In the beginning was the One.
At the beginning of everything - not chronologically, but logically
and ontologically - was the One. — Illuminati

I haven't had time to read your whole post. But, after skimming, I can say that your OneInfiniteZero is very close to what I call "God of the philosophers" to distinguish it from the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. Your definition seems to fit my own non-religious philosophical worldview. Later, I may request a PDF or hard copy. :smile:

Yes, thats exactly it.

I will gladly provide with the PDF and any explanation on the contents as well. If you understand modern Greek it would be better as the original is written in Greek and is a better and superior version.
If you find any potential errors let me know.

all your questions are off topic — Illuminati

Dude. I like jokes as much as the next guy. But you're pushing the limits.

Lilterally my questions in bold:

are the ideas and concepts or beliefs expressed simply for entertainment or do they offer tangible benefit?

Specifically, how have they benefited you?

Either you don't know what English sentences are, or you're really, and i mean, REALLY, pushing your limits here bub.

All you have to do is say "I don't know" or "I have no idea", "I have no point I'm just regurgitating text of which I have no other understanding of" and be done with it.

This... thing. This lie, you keep trying to prop up despite it not catching any wind in the proverbial sails. It's frustrating. First, the idea you actually be serious about it, yet are so cognitively disassociated with reality that the idea of straight and continual non-answers seems normal. Otherwise, hey, I like pranks too. It's fun to waste peoples time and watch them seriously invest real effort, energy, and emotion into what they assume is a person in need of guidance. But it gets old dude.

Please, once again. How has your life been changed by reading, understanding, and embracing the ideas your OP contains? Can you even describe them without copying and pasting the same sentences that have sat there stagnant for ages? Do you even know what you're talking about? Is the real question. It's hard to tell if you even do if you can't answer such simple questions and offer every single runaround tactic in the book in lieu of a straight answer.

Are you getting emotional again? Once again the topic of my post is the One, not how my life has changed or me owing an explanation to your personal question.

And to answer : Yes, it has. For example a couple of months ago I wrote this book. Few months earlier I realized that space does not exist and so on, but nothing out of the ordinary.

Are you getting emotional again? — Illuminati

My patience is as eternal as the winds and waves of this realm. My understanding as far and unyielding as the deepest valleys and fjords.

Once again the topic of my post is the One — Illuminati

No, your topic of your post is your specific, lone (and as many would say, randomly specific and possibly incorrect) understanding of "the One."

Just so we're on the same page. So now. Let's go from there.

Explain it to someone who has no idea or understanding of the concept as you do. If you can, of course. Unless it's just more dogma. Uselessness disguised as anything but.

Colours are signals that are interpreted by your brain, they do not exist as "colours" in nature. What we call colours is a relation of particles.

Philosophers call colour a “secondary quality,” meaning it doesn’t reside in objects themselves but emerges from the interaction of object, light source, and observer. In that view, colours arent the property of objects(e.g. car). It’s the brain’s interpretation of certain reflected wavelengths.

Likewise with time, space, PH and etc.

For example PH is defined as a way to tell how acidic or basic a liquid is by measuring tiny charged hydrogen particles, pure water naturally splits into equal amounts of hydrogen and hydroxide ions, giving it a neutral pH of 7, the midpoint on the scale that runs from 0 (very acidic, lots of hydrogen ions) to 14 (very basic, few hydrogen ions).

This means that "PH" is not "made of" PH instead it consists of a relation between particles, laws of physics and etc.

Do you understand so far? Do you have any questions or disagree with something?

Now this thing which I described in the previous comment applies to every single phonemena and is kind of a universal law. This law is simply the common parameter in all phenomena which is the law of duality. This law dictates that everything finite thing has a beggining and an end, which means two sides, so PH has two sides, 0 and 14 (the values). Time and space also have two sides, they both begin and end at practically the same time so they share the same sides(time and space begin and end at the same time). All the equations you have ever solved in school were just that, two parts that equal each other not in an identical way. If you want to read more about this check out Yin Yang. Can you look up the symbol? See that it constitutes of Black and White? That wants to tell us that these two are opposites, also you see that the image is symetricall and it kind of looks like two drops, that tells us that it is moving, revolving, however you wish to call it. Next we see that inside the white there is black and vice versa, this means that both have a common quality between them(so they are "made up of" the same thing). This is the first split, just like after the Big Bang when gravity was the first force to detach from the one major force (all fundamental forces were one force at the moment of Big Bang).

Colours are signals that are interpreted by your brain, they do not exist as "colours" in nature. What we call colours is a relation of particles. — Illuminati

This is a largely prevailing truth in many areas of philosophy and consciousness specifically, yes.

Now, for the sake of argument, that does mean, perhaps a more advanced species would process colors in a higher form by their intrinsic physical presence than we as humans do. You don't know that. It's only realistic to say "well sure, maybe there's a boogeyman under my bed that has supernatural powers." Which is understandable, why imagine that which cannot be proven. Oh wait. Except, for the fact. That one small fact. The entire scientific method and every resulting discovery was a result of imagining that perhaps, just perhaps, there's more to know than is currently know. This idea, this so called "rudeness" or "ignorance", was actually the spark that led to the culmination of every great invention, including what allows us to communicate today. So fancy that!

But let's continue. What, therefore, is "not" a relation of particles? Can you name something that you can't sophomore-ically reduce into something uselessly simple? What is the idea of me and you speaking but a relation of particles in the brain? What is your idea of your first name and the address of your house and the memory of who your parents are but a mere "relation of particles."

So you describe the phenomena, but fail to offer a reasoning for it. Don't you get it? Yours is a tired generation. A type that takes what you're given as if it were a King's feast whilst simultaneously taking applause like a needle. Neurosis! Pure neurosis is what this lack of understanding proliferates.

I'm sorry, you're clearly provocative and you unleash that quality in myself. Perhaps we're kindred spirits. I apologize, if you feel it necessary. But let us continue on. To brave the true new frontier. Whatever it may be.

For example PH is defined as a way to tell how acidic or basic a liquid is by measuring tiny charged hydrogen particles, pure water naturally splits into equal amounts of hydrogen and hydroxide ions, giving it a neutral pH of 7, the midpoint on the scale that runs from 0 (very acidic, lots of hydrogen ions) to 14 (very basic, few hydrogen ions).

This means that "PH" is not "made of" PH instead it consists of a relation between particles, laws of physics and etc.

Do you understand so far? Do you have any questions or disagree with something? — Illuminati

This is all well and good. But it doesn't really "add" anything to the table. And has little to no relevance to this OP of pseudo or quasi-spiritual essence.

Sure, 1 plus 1 is 2. That's fine. Which is all the pH example offers, in bare essence. But again, there's 1,001 random claims in the esoteric non-scientific (and in my opinion non-philosophic) near-rambling the OP offers. None of which is satiated or placated, let alone rationally proven.

You're basically like "1 +1 = 2, water is 2 particles hydrogen one oxygen, oh and by the way there's this crazy one singularity that has nothing to do with any of that, but it somehow does, for some reason, but i can't or otherwise refuse to prove it. Therefore, logic!"

It's just not good form, dude. It's just not good form.

Are you nuts? You asked me to dumb down and I included a small part of the explanation in order to give you time to ask questions if required and you treat it as if it is my entire answer? When you said to explain it to you like to someone who doesnt understand I wasnt aware that you are acting and are aware of these things. You are extremely toxic, annoying, impolite, sarcarstic, off topic constantly, you keep making overly long sentences(I meant messages), and generally rude.

Pathetic AI like responces, Id rather waste my time talking to a wall, I wont be answering any of your messages from now on.

You're basically like "1 +1 = 2, water is 2 particles hydrogen one oxygen, oh and by the way there's this crazy one singularity that has nothing to do with any of that, but it somehow does, for some reason, but i can't or otherwise refuse to prove it. Therefore, logic!"

It's just not good form, dude. It's just not good form — Outlander

Pretty much sums up the OP, but when confronted on it he seems to get angry.

The gist of it from what I’m able to make sense is something about the alpha and the omega, the one and its infinite. The rest appears to be unpolished gibberish.

@Illuminati can you condense and summarise the main points of what you’re trying to say ?

I wont be answering any of your messages from now on. — Illuminati

Best course of action when painted into a corner by your own material. :snicker:

So if I call you a fool you wont be offended?

I’m not easily offended, however you seem to be resulting to personal insults rather than explain what is asked of you. Shows a lack charity and intellect.

Ive already done so in the comments.

You are extremely toxic, annoying, impolite, sarcarstic, off topic constantly, you keep making overly long sentences(I meant messages), and generally rude. — Illuminati

I am, in fact, none of these things. What I am, generally is unrelenting, ferocious, dedicated, and above all, pious. Toward, like I said ideas not the persons who hold such ideas. Now, if you hold such easily disproved ideas as part of your identity, that will rightfully initiate a hostility or aggression response in your brain. This is basic knowledge. If these things trouble you, it is perhaps you who are these traits you claim to project on others who shine a light on your darkness, darkness that is falsehood you have embraced as truth. Everything just short of fear and admission that all you know is wrong, and therefore, all your choices are much of the same.

But, I'm not one to degrade. I'm one to lift up. So let's analyze this, rationally. If I be wrong, I'm wrong and it is fo no consequence to you. But... oh, but, if I may be correct, it is not you who resists the Truth I not only try but fight (risk to my own presence here) to bring to you, at all costs. Nevertheless, both options being plausible, why does it worry you such? This is just a random site, not a very popular one, frankly. So what is it that truly excites or rather concerns you? Only you can answer that. Or can you? Perhaps you wish a greater truth that only others can offer. And if that be true, all you need is ask. I hope you remember this, my good acquaintance...

I’m still trying to see the relevance of your pH explanation and what it’s trying to prove. Are you saying the map is not the territory or something else ?

I am, in fact, none of these things. What I am, generally is unrelenting, ferocious, dedicated, and above all, pious. Toward, like I said ideas not the persons who hold such ideas. Now, if you hold such easily disproved ideas as part of your identity, that will rightfully initiate a hostility or aggression response in your brain. This is basic knowledge. If these things trouble you, it is perhaps you who are these traits you claim to project on others who shine a light on your darkness, darkness that is falsehood you have embraced as truth. Everything just short of fear and admission that all you know is wrong, and therefore, all your choices are much of the same.

But, I'm not one to degrade. I'm one to lift up. So let's analyze this, rationally. If I be wrong, I'm wrong and it is fo no consequence to you. But... oh, but, if I may be correct, it is not you who resists the Truth I not only try but fight (risk to my own presence here) to bring to you, at all costs. Nevertheless, both options being plausible, why does it worry you such? This is just a random site, not a very popular one, frankly. So what is it that truly excites or rather concerns you? Only you can answer that. Or can you? Perhaps you wish a greater truth that only others can offer. And if that be true, all you need is ask. I hope you remember this, my good acquaintance... — Outlander

Ok chat gpt

Did you read all my comments so far? If yes, you would have understood that those two comments were directed towards the person that asked me to explain in layman terms, so I started from the very bottom explaining basic things while giving a chance to discuss it.

the map is not the territory — kindred

seems to be accurate, yes.

Now if you ask me something more specific thatd be great.

I’m still trying to wrap my head what the one is. Is it just the totality of all things? Consciousness and matter? What of it is … so what ? Is it god ? Or do you not give it such a name ?

Finally, this is the first good question.
First of all I can provide quotes, explanations, definitions and proof about everything I say in simple physics (physics explained in words) or even dumb down completelly, just be polite please.

Is it just the totality of all things? — kindred

Yes, but not "just". first a small note: This which I describe is just part of what I would personally call God, for me the Universe is part of God and so is what I am describing. So in essence kind of yes but not entirely, in particular page Im talking about some "titles" of God and how they define our world. Later I speak of the Tetraktys (if you are on a metaphysics post on a philosophy forum and dont know what that is just google it, it is very easy to find out about it. When you open the image the top point is the Monad, then the two below is Dyad (two) and etc.) entirely, meaning I speak of the number two, then three and finally four.

Consciousness and matter? — kindred

Consiousness itself may be a result of the universe and not the opposite. I believe that nothing is made of the things it constitutes. If we break down reality its just relations of things, mathematically it is possible to have a working model as such and this model can describe space, volume and etc while being a zero dimensional entity.

What of it is … so what — kindred

I dont understand this question but I will go on by saying that if you read those philosophers you will find out that what I am talking about used to be a big name among many philosophers like Proclus, Parmenides, Plotinus, Plato, Heraclitus are a great start.

Have you heard of Ein sof or Tao?

In other words it is a type of singularity(kind of like a black hole or before the big bang) out of which everything emerged at the most fundamental level. The first thing wasnt a particle, thats literally impossible, we cant start with a particle as it is also dependent on other things.

We also have concluded that before the Big Bang all forces were combined into one, this tells us that even here we see the same pattern, from the few to the many, meaning everything starts from one, one cell, one force, one fundamental relation and etc.

And at the same time we have all that I said about duality in another comment. And I think the pattern is obvious, things exist because there is an opposite thing somewhere, some force however kept those two separate(hint: gravity, edit (I forgot) : I think all fundamental forces play a role but I dont remember this part).

In quantum physics, even “empty” space constantly spawns fleeting particle-antiparticle pairs called virtual particles. As the universe stretches, that rapid expansion can pull these pairs apart faster than they can recombine, so they “freeze out” and become real particles. In effect, the energy driving the cosmic expansion gets converted into lasting matter by turning what were once brief quantum jitters into genuine particles.

Are we on the same page so far?

Stay with me now, this exact thing happened with the One Im describing. The Tao is very close a concept to the One, while two (the first split) close to Yin Yang. If you research these two you will understand. Next we have the known Trinity in christianity which comes from this very concept I describe in my "trinity" chapter (and I can even go deep into that as well if you are interested but it is a bit boring for some as it is simply history).

So the one is a singularity? is that your point ? What happened to the one after the Big Bang occurred ? I understand that it divided from one to many yet my question is what is the significance of this ?

The significance of this is that this is the basis of most modern religions today, Christianity took these ideas and transformed them into something kinda similar yet not it. Ein Sof in Judaism is also the One, they call it Infinite but sometimes they recognize the title One as well.

So the one is a singularity? — kindred

Not exactly, it is the actual state of the Universe right now. Have you heard of ancient greek philosophers denying that space and time exist? Well thats the One they were speaking of, they didnt mean that the geometry we experience is not a "distance", they meant that distance is impossible, there is no such thing as "volume" nor time.

is that your point — kindred

My point is that I am offering knowledge which has been unseen for many years (except for some philosophers who studied these things or just random people).

what is the significance of this ? — kindred

Well the significance is that it is reasonably set, in the book further I explain why and how we can use this, this philosophy is essentially in a few words saying that me and you are not just part of the One, but there is One thing which you could call a "soul" , and yes I can explain why and how as well.
If you are interested of course? Would you like quotes that support my arguments?

Oh forgot to say that this type of philosophy brings people closer, if people believe that hurting others, "you" will experience it as the other side, I mean who would want to hurt himself? So this is an "egoistic" approach towards a good attitude towards other and everything thats related to that.

saying that me and you are not just part of the One, but there is One thing which you could call a "soul" , and yes I can explain why and how as well.
If you are interested of course? Would you like quotes that support my arguments? — Illuminati

Yes please, what is a soul in relation to the one ? Is there one universal soul or seperate souls, according to your philosophy ?

A soul is a way for the One to experience itself subjectivelly, in simple terms it was All-one(alone), in such a case you cant have a personality, personality is your relation towards other persons, be it an animal or not. The same thing applies to things, the One is not defined as something unless something else exists, but nothing does, it is all there is. As a God, what would you do?

In other words it is God playing catch with itself, hiding itself from itself. A part of it wants to go back and yet another half wants to remain in this illusion.

Definition of Soul (Ψυχή)
The soul is described as one of the many manifestations of the Monad (Ένα). It is not something different or separate from the Monad. Instead, the soul represents the normal way in which the Monad acquires a more stable and strict identity.
Key characteristics of the soul include:
• It has form, movement, and experience.
• It is temporarily detached from the One and descends into the world.
• It carries within it the memory of its Source.
• Its role is to return to the One through search, knowledge, and inner transformation.
In the context of ancient Greek philosophy mentioned, the World Soul (anima mundi), as formulated by Plato in "Timaeus" and continued by the Stoics and Neoplatonists (like Plotinus), is seen as the living, holistic, and rational being that inspires life and movement in the universe. For Neoplatonists, the soul of the world acts as an intermediate link between the intelligible and the material.
Relation to the Third Stage of Creation (Trinity - Τριάδα)
The Trinity, as the third stage of creation, is where the initial opposing forces (the Dyad) synthesize, generating movement along a central axis. This movement and synthesis requires Mind (Νους), which enables mental processes and the imposition of intellectual order. The Trinity is thus a closed, self-contained, intelligible, and eternal structure.

The connection between the soul and the Trinity is as follows:
• The soul is a product of the internal relationships of the Monad that constitute the bipolar Trinity. It is a "stable" and "strict identity" that the Monad acquires within this triadic framework.
• The Trinity is fundamental because it represents the unchanging way in which the Monad projects and knows itself. The soul's existence is a part of this process of self-knowledge through apparent otherness.
• The soul's purpose is to move vertically along the axis of the Poles of the Trinity. This implies a journey of return from the multiplicity of form and experience, back to the unity of the One. This vertical movement is in contrast to horizontal movement, which would signify remaining within the realm of the Dyad's opposing forces and the relative(this is related to the equilaterall cross and its symbolism in mysticism, if you want ask me about this too).
• In Neoplatonism, the Soul (Ψυχή), as part of the Triad (along with the One and Nous), functions as the movement towards multiplicity. It is part of the chain of emanation and return, reflecting the divine unity.
In essence, the soul is a manifestation of the One that emerges within the dynamic and structured framework of the Trinity, carrying the inherent memory of its origin and a fundamental drive to return to the ultimate unity of the One Infinite Zero.

So you can see that One is the ultimate real soul because it is eternal, while souls themselves are Gods illusion, a psycho-simulation. Those souls will also perish when all returns to the One. So in the end only the One is true, All else, Nous*, soul, matter- are emanations within the field of its own contemplation.

(means mind-but it must be defined as it holds a special meaning)

See, I swear I'm not trying to invoke the ire of any mod (or worse, the site owner) but it seems like the entire keyword of this thread (this so-called, unable to be defined by OP's own admission: "One") may be equated with something like "a rubbery potato." And we can just continue indefinitely attributing concepts that are naturally ever-reaching onto this "random rubbery potato" and be able to discuss it for all time. He refused to define it. Other than copypasta quotes that seem to align with intellect and philosophy, yet when questioned, just turns into an attack. It's kinda not cool. And spammy.