The True Origin of Reality

[Skwim]

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. . . . .

. . . . 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.

At first I tried to make sense of what you were saying here, but it was soon apparent you were more taken with stringing polysyllabic words together and delivering pseudo-profundities---trying to sound erudite perhaps? (rhetorical question)---than paying attention to what these constructions actually mean. Unfortunately, these pretensions pretty much add up to gibberish. I don't say this as a put-down, but to let you know that if you want to honestly discuss issues here then address them in a straight forward manner sans the scholar schtick. It may even prove to be productive and, dare I say, educational.

Your choice of course: listen to the sound of your own voice or make sense.

 

[Quadrivium]

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).

co·her·ence

noun
1.
the quality of being logical and consistent.
"this raises further questions on the coherence of state policy"
2.
the quality of forming a unified whole.
"the group began to lose coherence and the artists took separate directions"

This "coherence" is a quality required for categorization. Perception is the categorization of analogy. My minds' perceived categories are analogous to your minds' perceived categories. Both of our minds' categories are analogous to other minds' perceived categories. [/QUOTE]

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.

I didn't mean to state anything about humans specifically. I said "minds" last, but first I had generalized it and used the term "man", which I guess is what's confused you from understanding the point, which is that coherence of reality isn't perceptually realized without minds.

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

The original statement simply referred to minds being equally essential for realities' coherence.

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.

Again you're failing to understand I assume because you haven't enough understanding of paraconsistent logic. Here's a brief article that may help if you don't want to read an entire book on it. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/paradoxical-truth/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

And understand we are not looping through linguistic paradox, rather we are describing the observation of paradox in the function of absoluteness. This is reasoning for dialtheism of truth in the real world. There are other real examples of this occurring besides the historical "liar" or "set" paradoxes. Quantum entanglement is decent example of something being in two places at once. This is solved and described with quaternion maths in some of the previously mentioned reference.

 

[Quadrivium]

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

Then by all means please explain why it isn't, and how what you said is non-dependent on that.

 

[Desert Snake]

Then by all means please explain why it isn't, and how what you said is non-dependent on that.

Because you are making an assumption or inference of complete connectivity, yet we observe differentiation in the 'working parts'. The same thing that makes an orange different from a banana disproves your theory, or rather leads us to the conclusion, (to put a human perspective on it), that neither of us painted the Sistine Chapel.

 

[Quadrivium]

At first I tried to make sense of what you were saying here, but it was soon apparent you were more taken with stringing polysyllabic words together and delivering pseudo-profundities---trying to sound erudite perhaps? (rhetorical question)---than paying attention to what these constructions actually mean. Unfortunately, these pretensions pretty much add up to gibberish. I don't say this as a put-down, but to let you know that if you want to honestly discuss issues here then address them in a straight forward manner sans the scholar schtick. It may even prove to be productive and, dare I say, educational.

Your choice of course: listen to the sound of your own voice or make sense.

You're making this claim but can you explain the conditions that lead you to this conclusion? Saying something is gibberish certainly does not make it gibberish. Having difficulty in comprehending does not make something gibberish. I am also providing reference links and information so people can actually view credible sources of these claims for I'm sure my expressions will not satisfy alone, lest we cover all reasonable objections. But you are simply saying "its gibberish", which is hardly a valid or credible objection.

 

[Quadrivium]

Because you are making an assumption or inference of complete connectivity, yet we observe differentiation in the 'working parts'. The same thing that makes an orange different from a banana disproves your theory, or rather leads us to the conclusion, (to put a human perspective on it), that neither of us painted the Sistine Chapel.

Or, to put it bluntly, you're overreaching big time.

Thanks, this is something I can actually respond to, and you made it easy.

So please explain anything (any example) we've observed (as you mentioned) that has not expressed "complete-connectivity".

 

[Desert Snake]

Thanks, this is something I can actually respond to, and you made it easy.

So please explain anything (any example) we've observed (as you mentioned) that has not expressed "complete-connectivity".

I already did. You missed it, apparently, because you are so focused on the ramifications as you see them of your theory. I'll let others respond to you from here on out, because I don't like to waste my time discussing flying pink unicorns.

 

[Quadrivium]

I already did. You missed it, apparently, because you are so focused on the ramifications as you see them of your theory. I'll let others respond to you from here on out, because I don't like to waste my time discussing flying pink unicorns.

You haven't actually mentioned any example of something not being of complete connectivity. You mentioned a banana and an orange. Well you have to understand what these two things are to understand that they are actually of the same thing.

So we could dissect all the essences that go into developing the concepts of this banana or that orange and we would find independence of "working parts" is logically incompatible with whats actually occurring in the world.

But we can skip all of that and just ask where the boundary is between the two. After asking this hopefully you quickly realize there is no real boundary, only fuzzy, or blurry, or incoherent assumptions, similar to the assumptions you've made in your objection.

You see there is no absolute measurement possible in any circumstance other than generalizations for the sake of making mental analogies and categories. Actually there is but one absolute measurement and that is, of nothing.

Things should get clearer the more you question, so I'd suggest you don't give up so quickly if you're actually interested in understanding the truth versus whatever else. The assumption of linguistic folly is fine to presume, but it can be thought through if you wish to challenge it further.

 

[Skwim]

You're making this claim but can you explain the conditions that lead you to this conclusion?

I'll let the evidence (your posting) speak for itself. We both know what's going on here.

Saying something is gibberish certainly does not make it gibberish. Having difficulty in comprehending does not make something gibberish.

The evidence speaks for itself.

I am also providing reference links and information so people can actually view credible sources of these claims for I'm sure my expressions will not satisfy alone, lest we cover all reasonable objections. But you are simply saying "its gibberish", which is hardly a valid or credible objection.

When, in fact, we both know this is not the case; it's much more. To put it as kindly as I can, your selective reading is almost as bad as your contrived erudition.

 

[idea]

I do not believe anything caused reality into existence, I believe everything is eternal with no beginning and no end - changing from one form to another, but eternal.

 

[factseeker88]

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. >>

Reality isn't really that complicated. It's what you hear, feel, taste, see, and smell, not what you think. plan, read. write, assume, predict, understand, talk about, believe and philosophy.

“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900) [/FONT]

 

[idea]

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. >>

Reality isn't really that complicated. It's what you hear, feel, taste, see, and smell, not what you think. plan, read. write, assume, predict, understand, talk about, believe and philosophy.

“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900) [/FONT]

So you think science finally has it all figured out? ...

read through this -
William G. Perry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sounds like you are now at a dualist level.

 

[Quadrivium]

I'll let the evidence (your posting) speak for itself. We both know what's going on here.

The evidence speaks for itself.

When, in fact, we both know this is not the case; it's much more. To put it as kindly as I can, your selective reading is almost as bad as your contrived erudition.

The evidence does speak for itself. No disagreement there. It speaks of the truth of reality. I'm sorry you have difficulties understanding. Frustration arises in the mind when it can't make sense of things or when new things happen, its a normal anxious reaction to new things. I assume you are experiencing this as you make irrational claims with no reason backing them and no explanation for your claims other than, you can't comprehend.

If you truthfully see errors in these words please by all means make your point so it can be considered. But no points are made for consideration from your empty claims, other than your inability to comprehend your own claims. You're only saying "no this isn't true". There's no valid reasoning for this claim, therefore no valid reason to consider it.

Unlike your claims there is an infinite source of truths to be understood and proven in the real world and I offer you the opportunity to challenge this, if you are capable. So far you haven't actually challenged anything so your comments are useless and meaningless.

 

[outhouse]

The evidence does speak for itself. No disagreement there. It speaks of the truth of reality. I'm sorry you have difficulties understanding. Frustration arises in the mind when it can't make sense of things or when new things happen, its a normal anxious reaction to new things. I assume you are experiencing this as you make irrational claims with no reason backing them and no explanation for your claims other than, you can't comprehend.

If you truthfully see errors in these words please by all means make your point so it can be considered. But no points are made for consideration from your empty claims, other than your inability to comprehend your own claims. You're only saying "no this isn't true". There's no valid reasoning for this claim, therefore no valid reason to consider it.

Unlike your claims there is an infinite source of truths to be understood and proven in the real world and I offer you the opportunity to challenge this, if you are capable. So far you haven't actually challenged anything so your comments are useless and meaningless.

Sounds so much like POE, I must now read the OP.

 

[outhouse]

Trifold synthesis is

.

Exactly like imagination.

Carries the same credibility as imagination.

 

[outhouse]

By the way it is on you to prove your guesses, not us to disprove.

Based on the fact I cannot disprove imagination, no one can disprove your long winded guesses or fantasy in literature.

 

[Quadrivium]

I do not believe anything caused reality into existence, I believe everything is eternal with no beginning and no end - changing from one form to another, but eternal.

This is true. Nothing caused reality into existence. Everything is eternal with no beginning or end.

When we describe origin, there's nothing stated about beginning. The origin is trifold synthesis, but this is more constant paradoxical fluctuation, than linear momentum. The origin is reason for existence, and information can be traced back to a dimensional origin. But this doesn't exactly mean beginning of time, as time is only spatial densities in relation to each other.

So yes, you actually have the correct notion to help you grasp the meaning of this thread more clearly.

 

[Quadrivium]

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. >>

Reality isn't really that complicated. It's what you hear, feel, taste, see, and smell, not what you think. plan, read. write, assume, predict, understand, talk about, believe and philosophy.

“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900) [/FONT]

Reality is infinitely complicated and to say otherwise is to disregard the infinite amount of complexity involved - should I index everything we know to illustrate complexity, certainly that would take longer than I will live? However fundamentals of reality are fundamental, so they are not exactly infinitely complicated to grasp. Though a history of illusion (human perception) can make it challenging to see the otherwise obvious. Its in the fundamental limitations that expresses everything resonant of them.

Certainly thinking is doing something. And most certainly your brain operates in such a way that dictates action by way of your possible will. This quote is very human to assume the term "consequence" has any actual meaning beyond subjective opinion of experience. And this thread is about objective truth of reality, not human belief.

 

[Quadrivium]

Sounds so much like POE, I must now read the OP.

I'm not sure what your acronym POE of OP is referring to.

 

[Quadrivium]

Exactly like imagination.

Carries the same credibility as imagination.

This is an empty remark with no substance other than its obvious you haven't the knowledge of the specific histories which I've suggested will help to understand these concepts.

Again I offer this information for people interested in understanding truth. I offer opportunity to challenge specific notions if capable of doing so. But nothing is gained from stating irrational opinion with no substance backing it up.

Your statement of trifold synthesis not carrying any credibility is equivalent to saying [1+1=2] doesn't carry any credibility except for imaginative properties. And this isn't true because we observe (with reason) that both [1+1=2] is logical. Likewise trifold synthesis is a logic. Again please refer to injective function for this understanding, I believe they teach it in schools. and for a clearer understanding read Hegel. Or any of the other information I've already provided links to.

It's irrational for me to debate opinions with no reason, I will debate reasonable oppositions though. Which have mostly come from SIR DOOM, in questioning the possibility of linguistic or semantic errors with reason. This is useful for everyone. But stating empty comments like your last one is not.