I know everything. I'm here to tell you the truth about reality.

>>19224195
What sort of spiritual guidance do you have?

>>19224199
I looked inside my mind. That is all.

Imagine an operating system like Windows. You can remain on the surface and just do emails, browsing etc... but if you wish so you can look up the specs of your system and explore System32 and go into BIOS or . Stuff like that.

Humans are similar.

>>19224205
So you have a lot of information on the human mind? How much information do you have of stuff beyond the mind? Like distant galaxies or cosmic mysteries?

>>19224195
Will I ever get married?

>>19224208
Not just the mind. Reality. The universe. Where we are headed. Everything.

What is my name?

>>19224208
>>19224205

And to add to this, what knowledge do you have of systems outside the mind? In terms of human nature, social hierarchy, religion, and it's connection to this understanding of yours. Save me the talk on we create our reality, blah blah blah. I want to see how much you know. Give me a nice paragraph connecting some dots. Otherwise, I don't believe you and I think you're just doing this for kicks.

Then why are you on 4chan?

>>19224220

I'm going to make an early prediction that you don't know everything like you say you do, and to say you do is an illustration of how far you still need to progress.

Okay you want the only and absolute truth? Here is it.

Part 1:
1. There is something bigger and more eternal than the universe. I call it "potential".

2. The universe came from nothing, but even when nothing existed, potential existed because potential can't be destroyed. It doesn't have a beginning or an end or a spatial dimension, because time has only relevance in the universe, but potential exists a layer deeper than the universe where there is no time.

3. Given enough time nothing will ALWAYS spawn something, because of potential. Potential can not remain silent, it will ALWAYS create when there is nothing. It can't be turned off. Like your heart. You can't control whether it beats or not.

4. It is a blind force. Not a conscious creator. First it spawn total and absolute chaos. All physical laws and possibilities you can imagine. However most of them cancel each other out, before they come into existence. The physical laws we have today are only the end product of an evolution of laws. They exist because they are the only laws which can work in this particular universe. The chaos which was created by potential first was absolutely random, but out of this randomness emerged an order. The first order we ever got was the absence of chaotic laws which couldn't come into existence, because EXISTENCE AND ORDER are one and the SAME thing actually.

Potential spawns pure chaos. Out of the pure chaos emerges organized chaos/existence. Out of the organized chaos emerges order. Chaos spawns order. This is how it and always will be.

5. Our purpose and the purpose of all living things everywhere in the universe is to convert this "organized" chaos which was created by potential (because pure chaos didn't even come into existence, remember?) into order.

Our reward for this work? We can determine what kind of order it is. Potential determined what kind of chaos we got and we can determine what kind of order we get out of this organized chaos.

>>19224253
That potentially makes me want to shit

>>19224253
Part 2:

So to summarize:
Potential creates total chaos, but it doesn't physically manifest until it becomes organized chaos. Organized chaos are the laws of physics without intelligence. Intelligence turns organized chaos (our universe today) into order (the universe in the future.

I said our reward is that we can determine what kind of order it will be. We can't control everything. We can only work with the laws potential gave us. Maybe in the next universe we will get different laws/a different kind of organized chaos.

We will organize the universe and turn this chaotic universe into an intelligent universe. This is our purpose. What kind of universe we will get is totally up to us. We can determine it's fate. It is unlikely that we will ever be able to destroy it or choose to destroy it. But even if we destroyed the universe, what we can't destroy is potential.

After this universe is gone, potential will create a new pure chaos. A new battle of the laws will happen where only the laws will come out on top which CAN exist. Laws which make sense. However, the next universe will not necessarily have the same laws as ours, because the chaos which will spawn them will be a different kind of chaos.

So the next time you wonder what the meaning of life is... you can make your own meaning or you can simply take the standard meaning which is built inside of us and make the universe a better, more organized place. This too is our reward for our hard work. We have a choice.

So that was just a brief description of reality. It is all far more complicated but this is the short version of what will be taught for the next millions of years probably in all advanced civilizations in our universe.

And no, potential is not god if you think I was implying that. It is a blind force which only creates chaos. If anything deserves worship it is the force which converts this chaos into order: us. We are on our way to become this force.

>>19224291

even if any of this shit is true, how do you expect people to believe you without any evidence? it honestly just sounds like you pulled it out of your ass

>>19224195
What can you tell me about me? Personal stuff and some serious advices

If you are for real, i'll be more than happy to give you some honest feedback

>>19224297
Welcome to /x/.
The only reasoning I ever get on this board is "I think because I know", never anything the least bit solid.
It's frusterating as hell.

>>19224297
I don't want you to believe me.

I just want you to think about the stuff I said and critically examine it. That's all.

>>19224327

why would we waste our time trying to critically examine potential (ey) bullshit. if you wanna be seen as a credible source of LITERALLY EVERYTHING then you need to back that up dude

>>19224250

Yeah, sorry, but I was right. It's not that everything you are saying is entirely incorrect, but there are some serious holes in your conclusions.

You must be young. I know that feeling of thinking you know everything after some profound realizations. Use that feeling to perfect your view of the universe and put it into words backed by evidence and others' work. Most of what you said, at least the accurate parts, was pretty basic shit.

I am interested to see what else you know, though. I'm not trying to shut you out but more trying to get you to better your ideas as well as your approach.

I'm still interested to hear your views on human nature and social order.

>>19224347
>serious holes in your conclusions
Which ones?
>I'm still interested to hear your views on human nature and social order.
What is there to say? There is the saying: "Don't do anything to anyone which you don't want them do to you." This is pretty basic and will always hold true.

>>19224308
This is human imagination run a muck. I wager most of these post are 13 yr old girls who just read their first book about vampires. This trash philosophy and microwave instructions for human existence needs to stop.

OP is retarded.

>>19224253
Same creation explanation I came up with years ago.

Just because you know everything doesn't mean you know anything. The question is, do you know NOTHING?

I will make this very simple for you. what song am i listening to as i am writing this message.. not the other thing.

>>19224253
Look at this sophist

Boring. I've heard all of this at least 50 times from people who communicated better.

You seem like you smoked a bowl and you think you came up with something new, but actually it's not new and you're arrogant

>>19224593
>accusing a LARPer of arrogance

what happens to me after death?

>>19224195
What is the last 2 digits of my bank pin

>>19224195
what is the last country I visited?

>>19224205
How the fuck you do this shit

>>19224253
potential is not a force. it is a trait..

File: 1409647949486.png (550KB, 992x920px)

550KB, 992x920px

Alright let's test your claims.
1. Tell me about the global elite.
2. Tell me about 'God'.
3. Tell me about demons.
No pop culture bullshit. How much do you ACTUALLY know?

>>19224969
Not OP but either meditate for a long time or drop a shitton of psychedelics and hope it doesn't fuck you up. The latter is usually temporary if it works.

>>19224195
Do i bother asking her out?

>>19224195

Here is, The ALL/Truth/Reality in a logical art form; The Key to the Universe:

□[-▪------] [-----▪--] [▪-------] [--▪-----] [----▪---]□
[--▪-----] {▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪●▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪} [-----▪--]
□[---▪----] [-----▪--] [-------▪] [--▪-----] [------▪-]□

Do you know/understand it?

>>19225019
>How much do you ACTUALLY know?
Everything. I already said that.

You say you know everything but , you havent answered yet one question . What does my name mean and i dont mean the post name but my real name . If you know everything you should know my name already and what it means , prove your words "illuminated one"

What do you think of the whole September 23rd ordeal

>>19225102
Could you help us Mathematicians out then? We have a list of problems that we'd REALLY like solutions to. If you could choose any of the ones from this list and solve it, that would go a LONG way in our field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_mathematics#Lists_of_unsolved_problems_in_mathematics

I know there's a lot there. Perhaps it would help if I limit myself to one I particularly want solved. How about this one for algebra?

>The problem consists in this: To establish rigorously and with an exact determination of the limits of their validity those geometrical numbers which Schubert especially has determined on the basis of the so-called principle of special position, or conservation of number, by means of the enumerative calculus developed by him.

>Although the algebra of today guarantees, in principle, the possibility of carrying out the processes of elimination, yet for the proof of the theorems of enumerative geometry decidedly more is requisite, namely, the actual carrying out of the process of elimination in the case of equations of special form in such a way that the degree of the final equations and the multiplicity of their solutions may be foreseen.

Which west coast express train hit that women on the rails?

Was it the 6:30 or the 7 am

>>19224469
lol

File: 1200x600.jpg (60KB, 1200x600px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1200x600px

loling @ all the people in this thread who are so little well-read they don't even know OP is talking about philosophical concepts thousands of years old and formulated by thinkers light years beyond the average Somalian shoemaker image board poster

Read Plotinus, Schelling, the Tao te Ching, Deleuze, Zizek, Hegel, Boehme, specifically his idea of the Ungrund a primordial abyss of pure potentiality.

Why do you call everything hippie teenage ramblings when it's so obvious even a halfhearted seeker would recognize what OP is talking about instantly, whether or not they agree with it?

Just be honest, why don't you do the work yourself? Why do you shit on ideas you clearly don't have the slightest familiarity with?

File: tmp_1238-1498790536199-1002569651.png (223KB, 800x448px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 800x448px

>>19225387
Well, since you asked nicely!

>>19224347

Been asking the same thing over and over. I don't think its unreasonable. I've seen no proof that you know everything, or anything for that matter. I would love for someone on this forum to blow me away, so just do it already. If you truly are who you say you are it should not be difficult.

>>19225586
Before anything is there must be a potential for it to be in the first place. For there to be Being there needs to be something which actualizes, determines, and makes Being what it is.

Now Being, the universe, whatever you want to call it, is the only thinkable "context" there is, in fact it's the context of all contexts: nothing could exist outside reality because if it did, it would be thinkable in reality and hence, another part of reality. With me so far?

So obviously, all we can say about what's outside reality is that it is a nothingness (read: not an empty void, but nothingness) but because there is, of course, only reality then we have to conclude that the universe simply bootstrapped itself out of nothing - reality is self-caused, the precise mechanics of this self-causation we can argue about 'til the cows come home, but at the end of the day there is a Here that somehow, someway, miraculously subsists in a Nowhere, and the fact of that we can rightfully call God.

At Planck scales even the vacuum of space is alive with particles popping in and out of existence - this is the pure potentiality of the void. The pre-big bang singularity is essentially this.

In the same way you didn't exist until you did, so does the void stay the void until, well, it doesn't.

I've tried to make this as clear and logical for you as possible. What is it you don't understand?

>>19225626
>For there to be Being there needs to be something
There cannot "be something" unless Being is already a thing.

>>19225635
Then there must be a "nothing" as the space which something fills.

This is why mystics refer to the first principle as an emptiness and a fullness. It is neither absolute void (if it was, how are we having this conversation?), nor is it absolute positivity (reality grounds itself, there is nothing "outside" it to ground it, it is a groundless hovering), it is both, and none.

>>19225648
>Then there must be a "nothing" as the space which something fills.
Space is not nothing.

>the first principle
This would require Being to be a thing first.

Stop trying to sound profound. I'm not tearing down everything you've said yet. I'm simply pointing out the contradiction is saying
>For there to be Being there needs to be something

File: 19399114_10159080503210455_6196334496116691474_n.jpg (12KB, 480x271px)

12KB, 480x271px

>>19224291
Potential is just energy waiting to be unleashed.

In a way this is all correct but you're a fuckin' idiot if you think this is anything deeper than your metabolism.

>>19225661
You're splitting hairs, getting hung up on words. Being is a thing with respect to us, not with respect to the primordial state.

>>19224195
>I know everything

Meaning of life.

>>19224291

ყơųཞཞ ƙıŋɖ ơʄ ཞıɠɧɬ ცųɬ ąƖʂơ ῳཞơŋɠ. ɬཞųƖყ ཞɛąƖıɬყ ıʂ ʝųʂɬ ą ɖཞɛąɱ ῳơཞƖɖ. ყơų ɱąɖɛ ıɬ ųP.

>>19224195
Is it right to tell girls I have a 6 inch wiener if I measure from my butthole?

>>19225683
>You're splitting hairs
You're expecting acquiescence when none is deserved.
>getting hung up on words
All we have here are words. If you aren't precise with them, then you aren't communicating properly. And we get issues of understanding, like when you use Being instead of whatever you actually mean by
>a thing with respect to us, not with respect to the primordial state
So what are you talking about then? Solid matter? Life? Consciousness? Self-consciousness? Because I understand "Being" to mean "to be." And nothing can "be" without Being. So you cannot say there will BE something before Being.

OP is a teenager who thinks he/she is really deep.

When you're older, you'll realize just how ignorant you really are, that no homo sapiens will ever know everything. We still have a lot of evolution to go through.

>>19225695
Only if you don't mind them measuring THEIR penis from YOUR butt hole. :^)

>>19225709
the that-ness or suchness of reality, the what-is. Whether you want to define it as self-consciousness or matter is irrelevant for what I'm trying to communicate.

You understand that to talk of the origins of reality we have to think in paradox right? There isn't anything before reality, but neither is there just nothing by virtue of the fact there is a reality. So we can only conclude the only thing outside reality is the potential for reality, a potential that is one and the same with a more nuanced understanding of nothingness.

>>19225736
>the that-ness or suchness of reality, the what-is
Would you use the term existence?
>Whether you want to define it as self-consciousness or matter is irrelevant for what I'm trying to communicate.
Perhaps it should because you're failing at communicating it. These are very different things.

>You understand that to talk of the origins of reality we have to think in paradox right?
I don't accept this. It isn't a matter of not understanding it, it's a matter of I don't think you've given enough effort to it.
>There isn't anything before reality
Are you using this statement to define the term reality, or have you already defined the term, and are now making a statement of observation?
>but neither is there just nothing by virtue of the fact there is a reality
Depending on how you define your terms, I would respond by saying either
>of course there is not nothing before reality, there was ____
or
>while we can linguistically use the term "before" with the term "reality," the statement has no significance because the concept "before" has no meaning when considering the concept of "reality"

>So we can only conclude the only thing outside reality is the potential for reality
Or we conclude as I have above, since we are using more precise words and means of communication.

>>19224195
What's my name and address?

File: Sir Isaac Newton.jpg (107KB, 485x594px)

107KB, 485x594px

>>19224195

I wanted to believe the OP was telling the truth, that would be interesting to ask questions and get real answers. Such is the fantasy of this forum.

You know everything? You are here to tell the truth about reality? What is the name of the capital city of the universe, and where is it located?

>>19225762
This is why no one ever stoops down to give you guys asking for "proof" and "evidence" the time of day.

I'm telling you have to think this stuff in paradox and that means language will have to make necessary concessions to describe what is fundamentally indescribable, and you're firing back with such zingers as "it doesn't make sense to say there is something 'before' reality". Obviously dude, we're talking about the limits of space and time as we know it, but to make myself comprehensible I have to use words like "thing", "state", "before/outside".

>I don't accept this. It isn't a matter of not understanding it, it's a matter of I don't think you've given enough effort to it.

No, my man, there are limits to language, it's not a matter of you "accepting" it.

>>19224195
Waffles with egg or Pancakes with bacon? I need to know which is the ultimate form of breakfast.

File: 2000px-Circle_-_black_simple.svg.png (84KB, 2000x2000px)

84KB, 2000x2000px

Quit trying to focus on beginning. There is no beginning. There is no end. It just is.

Where is the beginning of the line making up the circle? Where is the end? Everywhere and nowhere. Its just a circle. Its just the universe.

>>19225775
>posting Newton and asking stupid questions about the names of villages in space

OP, if you REALLY know everything, there is a LOT of good that can come about from answering these Math problems. Please?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_mathematics#Lists_of_unsolved_problems_in_mathematics

How about this one?
>How many non-overlapping triangles can be formed in an arrangement of k lines?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobon_triangle_problem

>>19225780
>This is why no one ever stoops down to give you guys asking for "proof" and "evidence" the time of day.
Because you can't communicate effectively.

>I'm telling you have to think this stuff in paradox and that means language will have to make necessary concessions to describe what is fundamentally indescribable
I'm telling you that isn't true, it just shows you don't have a good grasp of language.
>you're firing back with such zingers as "it doesn't make sense to say there is something 'before' reality"
I notice you don't actually respond to what I said.
>we're talking about the limits of space and time as we know it
What limits are those?
>to make myself comprehensible I have to use words like "thing", "state", "before/outside".
What words would you prefer? What are the definitions of those words?

>No, my man, there are limits to language, it's not a matter of you "accepting" it.
Any limit to language cannot be overcome through language, and since language is all we have here - you either should communicate what CAN be communicated through language or you should stop using language. In other words, STFU.

>>19225811
I've read hundreds of books where the author doesn't need to qualify every word he says with a hundred bracketed definitions because I can think for myself and understand the gist of what he's saying.

It's pretty clear you have 0 frame of reference for any of the ideas I'm talking about. I don't have time to walk you through a history of metaphysics or jump through your academia hoops.

I made it clear as possible.

1. Reality.
2. If reality, there is a potential for such a thing as reality.
3. That potential is nothingness, because by definition there is nothing "outside" or "beyond" reality.
4. So existence sprang out of a primordial, abyssal potentiality that is variously referred to as God or Ungrund or whatever you want to call it.

There is nothing here that needs book-length addenda.

>>19225799

He made the claim that he "knows everything" and is here to tell "the truth about reality". Thus, his replies might be limited to basic statements specifically addressing "the truth about reality".

Complex solutions to unsolved problems might be beyond his scope to answer. The name and location of the focal point of this reality might be within his scope to answer, as it can be simply answered in one or two sentences as it is the focal point of "the truth about reality".

>>19225097
Explain

>>19225822
>I've read hundreds of books where the author doesn't need to qualify every word he says with a hundred bracketed definitions because I can think for myself and understand the gist of what he's saying.
That's because you were accepting without question.

>It's pretty clear you have 0 frame of reference for any of the ideas I'm talking about.
No, I'm just forcing you to defend that frame of reference. And you're failing to do so.

>I don't have time to walk you through a history of metaphysics or jump through your academia hoops.
Then - again - STFU.

>1. Reality.
What do you mean? This is an EXTREMELY vague term with many many concepts and definitions loaded into it.
>2. If reality, there is a potential for such a thing as reality.
Not if reality is defined as eternal, because there would never be "potential reality" there would always and only ever be "reality" whether in a potential or actualized state - that state IS reality.
>3. That potential is nothingness
No, because if we use the concept of "reality" such that it is eternal like with your "outside" or "beyond" comment, then that potential simply isn't. It isn't "is nothing." It isn't. Reality ALWAYS is.
But we can ALSO use a concept of reality such that states outside of reality CAN exist, and this is where it's perfectly fine to say "potential reality" or "nothingness." But it REALLY REALLY DOES depend on how we're defining terms. Because language is important, and if you can't use it effectively you come across as frustrated and foolish.
>4. So existence sprang out of a primordial
Existence? Where did "existence" come in? We were talking about "reality." You see how quick you change terms and muddy the waters? Be precise and your communication will be effective.

>>19225097

I'm not the original poster, but I'd like to give my own answer if you want it.

>>19225846
You don't think a formula for how many non-overlapping triangles can be formed in an arrangment of K lines isn't "the truth about reality?"

Math is the BEST truth about reality we ever get. A name of a city can be changed on a whim, but Pi is eternally Pi. No truth will ever be as profound as eiπ + 1 = 0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zApx1UlkpNs

>>19225870
>Not if reality is defined as eternal, because there would never be "potential reality" there would always and only ever be "reality" whether in a potential or actualized state - that state IS reality.

it doesn't matter. even an eternal universe would be self-contained and self-grounding, even moreso, and once again we have a universe that simply subsists by itself because it subsists by itself, and that's that.

to say the universe simply is because it is, is to say "beyond" it there is no "final" principle except an incommunicable nothingness which "allows" the capability for something like an eternal universe to ground itself

in both cases, we have a WHAT it is (universe with a lifespan/eternal universe), and a THAT it is (in both cases, a self-grounding reality that is closed and self-subsisting precisely because "outside" it there is the nothing that allows for such a thing as a self-grounding universe, etc.)

>Existence? Where did "existence" come in? We were talking about "reality." You see how quick you change terms and muddy the waters? Be precise and your communication will be effective.

Existence:
the fact or state of living or having objective reality.

Reality:
the state or quality of having existence or substance.

>>19225097

I'm not the OP, but my answer is the 12 chakras and how they interact and give traction with the soul.

https://www.google.com/search?q=12+chakra+system&tbm=isch

>>19225902
>even an eternal universe would be self-contained and self-grounding, even moreso, and once again we have a universe that simply subsists by itself because it subsists by itself, and that's that.
We seem to agree if we use reality to mean the eternal totality.

>to say the universe simply is because it is, is to say "beyond"
Stop. Using quotes doesn't change the fact that you are using language incorrectly. You are asking what the voice of yellow feels like. The sentence is syntactically correct but holds no meaning.

>circular definitions
What is the difference between existence and reality such that you require a second word? Were you trying to highlight that reality can be subjective and objective, but that existence is ONLY objective?

>>19224748
47

>>19224752
russia

This potential stuff is wrong because: Niggers exist and there is absolutely no pre-Nigger potential. Prove me wrong.

>>19225930
You're laboring under the assumption everything is communicable in rigorous, scientific language. If I didn't use quotes you'd get on my case for thinking there's something beyond the universe, if I said "there would still need to be some pre-ontological groundlessness to allow for a self-grounding totality", we'd be going down that rabbit hole. I mean, do Zen monks have no access to truth because they speak in koans?

Even the brute facticity of an eternal universe is as groundless as one with a time limit: in both cases, it is what it is. Immanently grounded, surely, within the system, but again, in both cases there is a groundlessness that makes possible a self-grounding.

>>19225970
>You're laboring under the assumption everything is communicable in rigorous, scientific language.
No, I'm under the assumption that anything not transferable through language (and sometimes with an attached image) is pointless to bring up on a text&image medium. So if you're going to sit there and say your ideas can't be expressed with language, then stop shitting up the board spewing language about it. Because by your own admission you will ALWAYS fail at communicating your idea this way.

>If I didn't use quotes you'd get on my case for thinking there's something beyond the universe
YOU STILL ARE THINKING THIS WAY
Your use of quotes is an attempt to pretend you aren't.

>"there would still need to be some pre-ontological groundlessness to allow for a self-grounding totality"
Is that what you mean? Because I understand that just fine, whether I agree or not. Why did you pretend to not know more precise language?

>I mean, do Zen monks have no access to truth because they speak in koans?
Zen monks speak in koans because they are trained to. They have no more access to truth than Hegel or Kant, they just use riddles to express it.

>in both cases there is a groundlessness that makes possible a self-grounding.
I disagree, the brute facticity of an eternal universe explicitly removes the need for any grounding in addition to itself. Otherwise the groundlessness is the eternal universe.

No matter what the case, the answer to the ultimate ground will always be an arbitrary stop. There is no proving the prime axiom.

>>19225995
>So if you're going to sit there and say your ideas can't be expressed with language
man, he said in rigorous scientific language. (not the only language) what a drama queen.

>>19225995
>No, I'm under the assumption that anything not transferable through language (and sometimes with an attached image) is pointless to bring up on a text&image medium

So anything that isn't a formula or a syllogism is a no-go for you? lol

>YOU STILL ARE THINKING THIS WAY

Don't tell me what I'm thinking or what I'm not thinking when you've repeatedly admitted you can't understand why someone would use simple language to communicate the incommunicable.

>Zen monks speak in koans because they are trained to. They have no more access to truth than Hegel or Kant, they just use riddles to express it.

Ahah, ahah, ahahahahahahaha, whatever you say mang.

If you think the Truth is expressible or ultimately reducible to language and not something that is lived, ya dun goofed.

>No matter what the case, the answer to the ultimate ground will always be an arbitrary stop. There is no proving the prime axiom.

Thanks for proving my entire point? it's arbitrary because there is no final principle, it's arbitrary because the ground is groundlessness, as in, all determinate concepts are inter-defining within the solipsistic totality that is all determination, so your prime axiom is paradoxically the absence of any prime axiom, and thus the (groundless) ground out of which all determination spontaneously emerges.

>>19224199
not OP, but you don't need guidance, if you realize all is one, and so all is you, just as you are all and everything. You don't need to learn what reality is - you just need to remember!

>>19224358
>Don't do anything to anyone which you don't want them do to you."
This is pretty much the only law human being would need.

What is better work or study?

What's the mechanism of color confinement?

Can neutron stars degenerate into quark-gluon plasma or is it entirely theoretical?

Bohmian Mechanics or Loop Quantum Gravity?

Was the concept of Kundalini and Iranian innovation before the PIE peoples, or after?

What ever happened to Liber 934?

What are the contents of the missing pages of Dee's manuscripts?

What is the solution to Liber L II:76?

>>19226040
No, he changed it to that.
>>19225780
> language will have to make necessary concessions to describe what is fundamentally indescribable
> there are limits to language

>>19226050
>So anything that isn't a formula or a syllogism is a no-go for you?
Anything that you declare to be fundamentally unable to be communicated through language is, yes.

>Don't tell me what I'm thinking or what I'm not thinking
I am looking at your words. Are you saying your words do not accurately portray what you are thinking? How would ANYONE know what you are thinking? Why would anyone care, if there is no way to communicate it here?

>you've repeatedly admitted you can't understand why someone would use simple language to communicate the incommunicable
Quote where I said I can't understand. I can understand futile attempts. I said it isn't possible, and they shouldn't attempt it.

>If you think the Truth is expressible or ultimately reducible to language and not something that is lived, ya dun goofed.
What do you mean by "the Truth?" Quote where I said ANYTHING about this term or concept.

Once again we see how much of an issue it is when language becomes sloppy. You don't even remember what I said, how could you ever hope to understand it?

>there is no final principle
This is ALSO an arbitrary stop, fool.

>>19226076
Bruh I'm getting really tired of having to hold your hand through all this. If you think something like poetry is null and void because it can't directly communicate the feelings it wants to express, and can only refer or point to them, that is your problem.

these ideas can only point to an inner understanding, they are not the substitute for such.

>This is ALSO an arbitrary stop, fool.

And "there being no final principle is also an arbitrary stop" is also an arbitrary stop

WOW

it's almost...

as if??

couldn't be...

language fails us beyond a certain point...

and the truth becomes silence

whoa....

so this is the power...

of not having autism

>>19226089
>Bruh I'm getting really tired of having to hold your hand through all this.
Stop trying to drag me back, then.

>If you think something like poetry is null and void because it can't directly communicate the feelings it wants to express
It fucking CAN, though. You aren't writing poetry.

>these ideas can only point to an inner understanding
Every time you say you can't do something with language, you then immediately try. Why is that? Which is the failure? The statement that it's not possible, or the attempt immediately after saying that?

What do you mean by inner understanding? What is an idea if not an inner understanding?

>And "there being no final principle is also an arbitrary stop" is also an arbitrary stop
No it isn't because it isn't trying to answer the same question.

>of not having autism
You wouldn't know.

>>19226101
This anon is heading to bead. I'll check to see if there's more tomorrow.

>>19226101
An inner understanding is not a conceptual, analytical understanding. This is the difference between parroting the Buddha's statement that "life is suffering" and seeing for yourself in your own life what precisely he means.

Spiritual truths, the deep truths of reality, are either simplistic-sounding statements that either point the way to/are the fruits of inner realization (such as "we are god experiencing himself" or w/e), or just silence

I've done my best to communicate this as clearly as I can, at least re: nothingness as potentiality

There is nothing more I can say. If you believe the bona fide truth of the universe is gonna hit you with full force reading a shitpost, you got it all wrong. You can talk about it but by definition we are talking about that which grounds all discourses, and so cannot be communicated in discourse without doing violence to the initial understanding. Concepts are boxes, the truth of reality is supposed to be that which explains boxes and everything outside boxes.

Even I realize the best answer to The Question is shutting the fuck up, but I like talking about this stuff when the other party isn't asking me to endlessly define my terms

>>19226068
An undiscovered Higgs like field

Yes under certain conditions

Loop Quantum Gravity is the right direction but very incomplete

Before and I'm pretty sure you have documents on your Mega that confirm this

It, along with the Peyote Liber are sitting in a lock box in a storage center in California

Mostly worthless speculations on the Enochian system but some have additional ciphers and Angelic names

You already know the answer

Start a thread already every other thread on this board is garbage

>>19224253
While its idea of a creator is different from what you're saying, the law of One has a similar view on chaos. Saying light gave order to the chaos, and giving birth to densities. Pretty fascinating!

>>19226130
You missed the important questions:

>>19225799
>>19225387
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_mathematics#Lists_of_unsolved_problems_in_mathematics

Can you give us some solutions, please?

>>19224195
>claims to know the truth about reality
>says nothing about the lord jesus christ

nice try bucko

>>19224195
The most important question: How i can be you? how i can know everything? hoy i can look hin my "system32"?

>>19226135
I'm not OP but I do fuck with the Akashic record. I'm not answering those because I don't know shit about math so even if I got the proper proofs I couldn't "translate" them effectively

>>19226142

>system 32 in humans

you are tinking in bio evolution circles, evolutionary bioprograms that run on one over the other , only light beings can over run thoose programs anon , mack kenna talk about it ,

if you know the alpabeth you will know everiting anon , as above so below .

>being "you"
pathetic , why be you when you can be someone else?

>>19226154
what the akashi records say about the divine knife ?i google it and noting and it shines in my dreams , i know its useful ,what can you tell me about it?

what are the lottery numbers for the florida powerball

i need money

>>19224195
What's your opinion on Rose?

>>19226167
>pathetic, why be you when you can be someone else?
More pathetic, why be someone else, when you can be yourself?

I looked deep inside of my own mind and discovered the truth:

OP is a LARPing faggot.

Truth about 7/7/17?

>>19226127
>An inner understanding is not a conceptual, analytical understanding.
See? You CAN use words when you want to. Now, what's the difference between inner understanding and analytical such that an outside observer would be able to discern? Because if there is not difference to observe, there is no difference at all to the observer.

>This is the difference between parroting the Buddha's statement that "life is suffering" and seeing for yourself in your own life what precisely he means.
And again, how would you convey that difference HERE?

>Spiritual truths, the deep truths of reality, are either simplistic-sounding statements that either point the way to/are the fruits of inner realization (such as "we are god experiencing himself" or w/e), or just silence
Only if you have a weak grasp on language. A spiritual truth can be said through silence, through code, or through lengthy and detailed exposition.

>I've done my best to communicate this as clearly as I can, at least re: nothingness as potentiality
So your best is "There's no way, I will fail, if you don't accept this you're wrong, you just have to take what I say is true. I can't talk on this but let me type many many words saying I can't talk on this." You're best is severely lacking.

>There is nothing more I can say.
Somehow I doubt you will stop saying things, though.

>If you believe the bona fide truth of the universe is gonna hit you with full force reading a shitpost, you got it all wrong.
Where did I say this? MY language is precise. I choose words carefully and mean what I type. I never typed this. I don't accept this.

>You can talk about it but by definition we are talking about that which grounds all discourses, and so cannot be communicated in discourse without doing violence to the initial understanding.
So why do you persist in doing violence? Just shut up if you don't know how to talk about things.

>Concepts are boxes
This is a concept you have boxed yourself in with.

>>19226127
>the truth of reality is supposed to be
lol "Supposed to be"

>Even I realize the best answer to The Question is shutting the fuck up
But you didn't.

> I like talking about this stuff when the other party isn't asking me to endlessly define my terms
Yeah, I can see how you like engaging in this when it feeds your ego. It must suck to be actually challenged and have to think about what you're saying.

>>19225626
Our universe/reality/space is basically just our Desktop.

Would you say your Desktop is everything there is, just because it is the only thing you can see and which has space?

Even if you did, there are other folders with space as well, some are hidden, some can't even be accessed. (Hidden, unaccessible dimensions) Then you have your BIOS, software, hardware etc... and all is powered by electricity.

Your universe is similarly multi-faceted. Just because you can't access the outside the of the universe and because it has no space, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. That's why I meant with potential.

It by definition can't be accessed, because if it could it could be fucked with and if we could fuck with it, we could extinguish the source of everything that could be forever. Since this has never happened before (because we do exist) I assume it is safe to say it can't be done.

This is precisely why it is a good thing that the potential (or let's call it source) is blind. Being conscious would be a weakness. It is simply a simple function which breathes in and out. Each breath is a new universe.

File: Blue_Clouds.jpg (335KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 1680x1050px

>>19225626
>In the same way you didn't exist until you did
This is an interesting thought.

In a way you can only experience existence, because if you don't exist you don't experience it. Then why fear death? You will never experience being death.

In a way reincarnation and all the world religions are true. After you died you can be sure as hell that the only thing you will ever experience is life. The only thing you CAN experience is life. So in an abstract way we are all immortal, aren't we? Of course we can debate what constitutes a "you" and if it even exists, but if the universe is infinite something closely resembling you must necessarily come into existence one day or perhaps it already did quadrillions of time.

Now if you apply this concept onto the entire universe it gets even more interesting. The good thing about non-existence is that time doesn't matter. Even if it takes quadrillions of years and billions of universes to have even 1 in which you have life, it will make no difference for the life because it will not experience this void.

Life can only live and nothing else, it can not not live. Somehow this is inspiring, but at the same time depressing.

The conclusion? Better fucking learn to appreciate life, you will experience it for a possible eternity and nothing else. The peaceful sleep which you hope for will never come. You will always live and struggle, for the best or worst.

>>19228113
I think this is also what Nietzsche meant with his eternal return philosophy.

The best way to live life is to assume that you will live the excat same life forever and ever in a loop with no change at all.

Gb2b Paul

>>19224219
Rumpelstiltskin

>>19224205

that was a really low tech analogy. i would expect something more spectacular.

>>19224253
You sure have an awful lot of grammatical errors for a supremely intelligent person.

>>19225439
I whole heartedly agree with you. I've read some stuff about how the universe began, some stuff by Terence McKenna, the Dao the Ching and a bunch of other stuff. And the OP's explanation sounded pretty reasonable to what I'm aware of. I would have called potential Chaos or the Dao, but it's honestly semantics at that point.

>>19225788
>This, I actually want to know.

>>19224195
>I know everything
What's the forecast for the rest of this year? Any big events we should know about?
>>19225097
If you can't get it to work, blow into it before popping it into your NES.

What do you know about Jesus?

>>19229825
Gay trip desu

>>19224291

you are basically just talking about Dynamics aka complex systems.