does a fantastic job of describing the quantum computing aspect of monads in relation to a theory of everything, look up Darius Malys. Or if you want a mathematical point of view from wave structure theorists about quaternions look up Geoff Hasslhurst or Milo Wolff. Or for cool wave physics graphics look up Gabriel LaFreniere. If you want me to explain more or something, ask:)

Here's some clarifications that might help answer some immediate questioning.

Absolute absence is irrational yes. this is a paradox in its own and that is why it is irrational. its difficult to grasp I know, but an absolute absence of absolute absence is whats provable, by the fact that anything exists at all. It doesn't matter if you think you existed before or not, just the fact that you have ever existed negates absolute absence. We're speaking of absolutes not just conceptual absence during a single moment but of all moments.

Yes man made math, but math also made man. Likewise the universe made man, and the universe made math, and man made the universe. This is all literal. The problem is in thinking of things as being separate, while they are actually interconnected as only one system of the totality of everything, which also isn't actually anything on the surface. All the essences are inside this nothingness (or unattainable absoluteness).

See man made math, from observing consistencies in nature (the universe)
Math also made man, most immediately you were conceived through human reproduction. This is a very complex mechanism involving molecular chemistry which is driven by quantum mechanics, which is driven by the very mathematical logic of monads and quaternions I refer to. Of course this doesn't clearly describe anything in detail because there's so much involved in all of these fields but you get the point.

Maybe the biggest concern is how does the mind arise in man to be able to create the math? Well it's all more of the same recursive self-referencing that is the logic behind preserving identity to begin with, only filtered through countless systems of the same fundamental concept of trifold synthesis.

Likewise man made the universe. Only self-aware entities will be self-aware. Coherence of self or world is only available for the self-aware and coherent. This is why everything seems so perfect for life. The planets in the right place the temperatures right, all the right things happened just perfectly, any different and we wouldn't be here. Exactly, that's why we are here. We would only be where we could be.

And yes in the real world if you divide by zero you have what you started with, which is everything (potential infinity). Your mind develops categories, but they are subjective to only your mind. Categories are analogous to categories of other minds. This is the same for all things. The most fundamental form of this being all monads in relation to all monads. In your mind you can perceive dividing something you can experience the interpretation of it splitting into multiple unique new pieces derived from its former whole self. But in reality its just a bunch of waves splashing around, waves of space driven by quaternions. You could never divide something into a smallest piece (or number) because there's also not actually anything there, it (space) is just in our minds. I know that last part probably sounds the most insane. But that's the complexity of the world, and the truth is the truth, though it may take time to wrap any large populations heads around understanding, especially if it conflicts with prior belief.

And there is no reason to not recognize this absoluteness as god. Nonetheless its truth is in being the origin of essence, not a personified creator of man.
 

Sir Doom

Cooler than most of you
Language cannot create actual paradoxes. Paradoxes in language are due to human error. They are typically called contradictions. Self-reference is a fallacy, not a paradox.

Also, mathematics does not dictate reality. It only describes it. Math, in and of itself, is a language. Imperfect and fallible as the humans who utilize it.

Further, if each thing is also everything and also nothing, I have no idea why you think identity is possible at all. You are literally describing everything as everything it isn't. That nullifies the very idea of identity and renders communication utterly nonsensical.

Additionally, the language you use is what creates the 'paradoxes' that you are seeing. Saying things like, "Absolute absence of absolute absence' and 'identity of no identity' are completely unnecessary and only serve to create a contradiction as opposed to actually describing reality. There are a billion ways to express what 'nothing' is without creating the 'paradox' you are creating.

Finally, I think its hilariously ironic that you describe the idea as 'intuitive' and then go on to say that I need to grasp higher mathematics and read the works of 6 different philosophers to grasp it. Someone is demonstrating the limitations of human language very well indeed.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Staff member
Premium Member
Whatever "caused" reality, by definition, wasn't real.
 

Quadrivium

Member
I see no reason to believe that. We are clearly limited in knowledge, seems pretty incongruent with that statement.

"Man made the universe"...

is analogous to the fact that coherence requires realization. Certainly an infinity of potential exists regardless of mind, but the universe is actual, not merely potential. Only essences that are realized will be of any coherence. In this sense only self aware minds offer any possibility for the realization of actuality.


"Only self aware entities will be self aware"...

Not sure how to make this any clearer. It's like saying only something that's red will be red, otherwise if it were something else it would then be something else. You can't be self-aware if you don't possess an awareness of self.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
"Man made the universe"...

is analogous to the fact that coherence requires realization. Certainly an infinity of potential exists regardless of mind, but the universe is actual, not merely potential. Only essences that are realized will be of any coherence. In this sense only self aware minds offer any possibility for the realization of actuality.


"Only self aware entities will be self aware"...

Not sure how to make this any clearer. It's like saying only something that's red will be red, otherwise if it were something else it would then be something else. You can't be self-aware if you don't possess an awareness of self.
The problem with this is that we don't seem to be aware of entire 'creation'. It's just a simple matter of inference from there to get to 'we didn't create this'.
 

Sir Doom

Cooler than most of you
"Man made the universe"...

is analogous to the fact that coherence requires realization. Certainly an infinity of potential exists regardless of mind, but the universe is actual, not merely potential. Only essences that are realized will be of any coherence. In this sense only self aware minds offer any possibility for the realization of actuality.

Coherence is a human perception. Reality requires neither humans nor their subjective notions of reality such as 'coherence'.

"Only self aware entities will be self aware"...

Not sure how to make this any clearer. It's like saying only something that's red will be red, otherwise if it were something else it would then be something else. You can't be self-aware if you don't possess an awareness of self.

A=A huh? Probably should have remembered that when you were saying that everything is everything else and nothing all at once.
 

Quadrivium

Member
Language cannot create actual paradoxes. Paradoxes in language are due to human error. They are typically called contradictions. Self-reference is a fallacy, not a paradox.

Also, mathematics does not dictate reality. It only describes it. Math, in and of itself, is a language. Imperfect and fallible as the humans who utilize it.

Further, if each thing is also everything and also nothing, I have no idea why you think identity is possible at all. You are literally describing everything as everything it isn't. That nullifies the very idea of identity and renders communication utterly nonsensical.

Additionally, the language you use is what creates the 'paradoxes' that you are seeing. Saying things like, "Absolute absence of absolute absence' and 'identity of no identity' are completely unnecessary and only serve to create a contradiction as opposed to actually describing reality. There are a billion ways to express what 'nothing' is without creating the 'paradox' you are creating.

Finally, I think its hilariously ironic that you describe the idea as 'intuitive' and then go on to say that I need to grasp higher mathematics and read the works of 6 different philosophers to grasp it. Someone is demonstrating the limitations of human language very well indeed.

Language cannot create paradox that is correct. Languages don't create anything except analogous expression. The expression of paradox is expressed in language.

Self-reference is not a fallacy. I can refer to my self just fine, so I'm not sure I understand the argument of this part.

Math is a language. It's a language that maps natures consistent behavior into algebraic expression so our minds can compute and translate it into remapping of whatever analogies we wish to express. Dirac deduced reality from mathematics in the 1920's. So to say math doesn't dictate reality is incorrect. It doesn't dictate reality alone, but everything including math does in fact dictate reality. Again your thinking of things as being actually separate, but they are only separate through interpretation. The truth is that they are of one system. Hegel also discovered this in the early 1800's.

I know its difficult to understand. Yes everything is also of nothing but you must realize that nothing isn't anything at all. This does appear to mirror describing everything as everything isn't. That is why it seems redundant and is difficult to grasp at first. It might help to understand how information is deduced from potential infinity. Essences are not added upon inflation, that actually doesn't make sense. We perceive inflation as things expanding, but its actually the opposite. Relativity expands as information is deduced from everything. The deeper inward the more is realized of what was outward. Another good analogy of this is the human eye and time. Light enters the eye and its inverted impression is received. Through a series of mechanisms the received image is inverted back before its mapped to our mental projection. The same is similar with the realization of everything not just color or depth. We perceive a forward momentum through time, but this is a remapping of inverted time. This can be maybe more easily understood by reading about reverse computation. Its what makes it possible to define finite identity from infinite possibility.

The language used is to express the paradoxes expressed in reality. You can study paraconsitency and intensional paradox to understand these things better. I'm not just making this stuff up, there's tons of credible sources out there regarding these things. I don't know how to make that part clearer. If you don't believe in language or math as having any bearing on reality, then you probably don't need to be concerned with these things anyways I suppose.

It is intuitive once understood, but unfamiliar before. Just as the world being round rather than flat, or the earth orbiting the sun rather than the other way around, is intuitive now, but was once unheard of.
 

Sir Doom

Cooler than most of you
Language cannot create paradox that is correct. Languages don't create anything except analogous expression. The expression of paradox is expressed in language.

But in this case the 'paradox' you present exists in the language you use and not in the reality you are describing. That means it isn't a paradox at all and is instead merely poor word usage.

Self-reference is not a fallacy. I can refer to my self just fine, so I'm not sure I understand the argument of this part.
This is what I mean:

Quadrivium said:
Next we quickly define "nothing", (which it's okay to not "believe" in) we understand any true origin of something must be understood as being of beyond the horizon of being something, hence the term nothing. Nothing agreeably isn't anything at all though that's an understatement, to maintain this identity of having no identity, is still to maintain an identity. This is a recursive self-reference paradox.

Its not a paradox, its a logical fallacy born of your poor choice of words. If you reword your description of 'nothing' the 'paradox' magically disappears.

Math is a language. It's a language that maps natures consistent behavior into algebraic expression so our minds can compute and translate it into remapping of whatever analogies we wish to express. Dirac deduced reality from mathematics in the 1920's. So to say math doesn't dictate reality is incorrect.
No, it isn't. Deduction is a process of observation. The universe did not fall in line with Dirac's conclusions. It was most definitely the other way around.

It doesn't dictate reality alone, but everything including math does in fact dictate reality. Again your thinking of things as being actually separate, but they are only separate through interpretation. The truth is that they are of one system. Hegel also discovered this in the early 1800's.
No, reality is not dictated at all. I'm not considering things 'separately' to come to this conclusion. I am simply observing the reality I live in and describing it with language. In this case, I observe math existing in the meaty skulls of human beings and nowhere else.

I know its difficult to understand. Yes everything is also of nothing but you must realize that nothing isn't anything at all. This does appear to mirror describing everything as everything isn't. That is why it seems redundant and is difficult to grasp at first.
It is not difficult to understand, nor is it redundant. Its a blatant contradiction. Redundancy would be the opposite of that. Redundant would be something like, "Nothing is the lack of something and the lack of something else." That's redundant. You are saying a contradiction, "Everything is nothing." These two terms are polar opposites and can't be the same thing by definition. So, either they are not the same thing at all or both terms are meaningless. By the way, that was deduction in action in case you were wondering what 'deduction' actually means.

It might help to understand how information is deduced from potential infinity. Essences are not added upon inflation, that actually doesn't make sense.
I have no idea what you mean by 'essences' in this context. Please define this term.

We perceive inflation as things expanding, but its actually the opposite.
The opposite of inflation is deflation. Or compression, if you prefer. In any case, I don't know why you keep insisting that words don't mean what they mean and actually mean the opposite of what they mean.

Relativity expands as information is deduced from everything. The deeper inward the more is realized of what was outward. Another good analogy of this is the human eye and time. Light enters the eye and its inverted impression is received. Through a series of mechanisms the received image is inverted back before its mapped to our mental projection. The same is similar with the realization of everything not just color or depth. We perceive a forward momentum through time, but this is a remapping of inverted time.
So, you think that because light becomes inverted in the eye and our brain is forced to revert it that time is actually flowing backwards and our brain is inverting that as well?

This can be maybe more easily understood by reading about reverse computation. Its what makes it possible to define finite identity from infinite possibility.
I was pretty sure I knew what reverse computation was, but I went ahead and skimmed the wiki on it all the same. I didn't see anything at all about defining finite identity from infinite possibility. Instead, it seems to be a method of limiting the waste of energy through heat in computers. You'll have to just explain the connection to me after all. Hopefully, you actually know what you mean this time and additionally know the proper terminology to convey said knowledge.

The language used is to express the paradoxes expressed in reality. You can study paraconsitency and intensional paradox to understand these things better.
I'm pretty sure I have a firm grasp on it. A paradox arising from language alone is not a paradox at all. You are not describing reality, you are distorting it to support your beliefs by specifically using contradictory terminology as if you are forced to do so by the nature of what you are describing. That is not the case. You can use many different descriptions that are not contradictory and then your paradox goes bye bye. That means it not a real paradox. In this case its not even a logical paradox like many other so-called self-referencing paradoxes. Its just poor word usage in an attempt to pigeon-hole reality into the box you've made for it. Too bad it doesn't work that way, I'd be king of the universe by now.

I'm not just making this stuff up, there's tons of credible sources out there regarding these things.
Well, I'm not debating tons of credible sources. I'm debating you. Feel free to invite as many of those credible sources to the forum, they can have free account as far as I know. I'd be happy to debate them right here. Alternatively, YOU can go look for these credible sources yourself and present them as evidence and I'll go ahead and debunk all that nonsense, too. Or... possibly accept a rational explanation of whatever it is you think is going on here. Its entirely likely that you are talking about something totally rational in a totally irrational manner. It really doesn't seem like it... but its possible. Your court... the ball is in it.

I don't know how to make that part clearer. If you don't believe in language or math as having any bearing on reality, then you probably don't need to be concerned with these things anyways I suppose.
Naming a cow a cow does not make it a cow. It was always a cow. The name is totally irrelevant. Unless you happen to be a human trying to tell another human to stop pushing over your cows. That's what language is for. Communicating with other humans... and sometimes other animals. Its utterly useless for anything else. Please demonstrate how I am wrong about this.

It is intuitive once understood, but unfamiliar before. Just as the world being round rather than flat, or the earth orbiting the sun rather than the other way around, is intuitive now, but was once unheard of.
Dude... intuitive means it is understood very easily. It doesn't mean its easy to understand once you understand it, that doesn't make any sense. The Earth orbiting the sun is NOT intuitive at all, otherwise we would have figured that out a few thousand years ago. Instead, we spent millenia thinking all kinds of wrong things and it wasn't until we became profoundly curious about the cosmos AND additionally invented the tools to look at it more closely AND THEN it took centuries more to actually realize it. That's the OPPOSITE of intuitive. That's centuries of learned people the world over failing to understand. Children are not born and look at the sun and say, "Well, we're obviously orbiting that..." that's what it would be like if it was intuitive. Its nothing like intuitive. Intuitive is something like, "If I want to quote someone on a forum, I should probably try clicking this button that says "quote" on it."
 

Password

Member
Remember the God we imagined as children? I use to imagine He did not want to be alone and so created us. Now that I'm older I'm imagining Him still experiencing things through us as well...which is fine with me.*
Imagine our computers as minds. We make shortcuts for our personal ones all the time.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I see no reason to believe that. We are clearly limited in knowledge, seems pretty incongruent with that statement.

I would take that position as well. I can't even imagine what remains undiscovered that lies beyond our perception including the capabilities. and capacity our present technology.has to offer.

Someday perhaps, but certainly not now.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
I think we know enough, yet enough is never enough. I am satisfied with the current state of our knowledge. Sure we can always know more but that will never end, we will continue to strive to know more. It is quite remarkable how much science has shown, just crazy what they are figuring out.
 

Quadrivium

Member
The problem with this is that we don't seem to be aware of entire 'creation'. It's just a simple matter of inference from there to get to 'we didn't create this'.

This is only true in the case that "we" is entirely separate from "this". If that were true then relativity would not be possible. Relativity is information in relation to information. All monads in relation to all monads. Again this was proven in the 1800's, Hegel.
 

Quadrivium

Member
Coherence is a human perception. Reality requires neither humans nor their subjective notions of reality such as 'coherence'.

A=A huh? Probably should have remembered that when you were saying that everything is everything else and nothing all at once.

Coherence is perception, not just human perception. Reality does not require humans, correct. Realized coherence though does require minds to realize it.

A=A, yes. Everything = Everything. Everything + Nothing is still Everything. [A+0=A] = [A=A]
 

Sir Doom

Cooler than most of you
Coherence is perception, not just human perception.

If there are other beings with the concept 'coherence' it is not apparent. The fact that this concept exists does not insist it must be universal among all beings. In fact, I'd be willing to be there are plenty of humans who have no idea what coherence is at all. These people do not have the concept 'coherence'. And it isn't that coherence is perception. It is a perception. As in it is something that someone perceives. It never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever exists outside of the human mind (or other minds if you set on irrationally assuming that).

Reality does not require humans, correct.

I know its correct, that's why I said it. This flies in the face of the notion that humans created the universe, which is what you said. That is patently false.

Realized coherence though does require minds to realize it.

Naturally, to be realized a thing must be realized. Do you find this statement meaningful? It isn't.

A=A, yes. Everything = Everything. Everything + Nothing is still Everything. [A+0=A] = [A=A]

Everything added to nothing (that is NOT ADDING) is not the same as everything actually simultaneously being nothing as well, which is what you said previously.

Your previous statement was not A + 0 = A, but rather A =/= A, or A = Not A

This new expression that A + 0 = A is identical to A = A. Talking about nothing being added to everything is meaningless. That is not what you've been saying at all. In fact, all previous posts have been eluding to something profound that has been discovered in the concept of 'nothing'. Do you still think that is the case? Or are you actually changing your answer now? I suggest you do the latter, even though that would effectively halt the discussion in its tracks. The former is nonsense, however and should be abandoned because of that.
 

Quadrivium

Member
But in this case the 'paradox' you present exists in the language you use and not in the reality you are describing. That means it isn't a paradox at all and is instead merely poor word usage.

This is what I mean:

Its not a paradox, its a logical fallacy born of your poor choice of words. If you reword your description of 'nothing' the 'paradox' magically disappears.

Here's some info about papers you can read that may help with your logical misconception of linguistic paradox versus intensional (real world) paradox. Likewise the field of paraconsistency as I mentioned before may help you understand. And it helps to have read some Douglas Hofstadter, it will help with understanding the nature of analogy and thought, which is super helpful in being prepared to grasp the nature of paradox.

The common foundation of mathematical logic which I believe you are under the impression of being "logical", is now known to have suffered from a fallacy.

Warren Goldfarb, W. B. Pearson Professor of Modern Mathematics and Mathematical Logic, wrote in the conclusion of his work titled ‘Russell’s Reasons for Ramification’, “Russell's logicist enterprise fails, as is shown by the need for the axiom of reducibility (which cannot be justified on any grounds but expediency); this failure may indeed show, as Godel says, that there is irreducibly mathematical content in mathematics.”

It was expressed in the conclusion of a 2007 paper titled, ‘Paradoxes of Intensionality’ by University of Michigan’s’ Dustin Tucker and Richmond H. Thomason, that “In the absence, however of a ramification revival or some alternative that has not occurred to us, we are not left with a comfortable strategy for dealing with the logical and set-theoretical paradoxes, particularly if we want a strategy that is supported by a rationale that makes it seem general as well as plausible.”

No, it isn't. Deduction is a process of observation. The universe did not fall in line with Dirac's conclusions. It was most definitely the other way around.

Here's a paper that provides all the proofs and reference of this.

http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Haselhurst_physicalrealityd.pdf

Also you can read up on Milo Wolff to understand this better.

No, reality is not dictated at all. I'm not considering things 'separately' to come to this conclusion. I am simply observing the reality I live in and describing it with language. In this case, I observe math existing in the meaty skulls of human beings and nowhere else.

You can read Max Tegmarks' recent book "The Mathematical Universe" to clear up your misconception in this regard. Also, Hegel...

It is not difficult to understand, nor is it redundant. Its a blatant contradiction. Redundancy would be the opposite of that. Redundant would be something like, "Nothing is the lack of something and the lack of something else." That's redundant. You are saying a contradiction, "Everything is nothing." These two terms are polar opposites and can't be the same thing by definition. So, either they are not the same thing at all or both terms are meaningless. By the way, that was deduction in action in case you were wondering what 'deduction' actually means.

I understand the confusion. But you're lacking in knowledge of paraconsitent logic and continuity.

I have no idea what you mean by 'essences' in this context. Please define this term.

Essence = Information. It's deduced, not the other way around. Deduction is dividing and relating essences to form different or "evolved" relative information/essences.

The opposite of inflation is deflation. Or compression, if you prefer. In any case, I don't know why you keep insisting that words don't mean what they mean and actually mean the opposite of what they mean.

The difficulty in understanding is because of the backwards/inverted way of thinking I mentioned which is difficult to overcome. Inflation is expansion. To perceive identities of essences from an expansion you need to deduce the information of the expansion. You can think of the properties of 3d standing waves both expressing forces inward and outward in sequence. Inflation expresses its occurrence as an outward expression, and coherence is interpreted by a inward expression. This could be reversed as well for the sake of understanding its reflective of polar forces interacting.

So, you think that because light becomes inverted in the eye and our brain is forced to revert it that time is actually flowing backwards and our brain is inverting that as well?

Not exactly. That was an attempt to illustrate a pattern of recursive inverse deduction that is established (sequence of perceiving light, specifically human vision) with one that is not so established (sequence of perceiving inflation, specifically human time). But I wouldn't hastily say one is because of the other.

I was pretty sure I knew what reverse computation was, but I went ahead and skimmed the wiki on it all the same. I didn't see anything at all about defining finite identity from infinite possibility. Instead, it seems to be a method of limiting the waste of energy through heat in computers. You'll have to just explain the connection to me after all. Hopefully, you actually know what you mean this time and additionally know the proper terminology to convey said knowledge.

I see the confusion.

“Inversion. While direct computation is the calculation of the output of a program for a given input, inverse computation is the calculation of the possible input of a program for a given output.”

This is a quote from a computer science paper by Robert Gluck and Michael Leuschl, in which they describe advanced inverse tasks for logic programs to calculate finite description of infinite solution.

Here's the paper.

Abstraction-Based Partial Deduction for Solving Inverse Problems


I'm pretty sure I have a firm grasp on it. A paradox arising from language alone is not a paradox at all. You are not describing reality, you are distorting it to support your beliefs by specifically using contradictory terminology as if you are forced to do so by the nature of what you are describing. That is not the case. You can use many different descriptions that are not contradictory and then your paradox goes bye bye. That means it not a real paradox. In this case its not even a logical paradox like many other so-called self-referencing paradoxes. Its just poor word usage in an attempt to pigeon-hole reality into the box you've made for it. Too bad it doesn't work that way, I'd be king of the universe by now.

I am providing information and links to other sources for you to analyze to help you understand. If you can use some different terminology to make any mentioned paradox go "byebye", then lets analyze those. In the case of poor word usage please identify exactly what is poor and lets analyze that. I'm happy to do. But I can't respond well to empty claims.

Well, I'm not debating tons of credible sources. I'm debating you. Feel free to invite as many of those credible sources to the forum, they can have free account as far as I know. I'd be happy to debate them right here. Alternatively, YOU can go look for these credible sources yourself and present them as evidence and I'll go ahead and debunk all that nonsense, too. Or... possibly accept a rational explanation of whatever it is you think is going on here. Its entirely likely that you are talking about something totally rational in a totally irrational manner. It really doesn't seem like it... but its possible. Your court... the ball is in it.

Sure. But I can't possibly spend the time to cover the history of the world, this is why I'm offering resources for interested parties to have some direction for coming to terms with this. But feel free to give me enough information to understand what it is I need to provide more adequate proof or information about, and we can tackle this one step at a time. (and I'd suggest one topic at a time please, as replying to several in one sitting may take too long)
 

Quadrivium

Member
Naming a cow a cow does not make it a cow. It was always a cow. The name is totally irrelevant. Unless you happen to be a human trying to tell another human to stop pushing over your cows. That's what language is for. Communicating with other humans... and sometimes other animals. Its utterly useless for anything else. Please demonstrate how I am wrong about this.

Yes you are correct that a name does not define somethings' essence. A name is a representation of its essence. Math is a representation of consistencies observed in nature. So again going backwards... you could say that natures behavioral expression is interpreted as math. In this sense math is very much a real thing. It is a human interpretation sure, but natures behavioral expression only requires minds to realize them, not strictly human minds.

Dude... intuitive means it is understood very easily. It doesn't mean its easy to understand once you understand it, that doesn't make any sense. The Earth orbiting the sun is NOT intuitive at all, otherwise we would have figured that out a few thousand years ago. Instead, we spent millenia thinking all kinds of wrong things and it wasn't until we became profoundly curious about the cosmos AND additionally invented the tools to look at it more closely AND THEN it took centuries more to actually realize it. That's the OPPOSITE of intuitive. That's centuries of learned people the world over failing to understand. Children are not born and look at the sun and say, "Well, we're obviously orbiting that..." that's what it would be like if it was intuitive. Its nothing like intuitive. Intuitive is something like, "If I want to quote someone on a forum, I should probably try clicking this button that says "quote" on it."

Okay I can buy that, but I think you still understand the point. After knowing the appropriate information needed to grasp the correct theory of orbits, it's like duh... How could we have thought otherwise because this makes so much more sense now and we can now deduce gravity and relativity etc...

I suggest a similar psychological "feeling" after seeing the pieces fit together. When this notion of recursive inverse deduction and trifold synthesis becomes fully realized, it then becomes more intuitive to interpret analogous comparisons in everyday occurrences.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
This is only true in the case that "we" is entirely separate from "this". If that were true then relativity would not be possible. Relativity is information in relation to information. All monads in relation to all monads. Again this was proven in the 1800's, Hegel.


No it isn't. What I said is non-dependent on that.
 
Last edited:

Quadrivium

Member
Remember the God we imagined as children? I use to imagine He did not want to be alone and so created us. Now that I'm older I'm imagining Him still experiencing things through us as well...which is fine with me.*
Imagine our computers as minds. We make shortcuts for our personal ones all the time.

I would say there's nothing wrong with this image. And I'd expect many people to share this notion even after understanding the boundaries of information synthesis. Though I'd disagree with the personification in principle of remaining accurate to truth, however I also hardly see anything wrong with humanizing humanity.
 
Top